Link to the game, tcdix1?

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=146170

That's ridiculous! I'd love to try getting all 34 sometime! Quite an accomplishment!

Lol, excellent diplomacy job because I don't think you could have won that game had it played out.

There was a Med game, but all the players were the same multi.

What was in those moves for England? Seems like he could have just as easily forced a draw instead of giving you 4 of his centers and helping you take some others.

What happened was, once I convoyed an army to Clyde, England kind of panicked and requested that I leave him at least one center. I told him it depended on how quickly I could win the game as Austria was getting more powerful, and the longer the game went on the more I would be forced to give Austria more centers for the sake of keeping our alliance. I then pointed out that with his help I could win the game the next turn and he would have 4 centers left, to which he responded: let's do it. I really had nothing to lose by trusting him. At the very least if he decided to betray me I would still pick up one more center, so I trusted him and turns out he was telling the truth.

So what you are saying is England is a moron, got it.

Through the ENTIRE game, England was begging me (Austria) to stab you. I guess he took his ball and went home.

Wow dipplayer2004 has a thousand D. I would love to join a game with him help lighten his load a little...
:D

That game is a mini-travesty. That could have easily been a draw.

I guess it was PPSC so England is slightly less moronic as Austria wouldn't have as much incentive to draw. But still a total panic move. England was only looking at losing one center that turn, would have been at 7 still and a chance Austria starts working with him instead of France at some point.

I agree with everything you all are saying. But hey, I'm not complaining. A win's a win, and I'll take it.

England lost intentionally? yeah, that's moronic. PPSC is meaningless; a solo beats a draw beats anything else, no matter what arbitrary webdip points are at stake.

I've said it before - playing for webdip points to the detriment of actual Diplomacy objectives is like sacrificing your queen because you like the sound of the pieces clinking together.

"playing for webdip points to the detriment of actual Diplomacy objectives"
(sigh)
After all, it's illegitimate and silly to adjust your strategy to reflect the rules of the game you're actually playing rather than the rules of the game that you "should" be playing.

Points are a necessary evil, not a fundamental part of the game.

I have given up trying to pay attention to the number of points beside a player's name. Once you get above 200, you're showing that you have some skill and are worth trying to play in a game.

@tc: you're right. A win's a win. Take it any way you can get it. Congrats. People may downplay the solo since it could have been a draw, but most solos could have been a draw. The dividing line is how you play the other players against themselves, and you did that well.

The only thing worse than this kind of PPSC weirdness is when people apply PPSC objectives to a WTA game.

"The only thing worse than this kind of PPSC weirdness is when people apply PPSC objectives to a WTA game."
True.

"Once you get above 200, you're showing that you have some skill and are worth trying to play in a game." (Tru Ninja)
Ghost ratings are more useful than actual points, no?

"Points are a necessary evil, not a fundamental part of the game." (ghug)
True, but: they are nevertheless part of the (PPSC) game, and I would argue that, given the difference in incentive structure that comes with the change in rules, a change in strategy is not inappropriate. You can talk all day long about how it isn't "real" Diplomacy and that "real" players would never stoop to that antithesis-of-Calhamer's-genius version of Diplomacy that PPSC is -- and those points may all be entirely true -- but that doesn't make it ridiculous for a player's strategy to hew closer to the rules of the game he's actually involved in than to someone else's (even an expert's) idea of what's ideal. At least, I don't think it does.

On a genuine point of curiosity: why does the PPSC option exist?

"On a genuine point of curiosity: why does the PPSC option exist?"

More importantly, why do any players with any credibility bother to join them when they know the games are plagued with this kind of silliness? Playing for survivor status is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of.

I like PPSC. It encourages people to actually try to win. In WTA everyone is so afraid of *not* winning, and thus losing their points, that far too many WTA games end in draws when in fact the game was not stalemated.