"Calhamer 1"

Games with the intention to fight 'till the bitter end!

Moderators: sjg11, DOI

"Calhamer 1"

Postby moodyeagle25 » 01 Dec 2012, 21:20

"Calhamer 1"

I agree with the spirit of the Solo Victory pledge, but the game will include DIAS and eliminated players cannot vote. Kingmakers and second-placers are not welcome! That's just regular Diplomacy.

This article by Calhamer provides the official protocol for our game:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

The game will be 3/1/1.

Player list:

moodyeagle25
tomfromparis
Tiankav
TheProfessional
Poelie..................are you in?
siverwood02...........invited
sirdanilot...............invited

Everyone please RSVP to confirm whether or not you are in. I'll set up the game when the field is full.
"It is not sufficient that I succeed. All others must fail."
--Genghis Khan
User avatar
moodyeagle25
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Nov 2010, 06:10
Location: Lake Erie
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (971)
All-game rating: (971)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby blazebbc » 01 Dec 2012, 22:16

I must ask.... I have had hesitations about "solo only" games for some reasons mentioned here...

"No Kingmakers"
If I am one of three remaining powers and have but a few centers, while the other two are both in a position to solo - or even share a two-way - I will use the one bit of leverage I have: offer the three-way (the best outcome I could hope for) and threaten each of the other two players with throwing the solo to the other guy if they try to solo or go for a two-way. Yes, I will throw it to one of them if needs be. I believe this to be a solid, traditional Diplomacy move. However, some would be angry that I am playing "kingmaker." Is this acceptable in the solo-only games?

Janissaries: If I completely control the survival or elimination of another power, I will often offer that power continued survival if he actions under my control - sending his single or two armies to the very front of battle, well away from his homeland. This way, he remains in the game and remains somewhat inflential. At the same time, he helps me to advance my game. Again, it is a very traditional strategy in Diplomacy circles. Is using or acting as a Janissary frowned upon in solo-only games? Certainly, the janissary power is not working to solo anymore. If fact, he's likely helping another power to do so.
Ally Extraordinaire
Intermational Medal of Honor Recipient
blazebbc
 
Posts: 201
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 07:09
Location: Seattle, WA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1122)
All-game rating: (1132)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby moodyeagle25 » 01 Dec 2012, 22:51

This is not a solo game according to the site definition. It's just regular Diplomacy. The first objective is to win. The second is to survive in a draw.

This article by Calhamer provides the official protocol for our game:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

Survival should always take priority over determining a winner other than yourself. So yes, if you throw a game to someone when you could have survived instead, you are a kingmaker.

I don't know what to say beyond this. History and your peers shall judge your conduct.
"It is not sufficient that I succeed. All others must fail."
--Genghis Khan
User avatar
moodyeagle25
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Nov 2010, 06:10
Location: Lake Erie
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (971)
All-game rating: (971)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby blazebbc » 01 Dec 2012, 23:22

moodyeagle25 wrote:This is not a solo game according to the site definition. It's just regular Diplomacy. The first objective is to win. The second is to survive in a draw.

This article by Calhamer provides the official protocol for our game:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/objectives.htm

Survival should always take priority over determining a winner other than yourself. So yes, if you throw a game to someone when you could have survived instead, you are a kingmaker.

I don't know what to say beyond this. History and your peers shall judge your conduct.



I think it's the "when you could have survived" line that makes my questions challenging. I agree: the first objective is to win. The second to draw. Thereafter, everything is simply a loss. However, what is considered the "right" thing to do when you are stuck between two choices: Lose to a solo - but stay in the game... Or lose to a draw - because the "grand alliance" plans to eliminate you. IN other words, you are going to lose and all your diplomatic efforts have failed that will prevent that. My feeling is that I would rather the one player solo. First, he's going to actually keep me in the game. As long as I am alive, I have a chance of participating in a draw - albeit very, very small. Second, if the grand alliance does not value my last unit/s enough to allow me to take part, I will want to "show" them the the folly of their judgment. Maybe they'll change their mind? Is this so wrong?

Regarding the situation as the small third power... In such a situation, I am facing either elimination or a three-way draw. NO other outcome is every plausible. However, in order to share in the draw, I must have the support of one (or both!) of the remaining players - who are most certainly looking for victory. My only leverage is my ability to throw the game to one side or the other - and I will make sure whichever makes the attempt at the solo loses. My objective is to draw. However, once one of those players chooses to gamble on the solo, I am done. My threat of throwing the game is completely worthless, if I am not willing to do it. Do I want to ?? No. I want to be a part of the draw. I do not believe that either of these ploys breaks the spirit of the game - and it certainly does not upset the competitive balance that Mr. Calhmaer used as his primary concern in the article. Rather, it is a rather energetic attempt to self-advocate.

I find these tools indipsensable in a standard Diplomacy game - and will use them. Those who have played with me so far know that I am a very traditional player who likes his solo victories... I do like the "solo only" philosophy. However, I am concerned that it might become (have become?) so dogmatic that it eliminates important tools that are at the disposal of very competitive players -especially those in weaker positions who are simply trying to thwart a loss.
Ally Extraordinaire
Intermational Medal of Honor Recipient
blazebbc
 
Posts: 201
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 07:09
Location: Seattle, WA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1122)
All-game rating: (1132)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby tomfromparis » 02 Dec 2012, 00:14

Well this is an important question indeed.
I'm new to online Diplomacy but I'm gonna share my point of view if you don't mind.

I'm gonna try and avoid to be too dogmatic ;)
Maybe the solo only section is for players who once in a while, want to consider the draw ain't a shared victory but a shared failure to achieve victory.

So about your question, I suggest we consider that the lesser power witnessing what seems to be the final fight between the two last giants should just put up the best fight he can and die with honor, without looking for mere survival or a draw.
Or try and conquer 18 centers from the last 2-3 he's got :mrgreen:

Just my 2 cents.
Did you know, that if the worst thing that happens to you is you lose some Supply Centers and get wiped from the board then you should consider it a damn good day.
User avatar
tomfromparis
 
Posts: 122
Joined: 19 Sep 2012, 08:12
Location: Gascony
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1233)
All-game rating: (1242)
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby DOI » 02 Dec 2012, 00:30

blazebbc wrote:I must ask.... I have had hesitations about "solo only" games for some reasons mentioned here...

"No Kingmakers"
If I am one of three remaining powers and have but a few centers, while the other two are both in a position to solo - or even share a two-way - I will use the one bit of leverage I have: offer the three-way (the best outcome I could hope for) and threaten each of the other two players with throwing the solo to the other guy if they try to solo or go for a two-way. Yes, I will throw it to one of them if needs be. I believe this to be a solid, traditional Diplomacy move. However, some would be angry that I am playing "kingmaker." Is this acceptable in the solo-only games?

I think it's just unnecessary. One of the fears that you mention is that the other two powers will try to squeeze you out and share a two-way draw. In the Solo-Only game, there is no two-way draw. You can be assured that both of the other players are trying to win.

blazebbc wrote:Janissaries: If I completely control the survival or elimination of another power, I will often offer that power continued survival if he actions under my control - sending his single or two armies to the very front of battle, well away from his homeland. This way, he remains in the game and remains somewhat inflential. At the same time, he helps me to advance my game. Again, it is a very traditional strategy in Diplomacy circles. Is using or acting as a Janissary frowned upon in solo-only games? Certainly, the janissary power is not working to solo anymore. If fact, he's likely helping another power to do so.

Your "jannissary" friend is still playing. That player is working to survive, and by surviving can still win. For that reason, I have no problem with this strategy.
"May the peace last for as long as it remains useful to us."
- Tokugawa, in Civilization IV
User avatar
DOI
 
Posts: 3295
Joined: 02 Jul 2009, 05:06
Location: Edmonton
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby blazebbc » 02 Dec 2012, 01:07

DOI wrote:I think it's just unnecessary. One of the fears that you mention is that the other two powers will try to squeeze you out and share a two-way draw. In the Solo-Only game, there is no two-way draw. You can be assured that both of the other players are trying to win.


I consider this more than a "fear." These situations are very real. Consider: England is at 15 - controling France (3), England (3), Iberia (2), The lowlands (2), Scandanavia (3), St. Peterburg and Tunis. Turkey is at 16 - Controlling- Turkey (3), Austria (3), The Balkans (4), Italy (3), Russia (3). Germany is at 3 - controlling only his homeland. The stalemate line is set across the board - aside from Central Europe.

If the three players play "every man for himself" - as will happen should Turkey and France play for a solo outright, Germany, knowing he cannot win, has the power to determine the winner, due to his very central location: He's sitting right on the stalemate line. As Germany in this situation (Yes, I have done this in real games!), I will threaten both England and Turkey: "Either you accept and support the three-way, or I will give the game to the other guy." At this point, whichever one (England or Turkey) attempts to solo, will lose. Of course they want the win. However, do they dare try? Maybe, maybe not. However, I want the three way and will hold on as long as possible. If one tries to force the win - I give the game to the other. Yes, I follow-through. This is not because I want the one guy to win, but because his choices forces me to lose.

Again, this is not an uncommon scenario. I certainly don't think I should lie down and not try to force the three-way. As one of the larger powers, I will try to find a way to win, but must acknowledge, at some point, that I can only win if I accept the draw and try to support it. (Which, of course leads to the draw, unless the other guy chooses to take the loss!) How does this fit with th solo-only philosophy?
Ally Extraordinaire
Intermational Medal of Honor Recipient
blazebbc
 
Posts: 201
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 07:09
Location: Seattle, WA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1122)
All-game rating: (1132)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby DOI » 02 Dec 2012, 02:13

blazebbc wrote:
DOI wrote:I think it's just unnecessary. One of the fears that you mention is that the other two powers will try to squeeze you out and share a two-way draw. In the Solo-Only game, there is no two-way draw. You can be assured that both of the other players are trying to win.


I consider this more than a "fear." These situations are very real. Consider: England is at 15 - controling France (3), England (3), Iberia (2), The lowlands (2), Scandanavia (3), St. Peterburg and Tunis. Turkey is at 16 - Controlling- Turkey (3), Austria (3), The Balkans (4), Italy (3), Russia (3). Germany is at 3 - controlling only his homeland. The stalemate line is set across the board - aside from Central Europe.

If the three players play "every man for himself" - as will happen should Turkey and France play for a solo outright, Germany, knowing he cannot win, has the power to determine the winner, due to his very central location: He's sitting right on the stalemate line. As Germany in this situation (Yes, I have done this in real games!), I will threaten both England and Turkey: "Either you accept and support the three-way, or I will give the game to the other guy." At this point, whichever one (England or Turkey) attempts to solo, will lose. Of course they want the win. However, do they dare try? Maybe, maybe not. However, I want the three way and will hold on as long as possible. If one tries to force the win - I give the game to the other. Yes, I follow-through. This is not because I want the one guy to win, but because his choices forces me to lose.

Again, this is not an uncommon scenario. I certainly don't think I should lie down and not try to force the three-way. As one of the larger powers, I will try to find a way to win, but must acknowledge, at some point, that I can only win if I accept the draw and try to support it. (Which, of course leads to the draw, unless the other guy chooses to take the loss!) How does this fit with th solo-only philosophy?

First of all, in a Solo Only game, there is no 3-way-draw. So you lose that tactic. Secondly, I remember there being something about playing each game for itself, but I can't find it any more. Maybe Pedros removed it.

But thirdly, and more importantly, why can Germany not win? You're still alive, and it seems like the other powers need you to move. This is a point of leverage. Use it.

To be stuck in a situation like that seems like it must be the result of poor play on someone's part. At least when I got stuck on the southeastern stalemate line, there were three powers left on the other side of it instead of just two.
"May the peace last for as long as it remains useful to us."
- Tokugawa, in Civilization IV
User avatar
DOI
 
Posts: 3295
Joined: 02 Jul 2009, 05:06
Location: Edmonton
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby blazebbc » 02 Dec 2012, 02:27

DOI,

Thank you. Though I do play to solo each game, this clears up what I needed - I'm not quite a fit for the game style... Regarding your last couple of points...

* I don't look at being in such a position, necessarily, as a result of "poor play." Rather as a result of somebody else having played a little better. (If seven brilliant players enter a game and all play brilliantly, some will still lose!)

* Sure, Germany has a chance to win. However, that chance would mean that somebody would have to literally surrender about a dozen supply centers to him first - without the other guy gaining 18. Sorry - but that is simply not a realistic expecations. I've come back from a two center position to solo. However, that was in a game that still had five or six active players - all of whom were at about the same strength. Winning for the position described here is very unrealistic and, should the player manage a draw, he should feel very fortunate.

* Yes, I play each game for itself. However, by the fact that "any" player in the German's situatoin can throw a game one way or another (and that players will!) gives the tactic strength. This creates teh very tension that makes a true two-way draw very difficult to manage and that a three-way finish is far more commonplace with top players.

* It just seems assinine to have to try to win in a situation like this when "trying to win' will lead to a loss! The rules have room for a draw for a reason - and should not be ignored. However, I VERY much agree that the ability to draw has been abused in online play. 8-)
Ally Extraordinaire
Intermational Medal of Honor Recipient
blazebbc
 
Posts: 201
Joined: 13 Jul 2012, 07:09
Location: Seattle, WA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1122)
All-game rating: (1132)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: "Calhamer 1"

Postby moodyeagle25 » 02 Dec 2012, 08:12

Listen mates, this thread was created as a convenience for players wishing to fill game "Calhamer 1" and not for yet another epic argument about how to play Diplomacy. All the relevant material is contained in the first post. I can't make it any more clear than the game's creator does in the linked article.

I respect you both and your arguments are fun and interesting, but please take it outside!

Also, join the game if you want. Most of the players in this game don't have any site credibility yet...so we could use some help. No one wants NMR's or surrenders, but it's hard for players new to the site to get a good game together. Help us out!
"It is not sufficient that I succeed. All others must fail."
--Genghis Khan
User avatar
moodyeagle25
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 06 Nov 2010, 06:10
Location: Lake Erie
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (971)
All-game rating: (971)
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to Solo Victories Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest