The Draw button is not a "tool"; it is an intrinsic part of the game and a viable outcome. That pretty much invalidates #2.

I would personally vote for #1. You can agree to whatever you want in a game as long as it is an in-game agreement only.

#1

simply because I do it all the time, and when I promise, i keep it 80% of the time

#1 and #3. I can't imagine anyone supporting #2. If you're not allowed to offer points to other players, how do you get anyone's help?

#1 is certainly my vote as well. I would make that deal if I thought anyone would believe me . . .

#1 tho i hardly see how 3 players who don't know each other would stick by such an agreement- too much room for stabbing unless they are meta ot multi.
Too hard to form a truthful bond if there's no previous experience to draw on

Before I joined webDip, I never played a BOARD game where the intention of the game was NOT to win. Doesn't seem like many players on this sight are ever really in it to win...just dominate with an ally and then draw and split the points. Different game than I expected/hoped for. Don't get me wrong...I enjoy the sight...but...

Even in WTA games draw and split the points...

I'd like to see more people go into a game with the attitude that they want to win the game, not gang up into a unbeatable alliance (3 vs. 1 v 1 v 1 v 1) without question. How many times that type of alliance leaves wide open back doors. winners would take advantage of that at some point and go for the win over the tie....but I think people get too lazy to "clean up" the stragglers so agree to the draw.

But I love the game...so don't beat me up for what i said!

De Gaulle - i have played against people that swear on their mother's grave they have NO idea who their staunch ally is. They'll have armies on their border and ...though he's a stranger....will never cross that border when doing so would decimate the ally and push them toward a true win. I think there are a lot of "strangers" bed-fellows out there...lol

I'll stab if I feel confident, but a third of the pot is better to me than losing it all because I stabbed the wrong person. And De Gaulle, in my last big game we had such a three-way. It helped that the terms of it included that if anyone stabbed, the other two countries would join forces against him. Greed and fear are good motivators.

@ krellin - i guess youve just played the wrong players. im always in it to win it and i draw when i cant.

Well, I always play the same way: if I can win, I try to win, if I can´t win I will do my best to not let anyone win (i.e. a draw). Sometimes it makes no sense you stab an ally if you can´t win the game (I suggest new players look for stalemate lines and stuff like that), even if you can get some centers.

Before I started my last passworded game, and ask the people that wanted to join to confirm that they were going into the game with the intention of a solo win. If it ends in a draw, so be it.

I hate the idea of people thinking draw before the game starts as well. On the flip side of that, at some point, EVERYONE should turn on the high man to prevent the solo. If they do it at the right time, you will end up with a draw.

I don't mind draws. I just mind premeditated draws.

Krelllin, if you are looking for a 'win first' mentality game, count me in.

@Krellin - the aim is *always* to win, but in a close game players very rarely can so a draw is the result.

@Aurens - Totally legit. Anything within the game is allowed.
Pausing is specified as not being a legal move because its the special case

"@Krellin - the aim is *always* to win, but in a close game players very rarely can so a draw is the result."

Figles, I would say you need to add the words 'supposed to be' before the word 'always'. I think that's what Krellin is referring to.

@krellin - defenitly you are playing with the wrong players or you haven't figured that most of the times it is very difficult to get a win... you just need to see the results of TMG masters (tournament in which you only get points if you win, nothing if you draw) there are around 30 finished games and only 6 ended in a solo...

"#1 tho i hardly see how 3 players who don't know each other would stick by such an agreement- too much room for stabbing unless they are meta ot multi.
Too hard to form a truthful bond if there's no previous experience to draw on" - but they should be allowed to offer such a thing as incentive to work with them; now i can see the possibility that some players will build up this trust over a game, i'm pretty sure i have managed a three-way split with the other central powers (Austria-Italy-Germany) which was an early agreement to jointly attack three targets (italy-austria dealing with turkey, germany-italy with france, austria-germany with russia) for austria this makes a lot of sense, for germany maybe a little less so as he has to deal with england on his own - but we weren't trying to meta nor were we multis (in either case you are gaining an unfair advantage, making the gmae easier for yourself which makes it less challenging - if you want to paly a version of dip which isn't challenging then please try one: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~orathaic/multiswebdip/ )

Anyway, i want to play '7 year war' as a variant where you are not trying or expecting to get a solo, because the game ends in 1907/8 adjustment phase (with points per supply centre - not a draw), and the aim is to get the most supply centres - but it is expected that everyone will try to keep anyone else from winning a solo (which should be a Winner takes all the points)

This is basically the format which many European tournaments took in the 90s (because they didn't have time to play full games, you'd get two or three 7 year games in a day) there are some interesting articles about this tournament format which i can't find right now...

I greatly appreciate these thoughtful responses. Like DJ, I don't mind draws. I just mind premeditated draws. And I think alliances can be based on immediate and near-term mutual interest, rather than the promise not to seek the win. But it's good to have this sense of the community's thoughts on the issue, so that I can respond to such proposals appropriately.

Orathaic +∞
Great site!!!!