@ djbent... that was the perfect statement. I recall jbalcorn saying that exact same thing while playing a game or two w/ you. =)

I can't understand how these "gifted" people convince you to accept or not see the stab in time. I always know when someone's is about to solo and rush to do anything to avoid that. If in the end he/she solos, it's always someone else fault.

An intelligent stab I admire. Especially when it allows a player to go and win the game. However a stab with bad timing or a stab that is simply dumb because it allows someone else to take an easy win is something that really pisses me off. But what pisses me off the most is when I know a dumb stab is coming and do not act on it because I decide to trust that my ally is reasonable enough to understand that the stab will cost us both the game. Still, I'd rather play with stabbers than carebears. It's usually a more fun game.

@orathic- what I mean by a stab for survival is, say, Turkey is close to a win, and he tells one of the other much weaker nations, that they have to stab there ally, or he will get the rest of his supply centers to win by taking them out... then I, as the much weaker country, may be inclined to stab my ally to get a survive...

That would be stupid as the only reason Turkey would do that is to get you to weaken the other nation so he *could* win. You'd be better served by relaying that to the others and creating a unified front that forces a draw involving you.

@butterhead - are you in the School of War? This is just the kind of lesson you can learnt here with an advisor pointing out how your view provides the worst outcome for you.

see but every time I try to do that, someone on the side gets stingy, and stabs me and I get a defeat... I'd rather survive and let someone else win, than die due to someone wanting to finish with more centers...

Those are poor players you are playing with then if they do that butterhead

A survival is still a defeat, strictly speaking.

@Fear- yes, but in my opinion, a Survival is LESS than a defeat than a defeat itself.

I'd rather have a defeat than a survival, usually. If I'm barely alive at the end of the game, I don't really consider myself as doing any better than being abjectly crushed...if anything, it feels worse because being totally demolished shows that people consider you enough of a threat to not half-do it (in my eyes).

Unfortunately, some people like me and Butterhead and a few others have souls and feel guilt

Someone named killer has a soul? Irony at its finest.

@Sacred- yes but a Survive could also mean you fought a little better than if you get a defeat, which people may consider as you being a bad player.

Draugnar, those people made the voices in my head act up. They had to be silenced :)

hey people the official rules of the game imply that 1. you go for a win 2. you go for a draw
survival or defeat is the same.
Don't let anyone solo just to get a survival.

Hellalt +1

survival has one advantage over defeat - that being WHILE you are still alive you have a chance of taking part in a draw, or going on to grow and solo.

ONCE you are defeated you don't need take the blame if someone solos (so if your ally stabs you and eliminates you from the game, and then goes on to lose you have every reason to berate him/her for incompetance...)

Yes, i think i count survived and defeated as the same for statistical purposes. (and only better than Resigned)

@orathaic +1 - I don't mind getting wiped off the map as long as the guy who wipes me out doesnt' get part of a draw and doesn't win. :-)

I'll always go for a survival as there is always the chance that some kind person might let you regrow from the direst of situations.

the only time i ever really stab is to secure the win like if im at 15sc and can easily take 2 of my allies for the win then i see nothing wrong with that unless they are a very good ally and i like them in which case i will take 2 sc from someone else if i can and will only stab when i cannot get the 2sc from another player

It really depends. I think there needs to be a distinction between early game stabs and mid/late game stabs.

Early game stabs I do fairly often (especially as England, France, or Germany) but I usually have an ally going in with me. I do think of these as kind of cheap...but, whatever get the game rolling.

Mid/late game stabs are a little different as they usually require much larger armies/fleets, are much more complex, and offer much larger benefits or consequences. If I see I can solo with my ally, no stab is needed. However, if it looks like a draw or my ally is going to win and I have a good opportunity to take the win for myself with a stab....or heck, if I can solo with my ally but my ally just leaves everything wide open....