My philosophy: go for the solo wherever possible. However, sometimes circumstances go against you. Often, if there is a stable coalition or balance at three or maybe four powers, people don't want the game to continue. Especially if there are two or three small powers holding off a large power that could conceivably solo. People would rather force a draw than risk a loss.

You solo when you can? When several people CD in a game i usually put Draw/Cancel up as an offer to end it, especially when the CDs unbalance the game. When 1 center powers CD it is usually of no consequence.
When one player is obviously going for a solo it happens often that the others band together and stalemate him. If you get stalemated and no gains can be made for 2 years it is the time to put up a draw.
This: gameID=104884 would be a case of a stalemate line.

Draw is how every game is supposed to end. Therefore regular. Solo is a direct result of someone screwing up

1. Go for the solo, and make sure people don't realize you are until it's too late
2. Go for a 3 way draw.
3. If I can't do either, make sure to stop a solo.
4. If I can't do that, go nuts and entertain myself by screwing over whoever made it so I can't solo or draw.

I base all that off of reading the board.

Also, a solo in the world variant is nearly impossible.
And live games usually get tiring after a few hours and people don't want to keep playing, so they draw.

"Also, a solo in the world variant is nearly impossible."

Not at all, in fact, solo'ing with any of the African countries is pretty easy assuming you grow at a steady rate to the dominate power in South America, Asia, and North America. Once you make a fleet defense around Africa it is very easy to position yourself to solo through Asia and Europe.

Yeah, live games often have "premature" solos because people just want the game to be over.

I think most people have the same criteria/strategy, which are basically what jmo and Fairfax said.

Get a good alliance and don't look like you're trying to or can win until it would be difficult/too late for others to stop you. If you can't solo and no one else can or is trying to, then get in as small a draw as possible (with some limits: two-way draws are usually sketchy deals that many players would rarely offer or accept, IMO); if someone else can solo and is trying to, stop them and take whatever draw that means. If you try to solo and get stopped, retreat to the stalemate lines and let other players eliminate smaller powers to shrink the draw some more. I guess that last one is optional.

@ TheMinister

I'm confused. How exactly did most of your games finish without the concept of a draw? Did you just wait until people got bored and gave up?

IMHO... A draw is not a win. The number of players in a draw doesn't affect the fact that no one won.

However, my understanding is that face to face tournaments do value small draws over large draws. And that is also the case here at webdip with both the dip points system and the ghost rating system. So if you care about those, then you'll eliminate people to "improve the draw" with no intention of soloing.

I do, however, have a very hard time soloing as usually I'm in a stable alliance and either am not in a position for a strong stab or am prematurely stabbed by my ally, in either case resulting in a stalemate and therefore a draw.

The reality of the game is that there are often times where the game will be a draw unless you're willing to let the other person solo.

It's a lot less fun, IMHO, to not ascribe some sort of victory from being one of the 3 or 4 people who made it to the draw.

A draw isn't a win, but it's not a loss either. If someone has 12 centers and I have 12 centers, I will work and fight to the death to gain positioning for a solo. However, if someone has 12 centers and I have 8 with an ally with 8, I'll shoot for a three-way draw. If I can, I will try and get others to stop a potential solo.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned here about soloing versus drawing is the diplomatic tool that it can become. If someone is starting to break away a little bit, you can immediately throw up the red flag and get the whole map on your side again. Of course, it isn't as simple as that, but if you can show that they may find an opening, the whole map is with you again and you can choose your allies. Sometimes you can even end up breaking away yourself.

I know this was a gunboat, but there are communicative properties in a gunboat too, so this kind of situation is what I refer to with my last sentence: gameID=103220

Of course, this also involves an incredibly stupid set of moves on Russia's part… but it was fun o_O

If everybody else votes to draw and you don't, they'll all gang up on you and try to wipe you out even if you (probably) couldn't solo - this includes enemies suddenly becoming friends in order to thwart your ambitions, so be sure and check what others have voted for (this doesn't show up on my screen without me remembering to scroll down, which I often forget to do <sigh>).

@Octavius: I am used to people either fighting for the death or conceding defeat. The resulting dynamic is that an alliance is NEVER built to last.

Here I find that the system encourages a lasting three way alliance to end the game. I keep getting offer for three way draws into 1902 - unthinkable in no-draw game. But I see the attraction, since the point difference between a solo with 18 or a draw with 13 isnt amazing,, while the protracted warfare it entails isnt attractive.

I think theree is a lot to be said for a CONCEDE button. This would insert an additional diplomatic tool and, as the puritan I am, would reflect the dynamic of the rules much better.

Without a doubt, most everyone offering you a three-way draw in 1902 is thinking about how the planned path to the draw creates an opportunity to solo for them.

MoW. I suggest playing a few more games here. There are plenty of highly competitive games with cutthroat players.

And your only finished game ended in a solo so I'm not sure wtf you're talking about.

Yeah, you're right, I only have several years of playing on phpDiplomacy, so what do I know about the system? It's more about incentive than about players I think.

In another thread, people had concerns about this idea.
1) who do you concede to if there are a number of players with equal SCs
2) Does it not give incentive for giving up?

I don't think it gives incentive for giving up. I don't think you should be able to press concede and be allowed to exit the game cleanly. It should work similar to the CANCEL button, and only take effect once everybody votes. That way, you might have five players, with three putting in CONCEDE votes and two voting DRAW. This would result in a two-way draw.

With the possibility to concede, I think people would be less inclined to CD. Currently, if you want to give up, there is not a real way to do it. CDs are the result. The one trick would be how to make CONCEDE more attractive than CD that would certainly change the dynamic.

First, what do you mean you have several years of experience on phpDiplomacy? You're new here.

Second, I think that the reason that concession exists in F2F games is for reduction of time constraints when it's already likely that somebody will solo. We don't need that here. All it does is increase the difficulty of soloing, which is currently a fun and difficult challenge.

Third, how will concession discourage CDs? Say someone doesn't want to play anymore. Currently, that someone can vote draw or cancel and hope that others do the same, or he can be a terrible person and stop entering orders. What will adding a "give free solo" do other than add something similar to draw or cancel (in that regard) but less likely to receive votes?

PhpDiplomacy is broader than only here. I know I'm new here which is why I pose questions rather than formulate sweeping stances. But like I said earlier I've played extensively on FB, where I'm in the top 10% (which really only proves it's not that hard there ;-) ). But it's not about me. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily appropriate to say I don't know 'wtf I'm talking about'. Not even to new guys. Nor anyone really.

Interesting idea that it makes the solo more challenging. I guess you're right, that concession makes it so that you don't actually have to go through the motions anymore. It makes a perception of inevitability the reality without seeing it through. It's a bit like Filibustering in that way. Mybe the principle should just be that this last difficult slog is part of what it means to solo.

The reason why I think it would help reduce CD is that losing countries ALSO don't need to go through the motions anymore. People can give up and end the game - provided the others agree. They are not forced to (if one perceives it as such) go through the boring and hopeless ordeal of defending a lost position. CDs arent caused by malice, they're caused by laziness. And giving people an exit which is more gracious and non-destructive is attractive to many I think.

But my main motivation is really the concept of alliances. I really experience that alliances here feel more static and more loyal than in environments where draws are not an option. In many games I'm seeing alliances which have the goal of pacifying their side of the board and sweeping the rest, going for a draw with whomever is available on the other side. And I'm just not sure that is a good thing for the dynamic.

I'm actually getting really sick of threeway draws, they seem to be the expectation, like I was just playing gameID=99521 and when we got down to three people with no stalemates I was expecting a threeway balance-of-power game until someone ended up with a win but both my opponents insisted on a draw :/

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S2002M/Cohen/Soloist_Manifesto.html

I personally wish there was a game mode where either there was no draw option or all draws count as seven-way draws.

@EmpoerorMaximus, me too. Excluding countries in CD though.

That would be very attractive! Non-draw, WTA. I would love that.

Go develop it.. that would have its share of upside but also its share of problems.

advantages & disadvantages...

Are there stats on game endings? How many are solo? How many are draws?

I believe that a well-played game should end in a three- or four-player draw or perhaps a 17/17 stalemate between England and Turkey. A solo victory is an accomplishment for the player who takes it, and it should always be sought, but there are still too many stalemate positions available for a well-played game to end in a solo.


That said:

1. A player's performance is a function of many more variables than his own ability. Other players, especially newbies, can tip the scales in favor of a solo victory in more ways than I'd care to list.

2. Players will vote to draw for reasons related to the metagames played on this site. These include points ratings (particularly in WTA games), the Win-Draw-Survive-Defeat-Resign statistics on their profile pages, and their status in Ghost Ratings. In the case of points ratings, this may merely be so that the players can start new games instead.

3. Sometimes players will request that a game end in a draw when they have something close to, but not quite, a stalemate condition. This may occur because of motivations that spring from metagaming concerns, and it may simply be some players' last chances to end the game without being eliminated.

4. Some live games just take too long and the players get sick of being stuck to their computers, so they draw the game for those reasons.

and many players aren' t ruthless enough to get the win when it is there for them.

@MoW. There are several compilations of stats floating around out there but I believe this is the most comprehensive:
http://www.draugnar.com/VaftStats/

Hmm. Actually, that's probably not what you're looking for. There are some other one's that I can't find right now but if you check out Tru Ninja's porfile (userID=10675), he has stats there. Here's what you're looking for, I think, but check his profile for more:

WIN/DRAW/SURVIVAL/ELIMINATION PERCENTAGES BY COUNTRY
Aus: w: 6.8%, d: 11.1%, s: 21.3%, e: 60.8%
Eng: w: 9.8%, d: 17.2%, s: 34.7%, e: 38.8%
Fra: w: 10.7%, d: 19.3%, s: 36.0%, e: 34.0%
Ger: w: 9.8%, d: 16.6%, s: 26.9%, e: 46.7%
Ita: w: 5.0%, d: 13.2%, s: 34.5%, e: 47.3%
Rus: w: 13.9%, d: 14.9%, s: 23.1%, e: 48.2%
Tur: w: 12.4%, d: 16.8%, s: 43.8%, e: 27.0%

Wow, so many resources! Thanks Yonni, for pointing those out. There seem to be so many hidden corners of the WebDip world, I wish they were collected somewhere. I'm sure there are so many other gems I'm not aware of.

But it does underline the point of EmperorMaximus (and indeed my fear) that draws seem to be the norm rather than the exception.

Are the Ghost ratings more conducive to draws than to solo's? I would expect that they favor solo's, don't they?

No worries MoW. Welcome to the community. Sorry for my coldness before.

For the record, what would you expect a reasonable draw rate to be?

Np.

I don't really know what a reasonable rate would be, but I would hope that solo's would occur more frequently than draws. It's like EmperorMaximus said, draws seem to be the norm. I havent finished enough games to really gauge it myself here, but in ongoing games I've already noticed that the notion of draws dominate. People offering each other draws, unheard of under the original rules.

Correct me if I'm wrong, MoW, but I'm fairly certain that the rules of Diplomacy mention draws right on the first page, under the heading "Object of the Game."

"However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the board share equally in a draw."

When you're playing with Noobs or Metas you get more solos, in better quality games you get more draws as more experienced players understand that if they use the wrong tactics they can gift the game to someone else so they are not so gung-ho

@Tasnica, he said the "original" rules. I believe I remember reading that the original rules did not have any mention of draws.

@MoW, experienced players with level heads will usually not allow a solo to happen. As said upthread, if a solo happens, it is because someone screwed up.

Original 1959 Rules: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1959.pdf

"If no player gets a majority [of pieces on the board] during the time set aside for play, all players who still have pieces on the board draw."

Since Webdiplomacy has no game time limit, this effectively means that a Draw vote is a vote to conclude the "time set aside for play".

Calhamer was even more generous in his 1958 draft of the rules:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1958draft1.pdf

"If no one has such a majority, then all powers still in the game share the victory equally."

So, not only do we have mention of draws in the original rules, but at one point the creator of the game even called such a victory!

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Wow, interesting. I could have sworn that draws were only specified in the rules for two players.

@Alderian, I do think you have a point. If players read the board correctly they should head off any chance for solo. At the same time, isnt Diplomacy all about measuring that skill? And arent there many instances where one occurrence, a bad opening, a broken deal, makes a solo unpreventable?

In the imaginary case that seven high quality players would agree to never draw, would you expect the balance to sway back and forth indefinitely?

Well, some of them may get eliminated, but others may be small and kept alive as pawns.

But honestly, I think folks here would hit a stalemate line and not know how to shake things up. No one ever seems to think about backing off, possibly giving up centers to shake up the board. If we had a game mode where a draw included eliminated players then it could lead to people trying stuff like that which I think would be fun.

MoW: I have seen very few occasions where a solo is "inevitable" long before it actually occurs, particularly early in the game. Most solos happen after numerous failed or thwarted opportunities to stop them.

That high-quality players can recognize and thwart solo threats is one reason, I believe, that draws are more common than solos (though, as the stats show, not by much!).

Additionally, there is the fact that a poorly-timed (or executed) solo attempt does more to help someone _else_ get the solo than it helps the initiator. One reason why three-way draws are so common is that the first player to make a solo attempt is often the _least_ likely to actually win (the winner being whoever can better exploit the resulting chaos).

Logically, then, it is often better to convince and/or wait for someone else to attempt a solo in a balanced three-way than to attempt one yourself, or to accept a draw. This is because both the rules of the board game and the structure of this site define a Draw as distinct from (and, implicitly, better than) a Loss.

The rule book hardly talks about draws, like only if a real stalemate line, then it is worth it... but in live games, some do not show up, etc.... so Draws might get you out of a dumb situation if ther other players are sportsman like, not fuckheads...

but the worse is those 3 (or even 4) draws where not much ever happened and just pick on those that didn't sit around doin' not much.

and those sad cases where players leave a live game unbalancing the whole thing and one guy is givien the game... then draw.