I like to think that 1. should be have fun.

I wouldn't distinguish between 3&4.
Survive so you may one day draw or win.
You gain nothing if you are dead when the draw is called.

As I understand it, there's no clear line of objectives for everyone. Alot of people subscribe to the list you present. My own priority list usually goes:

1) Win
2) Maximize points (even if this means helping someone else win)
3) Avenge a stab
4) Survive

Doesn't always work out that way, but I think it serves me nicely enough. Frankly I have no problem helping someone win if they've treated me respectfully and have played a fairly clean game.

@Onar... good point, should go without saying but it's helpful to read that every now and again.

Loooots of people will have an issue with you for that though!

Thucy, I agree with you for WTA without a doubt. In PPSC I tend more toward yayager's (since that mode rewards a 12+ SC second better than a 3-way draw), with the exception that I put survival above avenging a stab.

I would agree Thucy, except that I value survival over stopping a solo. Simulaneously, I will often help he who may be able to solo in order to force the others into including me in the draw.

It also depends if you are playing a tournament or not.
having this situations
1) A=16 centers B=9 centers You=2 centers
2) A=12 centers B=11 centers You= eliminated

in some cases it's better to choose the 2nd option.

It was already said, the most important rule is to have fun!

Hmmm well you know how I feel Thuc. :)

Thucy - your view is perfect on WTA, but many view PPSC as a different animal and would rather have 15 SCs with a 1 SC clinger on so the other guy gets his 18 SC victory as it pays more. Right now I'm in a game where I'm trying to help someone else win because it's the only way I'll survive. Otherwise, I will be eliminated. So helping someone else win *may* be the right move when you are trying to avoid being completely defeated, and that makes a difference in PPSC as you get a couple SCs worth of points out of it, and you might be able to force your inclusion in the draw in WTA. So just because someone appears to be helping another to win, don't assume they don't have the spirit and goals at heart. Their perspective of their situation may just be different from your own.

I posted a thread like this once upon a time when I learned that not everyone has the same priorities. I find it's very common in all variations of the game (PPSC & WTA, slow & live, full press &gunboat, online & face-to-face) that not everyone cares about winning, drawing, or even surviving. Sometimes, players are more motivated by revenge than by the possibility of a win or draw. I was recently at a tournament where a player threw a game, not only allowing but also assisting another player to solo, motivated purely by a desire to "teach a lesson" to someone who'd stabbed him. I recently played a high-stakes WTA game online in which the exact same thing happened. Neither of these players used throwing the game as strategy to prompt those attacking him to stop; even after a ceasefire and several seasons of supports and other favorable moves, the tanking players continued to tank. Like you,Thucy, I was, to say the least, dismayed, and I was not alone. In the tourney situation, one player even quit the game out of disgust. However, although I don't like it, I've made my peace with players' throwing games.

You see, Diplomacy, by virtue of its interpersonal nature, is a complicated game. Players are complex bundles of motivations, proficiencies, experiences, baggage, and neuroses, and they bring these myriad influences with them to the table (or chatroom). A skillful Diplomacy player must, therefore, be able to size up her/his fellow players and know how they will react to various stimuli, especially stabs. The predisposition of a player to throw or merely quit a game is no more or less a trait to be factored into interactions with her/him than that player's predispositions to lie, stab, throw a tantrum, or miss a turn. Thus, a player's throwing a game is not extraordinary; it's just another unfortunate consequence to be avoided in a game, another concern to influence the difficult decisions a Diplomacy player must make.

I agree that sometimes helping someone else win is what makes sense, but only because it meets one of the 4 objectives. I would help someone else win if I thought it increased my chances of eventually getting a draw, or surviving, or whatever.

I guess I will only play WTA from now on. But the problem is, you can't count on those 4 priorities even WTA.

And I understand it is different during the leagues. Addendum: I am thinking of leaving the leagues after this season for that purpose precisely.

Not only is it not fun to play against someone who lets you win, it is certainly not fun to watch someone else allow a player to win while you watch helplessly.

I will not be rash as to say I am going to leave this site, but I do think I need to take a long break from it.

I'd have thought you should play to maximize your results on whatever reward system you're playing under. I think that's the purpose of a reward system- to provide incentive for players to aim for certain goals in a game.
If you don't like game's the with reward system PPSC provides, don't play it.
I personally don't understand all the people who play PPSC games, but play them with the mentality of a WTA game.

Because when you do that, you get the most points. And you get a better ratio, which is equally important in any game.

And it is consistent with the nature of the game itself.

Alas. As I have said I will be taking a break from this stuff. I'll finish out my games I guess.

@dave - You should play to maximize reward while minimizing risk, if you really want to put it in those terms. And if you are doing that, then you should always play for a three way draw, which I disagree with.

In a poker torunament, you shoudl start maximizing profit while not taking stupid chances to see you past beign the bubble boy and into the money. In other words, play to maintain the average chip stack. But eventually you have to take a risk or you will never win the big pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow. The same thing applies here. Stay even with all the strong remainders but eventually take a risk and either pull ahead or get crushed.

@Thucy - just play private WTA games with like minded players. I have the same view on the four goals (and having fun is not mutually exclusive to those four goals folks). So I'll play you.

The aim of diplomacy (IMHO) is to get the best possible result. I was recently on the wrong end of a squueze in PPSC I had 2 SC someone had 15 and the third had 17 SCs. We had a solid stalemate but the guy with 15 knew he would get more points for losing than for a 3 way draw. I had to support 17SC guy to a win just so I could survive. Not pretty but probably the best result I could get.


In another I had a chance to maybe stop a solo but it could have ended in my elimination and then a three way draw. I'd sooner the solo guy solo and I get the survive.

Each game is different and some strange situations occur. The trick is as Draugnar says is trying to find out what other people's motivations are, don't always assume they are the same as yours.

I don't feel angry when people betray me.
In fact, why would anyone want to seek revenge on a betrayer?
It's just a game, and one that's built around breaking trust.

PS sorry to here you may be leaving.

Baron Samedi +1

@Thucy -

As people have already stated in this thread, the logic can differ between WTA and PPSC games. Never forget there's the bruised ego aspect as well - if I'm, say, Austria, and France (with whom I've been fighting for years) is a strong #2 and suggests I turn around to stop #1 - and doing so would just leave me open for a stab - I may elect to trust him, or I may tell him I'll see him in hell before I'll let him take my undefended territory from me. The problem with setting up a draw at times can be that you just don't trust the other guy not to shaft you.

I actually wish I *had* decided to be spiteful in another game, because I ended up getting eliminated anyway, and I would have loved to have completely shafted the guy who screwed me.

I am going to join the chorus that sees a difference in objectives between PPSC and WTA. When I play the former, I expect that my enemies may be willing to play for the strong second (more than 12 SCs) and I will do so myself if the circumstances seem right. I also recognize that weak nations may also be willing to help someone win before they get wiped off the map.
Applying a rigid hierarchy of objectives might work in WTA, but it can lead you astray in PPSC.

So remember, PH, the C League games we are in together are WTA... :-)

Draugnar, I thought they were just run on the Revenge principle.

I tend to think the object of the game is: As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it’s considered to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner. However, players can end the game by agreement before a winner is determined. In this case, all players who still have pieces on the game board share equally in a draw.

However, I'd also concede that players may mutually agree to whatever alternative rules and objectives that they so desire.

That's why the best time to stab in them is for the win on the very last game. No chance for Revenge of the Diplomers.

@ jcbryan97:
Your first paragraph describes WTA. PPSC falls into the second, it is an alternative scoring approach mutually agreed upon. It is a variant, but a very popular one.

@PH: Yep, I'd agree with that. When we played Diplomacy as kids in the basement there were no 'points.' It was just one stand-alone match. And like Monopoly it took too darn long to have many games.

"That's why the best time to stab in them is for the win on the very last game. "

prevenge
(pree.VENJ) n. Revenge taken in advance of an expected harm.

They Might Be Giants: They're not just for songs about Turkish Home SCs

prevoke
(pree.VOOK) v. To revoke ones capabilities and priviledges for acts not yet comitted.

Always prevoke the capacity to stab and you'll never get stabbed.

I feel like it's my underlying duty, when put into a position of defeat, to throw the game. I've always thought of the lame ducks as the ones who were supposed to give the game away to the highest bidder. It's more fun for me, the extirpated one, to see someone else win.

Don't get me wrong, it's situational. I'd go for a draw if I could.

In WTA, survive or die is irrelavent. If it isn't possible to win or draw, then screw the asshole who put you there. In PPSC, the survive still gets points back, and you can often get more with a strong second than a draw.

i didn't throw that game away in the manner that you suggest, v+.
i'm the guy he's talking about in the high stakes wta game.

as i saw it:
there was one main power struggling against three lesser powers, of which i was one. on what should have been the last turn before a four way draw, one of the lesser powers stabbed another. because of this, i lost crucial supports. my only chance for survival after that was as a two-center power in a three-way draw, and i would be relying completely on support from the player who had just broke up the four-way...that is, if he didn't walk into those two centers while i was fighting the main power. that stab took me from taking part in a draw to dead. so, i attacked the stabber, which did two things; it guaranteed my survival by allowing the solo, and it kept the stabber from the opportunity of taking part in a two way draw.

i caught hell for that, but if survival is better than being defeated, as it's stated above, then i did the right thing, right?

I'm completely with Thucy - that's why WTA is so much better than PPSC. PPSC violates the basic premise of the game and rewards players for playing for second place.

Actually - to your point #2, I would add the caveat that you shouldn't eliminate a smaller player specifically to drop the draw from 4 to 3 people. Now, when you can eliminate the player and then go for a win that's a totally different story.

@Thucy and Draug: could I join you guys?

A serious game with no CD's is what I'd really like (the over all principle in Thucy's objectives being "look out for #1", which is what makes this game so fun)

I don't know that I have an actual set of priorities like have been included in some of these posts. I mean I'm pretty capricious and not a great tactician. For me it looks more like.

1) If your ally is a jerk stab him - If not don't , yet.

2) If you haven't stabbed him yet and
a) there is a weaker power that you and he can b****slap- do so but stymie his growth and discuss with as many powers as possible the ways that you can bring his eventual downfall.
b) there is no weaker power near to violate - skip right on to discussing ways to bring about his downfall.

c) I'm a weaker power about to be violated - talk with him as if he's your best and only friend and discuss long term plans for a two way draw, while talking with as many powers as possible about how to bring his eventual downfall.

3) If I'm stabbed cry bloody murder and make it seem as if it's the worst move that anyone has ever made & do the following:
a) talk to as many people as possible about how to bring his eventual downfall
b) turtle and wait for an opportunity to bring about his eventual downfall.
c) divert as many of my resources as possible to bringing about his eventual downfall.
d) divert as many resources as possible to slowing or stopping his growth.

e) remind myself that it's only a game and I shouldn't be kicking my dog like that.


;-)