Draugnar, I do not believe there is anything wrong with viewing a draw as a valid outcome for a game. I try to win when I can, but it is often very difficult, and so a draw is then the best goal. I personally try to advance in every game and hope to be in a position to go for a win, but I am best at working with others to advance my position and thus often have too strong of allies to go for a win. I'm trying to learn how to win more, but not there yet, perhaps TMG can give me some pointers sometime. I try to improve and get better, but it's a slow process and take time to evolve. If it were easy to win, we'd all do it, so it's some what of an elusive thing for most of us.

TMG, thanks for the reply, that is helpful! I'm glad you do not view Draugnar as a cheat or a metagamer, but please confirm you believe he "plays the wrong way" in that he views a draw as a valid outcome of a game, as opposed to your view that a draw is a loss.

You once specifically told me I play the game wrong, as I recall, and something about the game is not called "Allies", or something to that effect. Would you please expand on that since it is a valid topic to this thread? Also, is Draugnar's approach (and my approach) of seeing a draw as MUCH better than a survival or defeat part of the reason you are considering leaving this site, and if so, how big of a part (i.e. minor reason or major reason)?

Thanks for discussing this, I don't really understand some people's view on this topic and am trying to learn. Babak once called me a metagamer for following through with a two-way draw I agreed to with a player when I could have won and this sort of concept really boggles my mind, but suppose I'm not a die-hard gamer that lives by some sort of strict code that Babak appears to for making such a comment, but then again I don't know since I don't really get it.

Sorry to be so fascinated by your views, TMG, but I obviously respect you and am trying to understand your way of thinking.

Anyway, could you expand on your comment: "Within the GR, I feel that solos are over valued"

I don't understand how you can view a draw as a loss yet say solos are over valued within GR, regardless of if you think GR is good/bad/accurate/etc.

@TMG - Alan Calhammer viewed a draw as a draw, not a win necessarily, but certainly not a loss, and his own evaluations of the game state that he believes a game with 3 or 4 strong equal skilled players will usually result in a draw. So clearly, it is not a loss as even the games original creator doesn't view it as such.

@Draugnar,
Perhaps I should rephrase. Most games are a form of competition. As such they should be played to the best of one's ability, and they should be played to be won. If playing specifically for a draw, particularly in Diplomacy, is the acceptable norm, then why play past the first season?

@MadMarx,
Fundamentally, I do not believe an ELO like system works for rating the skill of a player in Diplomacy. That being said, I further disagree with the accuracy of a system where a single game causes such large swings in the rating system.

@TMG - Your view is that there can be only two possible outcomes to playing thegame, winning or losing. OK, if I agree with that, then drawing is winning otherwise there would be no winner in that game and every game has to have a winner in order for there to be losers. My view is that, like in chess, there is a third option: stalemate. Stalemating your opponent in chess is not a win, but it isn't a loss either. Here, the draw is a limited stalemate or a shared win. But you can't say it is ever a loss as any loss requires a win.

I totally agree, Draugnar.

Thanks again for the comments TMG.

Draugnar, I think what TMG is saying is that whilst a draw is often the end result between good players, it should not be the starting objective. You play to win, you know that the price for failure will likely be a loss, a draw might present itself deep into the game and that then becomes your best option.

My experience has been for certain players to try to get draws right from the start. The hope/plan is to get one or two players eliminated quickly and then call for a draw long before a stalemate is on the cards. In this way, a player could draw consistently and intentionally and end up winning a League that rewards draws handsomely.

Well, I don't know how often a game long alliance with an agreement for a draw actually results in said draw, though. I start by making alliances, sometimes with both sides of a fight. Doesn't mean they are game long, though, and it doesn't mean I expect either or both to end up as part of a final draw with me. In fact, I hope to use their fighting as an opportunity to expand elsewhere and align my units such that a vicious quick stab to both gets me the win when they aren't expecting it. But if they manage to keep their borders defended and even make peace with each other, I switch to the "isn't it much better to get along" guy and go for the three way draw.

Unfortunately, I usually have to make the switch. I'm not good at keeping them focused on each other and hiding my moves and intentions.

Draugnar: I was not only thinking of game-long alliances. I am looking at the more general problem of a player who enters a game with no alliances but who has no real intention to do anything other than get a draw. 5-way is acceptable, 4-way better etc...

It is the intention that counts. When a player has this mind-set it seriously affects the way the game pans out. For example, I get Italy, I really want to go at Turkey. It is a risk but when it works it is a good strategy. I am prepared for the risk. Austria will not buy the diplomacy at any price - not because he doesn't like the idea of the Lepanto but because, 'I have lost two games this month and need to get at least a draw from this one to hold my GR'.

I don't mind Austria looking for a different way to win; I don't mind this Austria deciding that his best bet is to attack me - as long as he actually starts out with a will to win. If though he had made it clear that whatever country he drew he would be playing for a draw from the start I would have said, 'Stuff this, I'll join a different game.'

Gotcha, and I agree 100%.

flash +1

@Draugnar,
As Flashman has explained it better than I did, now take the time to look at my questions again with your new understanding of the situation.

I can see where you are coming from and do agree that entering a game with the intent to draw and not even try for a win is stupid, but I still respect their right to play it that way. But I typically chose to target anyone who suggest a draw as the goal in year one anyhow. I will suggest a long term alliance tiull everyone else is gone then a 3 or 4 way battle royal to determine the winner or until we feel the game has gone as far as it can, but never offer to play to a draw immediately. On that we agree. I still feel a draw isn't a loss though. On that we continue to disagree. This is a war game. A moderatley abstract one, but a war game none the less and some wars ends with peace treaties where neither side is the loser, or with alliances that crush their opposition and then end the fight. That is all a draw is.