Of course you are playing PPSC, which lends itself to solos. And your wins are against nobody that I recognize. Not that I could pull if off with that kind of consistency. But, like I said, its only going to go down from here.

Not really. He is in one game (he knows what I am talking about) where is about to solo against a fairly decent crowd.

I love how is draw 0 is however :-)

I see two players I have great respect for in his games, plus there is one who at least managed a ton of points

but it is just a different style of playing. Socrates, from what I have seen, is a Romantic. AKA, winning at all costs. I tend to be Classicist, and consider drawing a shared victory. I will go find the article about Diplomacy player types

lol, I'd like to see that.

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1999M/Windsor/point.html

But it is mixed. I am largely Classicist, with a bit of Deviate, and a small strain of Club player. I show VERY little Romantic, the only exception being when I am losing. I then like to become the king maker (in gunboat)

I'm definitely a classicist, attrated to the tactical/strategic element of the game, if the situation is right I consider a draw a win, and not a huge risk taker.

Classicist is, in my opinion, the most common. But, as said in the article, people are rarely just one type. Airborne actually posted a little quiz thing to measure about what type of player you are, looking for it right now

Yeah im sure im a mix of all but I overwhelmingly identified with the descriptions in the classicist paragraph.

Draw size is irrelevant in general to me, unless it is in the Leagues where the 12 is spli amongst the drawees and every point counts.

I read that as a split amongst dwarves

I tend to view games without a couple of eliminations to be a bit dissatisfying, at least at a personal level. I suppose my goal is to eliminate anyone who has not been personally useful to me. But yeah, I suppose your strategy is understandable, even laudable. It almost certainly contributes to your impressive record.

Thanks guys, I guess then it makes sense (and in the league like Draugnar said), although that said i'm suprised more people arent romantics

Babak was a huge Romantic. Gunboaters tend to be Romantics as well

And my record is sure to go down in a dissapointing fashion soon =/

I've yet to play gunboat, I really like the negotiations in the game

On the opposite side of my personal coin, I've only ever been in one legitimately 7 way draw (classic map) and consider anything over 5 to be contrived in general.

I believe that everyone is "supposed" to be a Romantic. That is the ethic of the game: the hierarchy of results is win, 2 way draw, 3 way draw, ..., 7 way draw, survive, defeat. And that's how I play.

I don't necessarily think that is the "best" strategy. There are a lot of very good players that don't play with that style. But I definitely think it makes for the most interesting games. My number one complaint with this site is that people are not cutthroat enough in the end game, which makes end games boring. When a three center power feels safe just sitting on a stalemate line, that limits everyone's options. If that power is also actively making sure he/she cannot be cut out of the draw, the game takes on much more complexity and intrigue and is simply more fun.

I'm curious do you find yourself a strong deviate as well?

uclabb, the difference is that Classicists go by the strategy of "not losing." which is perfectly valid. Romantics are characterized by doing anything to solo, even if the odds are against them.

If you want a cutthroat game, make a game that can only end in a solo or a statlamte line line

I had not read the article, and having quickly scanned it, I don't want to be associated to that description of "Romantic," nor any others. All of those groups are caricatures. Nobody plays like that. What I am talking about is the way that Babak plays.

Everyone goes by the strategy of not losing. I hate losing.

It's not a lack of cutthroatedness (is that a word?) but risk aversion. And the key factor is the big player doesn't back off to entice the lessers to keep eliminating each other. If the top dog backed off and looked for a flaw in the lesser positions moves andbthe take advantage of them, then there would be more solos.

That said, Calhamer himself once wrote an article.that stated a perfectly.played game with three or more perfect players will always end in a draw.

read the whole arcticle. He states that they are not the whole story, but it is a start

Just read the article, and although I think I'm probably still mainly a romantic, I woudn't just throw the game at the end because I was in a weak position, I would rather draw than get a defeat...

@FD - stalemate lines don't exist with more than 2 players cause some one could jump ship and then the line is no more. Of course, doing so is stupid in WTA, but even so...

The truest draw as one big guy going for the solo and several.significantly smaller ones stopping it. A balanced 3 way is *not* normally a valid draw as one could back off and let the other two jump each other then syart picking off aroind the edges.

An aside: Calhammer wasn't actually very good at diplomacy. Nearly everyone who has posted here is better than Calhammer was at diplomacy, if only because we have played 100 times and drawn on the wealth of knowledge built up over the years. So while I agree that we should look to Calhammer in some sense for motivation for the flavor of the game, not as much for execution.

I would agree that a perfectly played game should end in a 3 way draw. It is always possible to go from 4 players to 3 safely if the 3 are committed to it. At that point it becomes a thing of "Is it actually fun enough to knock this guy out?" and the answer is often no, and I'm fine with that. I completely agree with what you said here:

"the big player doesn't back off to entice the lessers to keep eliminating each other. If the top dog backed off and looked for a flaw in the lesser positions moves andbthe take advantage of them, then there would be more solos."

and they should back off, is what I'm saying. But there also is this ethos on the site that once a stalemate line is reached, the game should be over, and so if the leader pulls back, the only thing to do is punish them for being a dick, which is why it doesn't happen. Stalemate lines are tools, not ways to end the game.

A very interesting article. I find myself agreeing with parts of Club, Romantic, and Deviate personalities. Like a club player, I'm very social and like to try new things. Like a deviate player I will do my best to prevent any alliance from forming and will keep as many people alive for as long as possible (to sow more confusion) and like a romantic, I will always go for the solo.

But yeah, as the author says, you usually aren't just a single type, but rather a blend of other types.

I always try to go as mathematical about Diplomacy as I possibly can, so I am probably 100% classicist on the romanticist-classicist axis and I also love the social element, so I'm probably a club type.

The way I see Diplomacy is a predator/prey model. If you win, you have 6 prey and 1 predator, let's say you have a score of 6, which we can normalize to 1 (divide all scores by 6). If you're in a two-way draw, you have 5 prey and 2 preditors, your score is 42%. Notice that it's not 50% of a draw, but less than that: not only do you have to divide the loot with one more player, that player himself is no longer part of the prey pool.

So when I doubt between going for the solo or the two-way draw, I estimate if the chance of soloing is more than 42% (so even if it looks a little worse than a coin-flip I'll still do it) in which case I go for it. The decision can be rationalized for any dilemma you face that way.

The art of diplomacy, for me, is to completely leave out feelings. Be sure not to offend anyone, but also be sure to never be offended. And always optimize your result. That's my 10 cents.

*Notice that it's not 50% of a win

@Draugnar: I just went back and looked at that, and there was no reason that should have been 7-ways. Y'all should have killed Italy at least. I remember the diplomacy well enough that killing Russia would have been improbable, but you had 3 free SCs off of Italy at one point with no risk of losing the line.

Also major +1 to uclabb, that article is caricatured to the point of uselessness and isn't a valid reference point for anything. Windsor has done some really strong work (Geography is Destiny is a huge one, and there's another one about 'lawyer' diplomacy that's good but I haven't found it online in a while), that piece isn't an example of it.

@Eden - it was public press which makes planning and coordinating moves very very difficult.