Stalemate Lines Reference?

[Guest]

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

A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win. If it will be a
12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw, or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no
difference. Indispensability only matters if one is a small Power who (a)
is playing with draw whittlers, and (b) cares whether one is included in a
draw, versus being eliminated by draw-whittlers who are doing it for their
own weird reasons, and not as a path toward a solo.


"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:d2bvn7$o37$1@pcls4.std.com...
> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
> >"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:
>
> >> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
> >> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
> >> the Draw, anyway.
>
> >Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a reward! LOL!
>
> Oh come on, Eric is right. Small powers have as a crucial task
> as a draw is approaching to make themselves indispensible.
> If they don't they risk being left out. Good play is rewarded,
> poor play is not. What's so funny??
>
> Jim-Bob
>

 

[Guest]

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

David E. Cohen wrote:
> A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win.

Yes, you're right. A draw is better than a loss,
but not as good as a win.

> If it will be a 12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw,
> or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no difference.

Depends on your perspective. In a 2-way, five players
have lost, so the two in the Draw can have a reasonable
belief that their result is better than in a 3-way, where
only four people lost.

Eric.
--

 

[Guest]

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

Eric Hunter wrote:
> David E. Cohen wrote:
> > A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win.
>
> Yes, you're right. A draw is better than a loss,
> but not as good as a win.


There is not a meaningful difference. I am disappointed either way.




>
> > If it will be a 12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw,
> > or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no difference.
>
> Depends on your perspective. In a 2-way, five players
> have lost, so the two in the Draw can have a reasonable
> belief that their result is better than in a 3-way, where
> only four people lost.
>
> Eric.

Once no one has a reasonable chance of winning, the "real" game is
over. The lifeboat has been launched, so being one of two people on
line versus being one of three people on line for a boat that isn't
coming back is, to continue with the theme, a bit like rearranging the
deck chairs on the Titanic. I have better things to do with my limited
Dip time than to spend an extra couple of years (or more) trying to
whittle down a draw, like trying to win in a new game I could otherwise
start.

 

[Guest]

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

Like it or not, those of us who arent always in a position where we can get
a solo ARE going to use stalemate lines as both a tactical and diplomatic
tool to prevent someone else from doing so. If I'm not going to be the one
who solos, I'm going to do whatever is necessary to stop the other guy from
getting it and keep myself alive, and if that means pushing a stalemate
line, so be it... and of course, Mary's point on the converse of this is
true as well, if I'm the guy pushing for 18, its well worth my while to know
what lines I can and cant get across...

I think this conversation has gotten beaten to death many times before, and
I while I agree that stalemate lines are often overused, I think the
incredible stigma against them that some people seem to have is just plain
wrong. They are inherent to the structure of the game board, so
understanding their placement and how to use them to your advantage, be it
on offense or defense, is critical to mastering the tactics of the game.

-Adam


"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:d2946g$ib9$2@pcls4.std.com...
> Dvd Avins <dvdNOavinsSPAM@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>Jim Burgess wrote:
>
>>> Sigh, the BEST impenetrable strength is an 18 center victory.
>
>>Of course. That needs saying?
>
> Well, yes it does....
>
>>> A stalemate line is to be sneered at IN COMPARISON! Not to be
>>> sneered at when compared to being eliminated, of course.
>
>>It's early in the game. I'm playing a Witch in a no-press game. *Other
>>players* are likely to target for elimination anyone they can, hoping to
>>either solo or reach a 3-way draw. If I reach a minimal stalemate line
>>from which I can't be eliminated, I will be a less attractive target.
>>That would make it more likely that I could continue to grow, rather
>>than being preoccupied defending myself. Having grown, I would then be
>>in a better position to go for a solo later in the game.
>
> The key here is that you are trying to look "early in the game".
> Let's dig into that further. Only Turkey has even a prayer of having
> anything like such a minimal stalemate line that you're thinking
> about, and even there it is not possible to completely lock things
> up until Turkey has (if memory serves) a ten unit line. It is
> "design feature" of this game to make this difficult. Turkey's
> "early stalemate line" is made more difficult by the placement of
> the fleet in Ankara. So, while a good idea in theory, in practice
> this still does not make sense..... not as a "stalemate line".
>
> What you really are looking for, I think, is something else entirely,
> that I'm not sure is catalogged anywhere, and that is "good defensive
> line unit placements" in the early mid-game. For example, France
> is helped considerably by placing an army in Gascony for defense.
> I now see what you want, but I'm not sure it exists.
>
>>So _why_ is knowledge of stalemate lines unbecoming to an ambitious
>>player?
>
> It distracts from the learning that one needs to place in mind to
> move toward tactics that win games. This is most important, I should
> say, in FTF games where time is of the essence. If you have lots of
> time playing E-Mail games with reasonably relaxed deadlines, you
> have plenty of time to study stalemate lines AND more aggressive
> postures and play between them with detailed and complex decision
> rules. But for FTF, or quick E-Mail games, you need to develop
> neural pathways and habits of mind in playing that give some more
> priority to offense. In my opinion....
>
> Should I also mention that I'm not a big fan of no-press games either?
> Nah, that's OK, I understand that too. For basically the same reason.
> Learning by throwing you in the entire pool rather than trying to
> learn each part of the game in disjoint pieces....
>
> Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

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

This is a separate thread, isnt it? Frankly, considering the fact that
something like 12% of all games end in solos, I'm very happy to concede that
there are differences between other results. I dont think you're alone in
your "solo only" mentality, but I would rekon that there are many who dont
agree with it.

Personally, I think it would be hard to gain any satisfaction from a game
that I'm only going to "win" maybe 2-3% of the time and every single other
result is identical. I'd like to think that its still possible to
accomplish something without a win... but maybe that's just me...

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0jn2e.1008$VA4.887@fe11.lga...
>A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win. If it will be a
> 12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw, or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no
> difference. Indispensability only matters if one is a small Power who (a)
> is playing with draw whittlers, and (b) cares whether one is included in a
> draw, versus being eliminated by draw-whittlers who are doing it for their
> own weird reasons, and not as a path toward a solo.
>
> "Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> news:d2bvn7$o37$1@pcls4.std.com...
>> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> >"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:
>>
>> >> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the game,
>> >> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be in
>> >> the Draw, anyway.
>>
>> >Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a reward!
>> >LOL!
>>
>> Oh come on, Eric is right. Small powers have as a crucial task
>> as a draw is approaching to make themselves indispensible.
>> If they don't they risk being left out. Good play is rewarded,
>> poor play is not. What's so funny??
>>
>> Jim-Bob
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

adam silverman wrote:
> Like it or not, those of us who arent always in a position where we
can get
> a solo ARE going to use stalemate lines as both a tactical and
diplomatic
> tool to prevent someone else from doing so.

I have no problem with that.



If I'm not going to be the one
> who solos, I'm going to do whatever is necessary to stop the other
guy from
> getting it and keep myself alive, and if that means pushing a
stalemate
> line, so be it... and of course, Mary's point on the converse of this
is
> true as well, if I'm the guy pushing for 18, its well worth my while
to know
> what lines I can and cant get across...

No problem with this, either.



> I think this conversation has gotten beaten to death many times
before

Oh yeah! :^)

, and
> I while I agree that stalemate lines are often overused, I think the
> incredible stigma against them that some people seem to have is just
plain
> wrong. They are inherent to the structure of the game board, so
> understanding their placement and how to use them to your advantage,
be it
> on offense or defense, is critical to mastering the tactics of the
game.

The stigma is not against stalemate lines per se, since they are indeed
a fact of life on the map of the Standard game and most variants, and
no one is aruging that study of stalemate lines is not a smart thing to
do. What I (and some other people) criticize is the rush of some
players to secure a stalemate line and then to basically cower behind
it, rather than to take risks to attempt to gain a solo.

 

[Guest]

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

adam silverman wrote:
> This is a separate thread, isnt it? Frankly, considering the fact
that
> something like 12% of all games end in solos, I'm very happy to
concede that
> there are differences between other results.

I agree that there are differences between other results. My
disagreement is with people who think that those differences hold some
great significance.



I dont think you're alone in
> your "solo only" mentality, but I would rekon that there are many who
dont
> agree with it.

Yup.



> Personally, I think it would be hard to gain any satisfaction from a
game
> that I'm only going to "win" maybe 2-3% of the time and every single
other
> result is identical. I'd like to think that its still possible to
> accomplish something without a win... but maybe that's just me...

I wouldn't have a problem getting motivated under those circumstances,
however, I do agree that you can accomplish something without winning.
But there is a difference between being happy with a result, and being
satisfied with your play. The two are not inextricably linked.

Part of the problem here, and it's not anyone's fault in particular, is
that people are talking past each other, that is, the problem is one of
terminology, as much as it is a true divergence in philosophy.



>
> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0jn2e.1008$VA4.887@fe11.lga...
> >A draw (or a survival, or an elimination) isn't a win. If it will
be a
> > 12-10-6-4-2 draw, a 12-10-6-6 draw, or a 13-15-6 draw, it makes no
> > difference. Indispensability only matters if one is a small Power
who (a)
> > is playing with draw whittlers, and (b) cares whether one is
included in a
> > draw, versus being eliminated by draw-whittlers who are doing it
for their
> > own weird reasons, and not as a path toward a solo.
> >
> > "Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> > news:d2bvn7$o37$1@pcls4.std.com...
> >> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> >"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote [edited]:
> >>
> >> >> If the Power being whittled isn't in position to throw the
game,
> >> >> they are not needed to hold the line, and don't deserve to be
in
> >> >> the Draw, anyway.
> >>
> >> >Don't *deserve* to be in the draw? You say it like it is a
reward!
> >> >LOL!
> >>
> >> Oh come on, Eric is right. Small powers have as a crucial task
> >> as a draw is approaching to make themselves indispensible.
> >> If they don't they risk being left out. Good play is rewarded,
> >> poor play is not. What's so funny??
> >>
> >> Jim-Bob
> >>
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

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

> I wouldn't have a problem getting motivated under those circumstances,
> however, I do agree that you can accomplish something without winning.
> But there is a difference between being happy with a result, and being
> satisfied with your play. The two are not inextricably linked.
>
> Part of the problem here, and it's not anyone's fault in particular, is
> that people are talking past each other, that is, the problem is one of
> terminology, as much as it is a true divergence in philosophy.

I guess I would say that I'm "happy" when I play a really good game and get
in a draw. I would say I'm "ecstatic" when I get a solo. How's that for
terminology