Shared Victory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared victories?

I don't mean cases where, say, Russia and Turkey have been working together
for the entire game and have beaten everyone else.

I mean in cases where, say, Turkey and Russia have been working together and
the only opponents left are France and England. T/R have 20 units and F/E
have 14. Everyone declares a shared win, even though its obvious that T/R
are going to win.

Why doesn't F/E concede?

Is it because you can only concede to one player?

Is it because the draw command looks too complicated?

Wouldn't it be better if there were a concede command where you could
concede to more than player - as you can with the draw command?

Or am I missing something completely?

I just find it funny that most games end in draws with players with one or
two units being included in the draw. Surely such players have effectively
lost?

Any comments welcome - and I won't take offence if I've blundered on the
accepted PBEM etiquette.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Red Dragon" <no.where@all.com> wrote in message
news:cj0rk6$qjk$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared victories?
>
> I just find it funny that most games end in draws with players with one or
> two units being included in the draw. Surely such players have
effectively
> lost?
>
> Any comments welcome - and I won't take offence if I've blundered on the
> accepted PBEM etiquette.

Most PBEM games run under the rule Draws Include All Survivors (DIAS). The
game either ends in a victory for one player, or it ends in a draw among all
players with units on the board. There is no other option.

As for your 20/14 scenario -- it's not obvious that an alliance with 20
units can defeat one with 14 units. Read some articles about stalemate
lines. It's also not obvious that one of the players in the 20-center
alliance can reach 18 without provoking his ally to turn against him and
thereby allow the smaller alliance to regain dominance.

--
I don't actually read my hotmail account, but you can replace hotmail with
excite if you really want to reach me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:07:02 +0000 (UTC), "Red Dragon"
<no.where@all.com> wrote:

>Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared victories?

There is no such thing as a shared victory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Sorry, but I think you missed my point.

There is a concede option (single victory), but only to the largest player,
and there is DIAS/noDIAS.

Why is there no shared victory, as effectively DIAS seems to be used to
declare a game finished, even when its clear which "side" is going to win.

Yes, you can get to the point where you force an alliance to break apart and
fight it out between themselves, but I don't think I've ever seen a game go
that far. Usually, a draw seems to be declared when its obvious the "20"
side is going to win and the "14" side share a draw. I'm curious as to why
that is. I don't know enough about the many years of PBEM to understand why
that seems to be the current state of playing the game.

Also, although there can be situations where true stalemate is reached, most
of the final positions I've looked at don't result in a stalemate, but seem
to get to that point in the game where its obvious who's going to win and
then everyone declares a draw - "winners" and "losers".

Why is noDIAS not used more often?

Or, why is there no concede to multiple payers.

Why do so many games end in draws?

I've just checked the openings list and the vast majority of games are DIAS,
rather than noDIAS. I'd just like to understand why.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Red Dragon" <no.where@all.com> writes:

Hahahaha, no, the only netiquette rule you have broken is that this
will be viewed as a troll for lots of comments on the idea that the
words "shared victories" have NO meaning. BUT some people think
they do, and that is in itself the problem..... or it is NOT a problem
but a feature of the game. All of these positions have adherents.

>Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared victories?

>I don't mean cases where, say, Russia and Turkey have been working together
>for the entire game and have beaten everyone else.

>I mean in cases where, say, Turkey and Russia have been working together and
>the only opponents left are France and England. T/R have 20 units and F/E
>have 14. Everyone declares a shared win, even though its obvious that T/R
>are going to win.

>Why doesn't F/E concede?

>Is it because you can only concede to one player?

>Is it because the draw command looks too complicated?

>Wouldn't it be better if there were a concede command where you could
>concede to more than player - as you can with the draw command?

>Or am I missing something completely?

You're missing the fact that this makes NO SENSE because it would
put INTO the game something that is a debate ABOUT the game.

NO, this will NOT be added. Sorry, but it won't.

>I just find it funny that most games end in draws with players with one or
>two units being included in the draw. Surely such players have effectively
>lost?

Not at all. It is in fact a feature of the game, and it is part of
the art of the game, for some people, to be included in those draws
with small numbers of units. You also assume that somehow the
members of a draw should be ranked by SC's, I sometimes assert,
only partly jokingly, that the "favored" members of the draw
are the SMALLEST ones.

>Any comments welcome - and I won't take offence if I've blundered on the
>accepted PBEM etiquette.

You've just opened one of the unsolvable debates. But sorry,
you won't get the Judge change you're advocating. That will
be clear from most perspectives, not all, but most.

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

If what you want to do is concede a draw to some number of remaining
players, I think the Judge code allows for doing this (in a noDIAS
game).

In your 20 vs 14 scenario, what is to say that the 20 side will be
able to conquer the board in a 17/17 fashion without one of the powers
being able to get to 18? Indeed, if the 14 side is faced with
conceding a draw (being eliminated) to the 20 side, certainly someone
on the 14 side will try and arrange for one of the powers on the 20
side to have a much easier time of it and thus be able to solo.


On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:27:04 +0000 (UTC), "Red Dragon"
<no.where@all.com> wrote:

>Sorry, but I think you missed my point.
>
>There is a concede option (single victory), but only to the largest player,
>and there is DIAS/noDIAS.
>
>Why is there no shared victory, as effectively DIAS seems to be used to
>declare a game finished, even when its clear which "side" is going to win.

Sides don't win, individual powers do. That's why they're referred to
as "solos".

Tim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Red Dragon" <no.where@all.com> writes:

>Sorry, but I think you missed my point.

Oh, NO, we have most definitely not missed your point. You have missed
ours. I will be more firm this time.

>There is a concede option (single victory), but only to the largest player,
>and there is DIAS/noDIAS.

DIAS/noDIAS is another issue, don't let that confuse you.

>Why is there no shared victory, as effectively DIAS seems to be used to
>declare a game finished, even when its clear which "side" is going to win.

Because (and this is still a draw) if you have two players you need
to actually execute a 17-17 split. ANd this is a DRAW. In DIAS,
actually, you have to execute the split, in noDIAS, people can
declare a RT draw, say.

>Yes, you can get to the point where you force an alliance to break apart and
>fight it out between themselves, but I don't think I've ever seen a game go
>that far. Usually, a draw seems to be declared when its obvious the "20"
>side is going to win and the "14" side share a draw. I'm curious as to why
>that is. I don't know enough about the many years of PBEM to understand why
>that seems to be the current state of playing the game.

Respectfully then, you haven't seen many games. You haven't played
the game out. Play a few games out and then see what you think.
And again, a draw is NOT a shared victory, it isn't. It is possible
for some people to THINK they have a shared victory, but there isn't
any such thing in general practice.

>Also, although there can be situations where true stalemate is reached, most
>of the final positions I've looked at don't result in a stalemate, but seem
>to get to that point in the game where its obvious who's going to win and
>then everyone declares a draw - "winners" and "losers".

Believe me, we understand, we're just saying that it should NOT be
so obvious who is going to win, you haven't played out the game enough
yet. There is either ONE winner or there is not.

>Why is noDIAS not used more often?

Partly because people do not want to allow people who believe
wrongly in some nonexistent concept as shared victory or multiple
winners to have an "easy way out" to get something (a draw) that
they are going to claim is something else (a shared victory).

>Or, why is there no concede to multiple payers.

Because the game is designed to play to ONE winner, a draw is
failure to reach a conclusion. There is nothing else.

>Why do so many games end in draws?

Because it is very hard to win, you're illustrating a few of the
reasons why.

>I've just checked the openings list and the vast majority of games are DIAS,
>rather than noDIAS. I'd just like to understand why.

Because we do not want to support your faulty thinking.

Sorry, but that's the way it is, I seem to have to be firmer.
I assure you that I understand precisely what you are asking,
and am just as firm that is not the way it is.

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Damn straight.

"Tim Goodwin" <news@9oakhill.com> wrote in message
news:41540928.423233277@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:07:02 +0000 (UTC), "Red Dragon"
> <no.where@all.com> wrote:
>
> >Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared victories?
>
> There is no such thing as a shared victory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Well, I'm sorry I asked. There goes another new recruit off to find another
game to play where people are more welcoming.

Why are news groups so unwelcoming? All I asked was what I thought was a
simple question.

No doubt, I'll get flamed for this too. Such is life.

Now where is that game of Kingmaker?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Diplomacy players come across a bit strong, dont take it personally. I can
assure you, Jim is a perfect gentleman in person... except when he's on the
same board as you, of course


> Well, I'm sorry I asked. There goes another new recruit off to find
another
> game to play where people are more welcoming.
>
> Why are news groups so unwelcoming? All I asked was what I thought was a
> simple question.
>
> No doubt, I'll get flamed for this too. Such is life.
>
> Now where is that game of Kingmaker?
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Red Dragon wrote:
> Could someone explain why so many PBEM games result in shared
> victories?

You make an unfortunate choice of description here. According to
the rules, there is a Solo victory, or an equally shared Draw. While
there are those who argue that a Draw is a "Shared Victory", the
general consensus is that a Draw is different from a Solo, and it
is, therefore, NOT a victory, shared or otherwise.

> I don't mean cases where, say, Russia and Turkey have been working
> together for the entire game and have beaten everyone else.
>
> I mean in cases where, say, Turkey and Russia have been working
> together and the only opponents left are France and England. T/R
> have 20 units and F/E have 14. Everyone declares a shared win,
> even though its obvious that T/R are going to win.

Well, it is often far from obvious:

http://devel.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/StalematesAtoY/northern-progressive.htm
and
http://devel.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/StalematesAtoY/western.htm

show nine different positions where EF can stop all RT progress with
14 or fewer Units.

> Why doesn't F/E concede?

Because they hope to stop RT's progress west, and encourage them
to stab each other, so that EF can make progress heading east. Also
alliances are not, or at least should not be, something set in stone.
If you are playing to Solo, then you need to evaluate the board
position each turn, and the communication, or lack thereof, from each
of the other players, and decide what moves you need to make, what
alliances you need to form, and which former allies you need to stab,
to advance you toward that goal. Too many players on the Judges do
not do that. They fall into your trap of thinking that the guy you
allied
with in 1901 will still be your ally in 1915. In one of the games I'm
currently playing I have stabbed and allied with each of my three
neighbors at least once, and in some cases, twice, and only a few
game years have been played.

> I just find it funny that most games end in draws with players with
> one or two units being included in the draw. Surely such players
> have effectively lost?

Again, this is often a matter of stalemate lines. Read and study:
http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Online/StalematesAtoY/
and you will see that those one and two Center Powers are often
key to stopping the large Power on the other side from Soloing.

Also, the game is much more dynamic than you are giving it credit for.
Playing Russia in 'titleist':
http://www.hagenah.de/diplomacy/vgfp2000/thirdround/titleist/index.html
I was reduced to three Centers in 1902, and dropped down to only
one Home Center by 1906, but by 1912 I was up to eight Centers,
and was viewed as a possible Solo threat. That game ended in
a four-way Draw due to player fatigue with me still at seven.

Eric.
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Red Dragon wrote:
> Well, I'm sorry I asked. There goes another new recruit off to find another
> game to play where people are more welcoming.

We're all very nice here, actually - you just accidently stirred up a
bees nest.

> Why are news groups so unwelcoming? All I asked was what I thought was a
> simple question.

And you received a complete, on-topic answer. That's more than you can
get from most news groups....