A few comments as an outsider looking in:
1. mjparrett - Germany is a great country to play for solo-hunters. You're right in the middle of the board so builds will always be relatively quick to frontline. Also you're typically in the middle of all the diplo stuff so in the best position to get reads on the other players. Sure you can also easily get sandwiched between people and eliminated. But you should embrace the challenge
On the premature end - yes it looked very premature. Looking at the board, it was calling out for an FG alliance to go all the way. And then hearing that you had good relations with France, I'd have gone for it. It's a shame, because you seem to have made plenty of ballsy plays. I like the 1901 move to Burgundy. If France doesn't organise burgundy bounce then he's always running that risk and I like the early F/I alliance. Shame Italy got thwarted on Mars but good guess work by France. If only you had gone to Paris! Then for you to build 2 fleets in 1901 - that is very brave! I'm not such a fan of that one. It's something I'd never do - regardless of the diplo. I just think it leaves you to open by land and really alienates England. But you made it work. After that, I think you played pretty well strategically. You didn't repeat the mistake of attacking Austria while there was a strong Russia and collapsing the centre of the board for instance. Going FGA was a sensible choice of 3 way alliance and by the end of 1908 you were in a great position. Just a shame you stopped there instead of continuing.
Also, weird you accepted the draw if you didn't want to - presumably there were anonymous draw proposals again? So you could have just copied greggybear's trick of saying you accepted when you didn't. I know I don't practice what I preach here - I was perhaps way too honest on how I vote in our game (I have this thing where I just hate lying sometimes), but I don't think you're one to have any such qualms?
2. It's a shame to hear that England and Russia stopped communicating when things went wrong. Sure it's frustrating when they go against you. But as long as you have units left on the board, there's always hope. You could offer to puppet yourself for one of the other powers and then stab when you get a chance. There are nearly always things you can try. Maybe they will fail. But you can at least try - you have nothing to lose.
3. On the propensity for 3 way draws instead of solos. I think a lot of is that 3 way draws are in a sense an easy and stable outcome. But it's a real shame. Also, in games with quality players like these, there shouldn't be solos where one player breaks clear and romps to a solo being 5 or more SCs clear of anyone else. In those scenarios, it should be obvious that the other players need to band together and stop it (as happened to greggybear in round 1). But what should happen is two players band together to go for a 2 way draw together. Sure there's a chance you get nothing if your partner solos, but I say man-up and take that risk. If you go for a 2 way, lets say there are four outcomes that could happen
You solo - call probability of this "w"
Opponent solos - call probability of this "x"
2 way draw - call probability of this "y"
3 way draw - call probability of this "z"
Now, best on Mike's scoring system. A 3 way draw gives you 10 points.
If z=0 and x=w then each player in 2 way partnership gets 20 points in expectation.
If z=0 and x>w then you get more than 20 points in expectation (or less than 20 if x<w)
If x-w > 0.5 then the above lottery gives you an expected value of better than 10 points.
So there should be enough incentive for people to gamble and go for 2 way alliances like this. In my opinion, people are just chicken. Although if I was being more charitable, other possible explanations:
i) Suggesting 2 ways has an image problem. It's often seen as code for "I want to solo and so you shouldn't trust me" and so makes your partner suspicious of you. This is a real shame because if a 2 way is arranged fairly so that both players are equally close to solo, then it should be fair and in both players interests to go for it.
ii) From a psychological viewpoint, many people are very risk averse because if their opponent solos, they get nothing, even if they are on 16 SC, say. I think just the fact you get 0 - the same as if you were eliminated - is a psychological for some people. I think to overcome this, the scoring system could be changed so as to reward people for SCs owned at the end regardless of result. Maybe a system like:
solo = 150 points
2 way draw = 70 points
3 way draw = 40 points
4 way draw = 25 points
5 way draw = 15 points
6 way draw= 10 points
7 way draw = 5 points
eliminated = 0 points
Players also get 1 point for each SC controlled at the end of the game regardless of the game's result.