Doh! Strong Seconds. I type string so often in code...

I usually start my games with a mind to work towards a three-way draw. An outright win only becomes possible - and therefore a goal worthy of pursuing in the short term - later in the game.

You should talk three way but be on the lookout to gain that slight edge that will put you over the top in the end game the whole time you play. I strive to stay one or two ahead of my allies. No more lest they get worried, and no less lest they do to me what I plan to do to them when the opportunity arrives.

Another excerpt: "One of the bad features about scoring the draw equally for all participants is that some three or four players in a game might lose sight of the primary objective altogether, and play only to knock out the other players, after which they would probably have a draw, since none of them had manoeuvred to weaken the others."

I think this is a trap that many, including myself, often fall into, denying ourselves a better game.

I think it's the risk-averse way to do things. It's not always possible or wise to throw a Hail Mary.

I sometimes find it too risky to shoot for a solo if there are still two other nations with power left. It's too easy to screw something up.

I never aim for a draw, but I try to do it in an organized way that doesn't burn too many bridges and leaves me some room if I fail. I dislike aiming for a three-way draw because it creates an uneven triangle that ultimately is too conservative. Usually whoever stabs another first gets dogpiled on, and can't fend them off. This makes the game too timid and forces only a half-win. Unless of course the 3-way draw you guys are talking about is something like a stalemate line with the amount of SCs being 17-9-8. In that case the 17 is a close goal to aim for, of course +1.

A situation like this can be showcased in something like a Western Triple. If the Triple gets a few turns of momentum, it's usually whoever breaks the alliance first that gets dogpiled on with less experienced players.

I for one dislike the whole notion of the strong second, as well as playing for a 3-way draw. I hate organized endings such as that (much of which stems from me being eliminated in those style endings) and thus will always try to change things up until my options are truly exhausted. So pro-tip to those who play me - if I say "Let's 3WD!" I am lying to your face.

But it seems as though Mr. Calhamer shares my opinions on strong seconds and 3WD.

"One of the bad features about scoring the draw equally for all participants is that some three or four players in a game might lose sight of the primary objective altogether, and play only to knock out the other players, after which they would probably have a draw, since none of them had manoeuvred to weaken the others. In this way, players might achieve above average results, at least until other players got onto them. However, they would not be likely to achieve high results, such as the highest places in a tournament, or for that matter, even a single victory. Thus, if the value of the draw were increased, there might be incentive to play for the draw from the start, which is anti-competitive; whereas if the value of the draw were reduced, there might be less incentive to unite to stop the leader, which would also be an anti-competitive result."

"Some players have argued that giving credit for "strong second" is realistic. This result is hard to determine, for when a player has won, he has presumably gained control of Europe, something which one country has never done. The strong second, then, is the last or largest to fall to the conqueror. Whether this situation is a good one or not is hard to say. The Mongols used to give the worst treatment to those of their enemies that held out the longest."

Still reading the article, and found this quote to those who didn't follow the link

"However, in the final battle to prevent the leader from winning, one would normally expect the second place player to be the leader of the opposition. Consequently, something must be detracted from his achievement because he must bear some of the responsibility for the failure in the final battle."