For exactly the reasons that you state, sir, this is a very bad idea. If players are such dullards that they cannot consider and attempt a new order set each turn, and prefer to sit behind map gimmicks, then they sure can bother to spend five minutes per turn to put in a fresh set of orders each turn.

This sounds like part of a larger problem that afflicts a majority of players, who simply wish to play until all the neutral SCs are taken and the NMRing and CDing players are eliminated, and then call for a draw. The game is meant for all players to explore a path to victory, and plays best when all do (at least try). There are certainly times to circle the wagons and bunker down, but we see far too many players do this far too soon. Adding this feature would only compound that problem.

Ruffhaus, I agree whole-heartedly that everyone should play for outright victory where possible. However, it occaisionally becomes apparent that victory is not possible, and attempting anything but the creation of a stalemate line would be suicidal. This occurs more frequently on the larger maps, and I wouldn't be lazy enough to suggest it was needed on most maps. In addition to convenience, having this feature would arguably have the potential to reduce NMRs and CDs as individuals would be less likely to lose interest at repeatedly entering 30 identical orders every day. Individuals would still have to select the option each turn (and therefore continually assess the situation), meaning that they are not mindlesly signing off for the rest of the game.

In a more direct response to your concern, I do not believe that the button would make people forming stalemate lines any more likely if people are then able to change some of the orders afterward the automatic entry.

Perhaps a suitable compromise would be that this option is only available on the larger maps.

Finally, please do not call me 'sir'. My sex is not known to you. :p

I agree with Ruffhaus.
And even though some variants seem like being made for this type of game play - with a bunch of neutrals between starting positions and so big that you quickly have to manipulate more than 10/15 units - the interactive map is awesome for these and stalemate lines are easily input with a few clicks.

I'm with Ruffhaus on this one too. There is never a situation where forming a stalemate is the only option. Negotiation can overcome almost anything.

In that case, why don't we abolish the 'Draw' button? Just because a button is there, it doesn't mean that it has to be used.

haha, very true, good point.

My mindset has been too warped by the games I've been playing recently.

Battalion -

IMO, putting this button there would only encourage people to make use of it. Simply put, a fair number of people play too many games at once, making their devotion to each game less. Giving them an easy "out" by allowing them to enter in all their orders in 5 seconds doesn't exactly encourage them to stay engaged in the game. If they're guaranteed a draw by putting in the same orders every turn, then they'd be more likely to turn their attention to new games and leave that one for a draw, even if there's still plenty of opportunity left.

This is a concern, because the community here has a reputation for being a "group hug" site. Whether or not you agree with that, it's been seen a lot in the past, and putting this button here only encourages it further. Two or three allies hit a stalemate line, and hit the button every turn and game over.

Speaking from the standpoint of a developer, adding a button that automatically enters the last turn's orders is technically trivial.

As a matter of principle, the only constraint on a player's choice of game play should be the rules as they are enforced in the code. Beyond that, the game should be designed to facilitate however the player wishes to play within the rules. That is an important technical design principle -- players decide how they want to play, not developers, and it is wrong of a developer not to support valid play (however unpopular, distasteful and dickish).

If the rules allow a player to rush to a stalemate line and hold out for a draw, it would violate the principle above for a developer to choose not to support that form of play simply because the developer doesn't care for it.

There may be other reasons not to add the feature, but constraining player behavior within the rules is not a valid reason, in my humble opinion.

Adding such a button would only cause more dull and boring games, and create opportunities for players to somehow select that butting inadvertently.

Battalion, this option would absolutely lead to more boring dopey stalemate style play. At lease forcing someone to make an effort to put in the same repetitive move each turn makes them vulnerable to mistakes, which is exactly what someone doing this deserves. And if it's a cling to life condition forcing you to do so, then it's really worth the effort each season.

I just don't get it. Why sign up to play, if you want a "do the same thing as last season' button? I don't think that you get into having rules to allow or disallow play, but there is no reason to develop variants or technological features to endorse it. We have plenty of stall ballers here already.

so the real problem actually is not with the feature, but with the players present ... having the featuer or not will not change anything about the real problem.

that feature would be a usability plus which i had wished a lot before. not to maintain a stalemate line and bunker in forever, but to handle those games where 10 units are doing the work frontline, while the other 30 are essentially needed to secure borders, be it against an enemy or an ally – not forever, but maybe for the next 10 or 15 turns ...
setting those orders again and again is dull, tedious and error prone with the current interface (non-sortable, non-groupable units), and it adds no quality to the game. it can even demotivate players to play on, especially after they once made a mistake just due to the interface.

even if i don't think this feature is made for "instant stalemate orders", it's unclear to me how right now not having this feature prevents forming of stalemate lines better than when having the feature ...
if those lines are really important to a player, he will set the orders to maintain it again. he does it now (tedious) and he'd do it with that feature (not tedious). he will only not set it up failproof again next turn if he sees no need for it anymore (same/same), or if he makes an error when entering the orders (bad now, better then) or if he gets tired of that on large maps and leaves the game/site (bad now, better then).
(if one would want to escalate things, it could even be said that insisting on not having such a feature is to speculate on profiting from someone making a mistake, giving a plus to the players who invest more effort in something that has nothing to do with the essence of this game, diplomatic talks or planning moves, but only to do with clicking/typing more precisely. but i don't want to escalate things.)

In the settings you can sort your units as you want. In FtF you can screw up your orders all the same. In the interactive map you cannot do typo errors.

So many features already, and such an easy interface, why create more and more buttons? The game was never meant to have you handle 40 units and hold stalemate line for 15 turns... If a variant (which one?) creates this kind of situation it not a playable variant and some parameters have to be changed (EOG conditions, number of players, size of the map, number of territories, etc.)

Only live games could benefit from this feature I think

The problem is lazi was and the feature compounds it. I'm not sure where this opinion of entitlement to a draw or a game long alliance comes from. These things are earned through the development of trust and display of competence. Sending in the same orders every turn is a sign of desperation or boredom. In either case if a player is too lazy to conduct diplomacy into the mid game, much less to put in orders every turn, then maybe they should find a new hobby.

I'm not even sure what to make of this nonsense "profiling" comment. If you are suggesting that knowing an opponents strengths and weaknesses is cheating or improper, then you sound like one of Retillions crew of fills standing in line for handouts of VDip points.

The problem is that people don't play the game past the first few seasons because they are lazy and unskilled. The feature proposed to help such players survive by stalling the game. The solution is to encourage players to improve their negotiation skills and to demonstrate that stopping the practice of diplomacy in the middle of a game to secure a faster draw result is not only bad play, but bad sportsmanship. If you sign up to play a Dip game, at least try to play it. When players only ambition is to survive weber crap games. Everyone should try to win or the game doesn't work.

Players here, ever newer ones shouldn't be intimidated into thinking they cannot win. The game is remarkably simple, and even new players can excel with modest creativity. The suggested feature is just one more tool that would keep poor players performing poorly.

Let's call the strategy of sitting on a stalemate line for a draw the "Entrenchment Strategy". Clearly the Entrenchment Strategy is legal according to the rules. Perhaps it is a "poor" strategy (I'm not experienced enough with the game to judge).

I think this issue needs to be addressed with an End of Game Condition setting. It should not be addressed in the user interface design.

Setting aside opinions about the Entrenchment Strategy, does adding a button that auto-enters prior orders facilitate game play, regardless of the strategy being employed by the player?

I very much want this button. Even in large games where I am actively prosecuting a war, there's typically a front or two in stalemate, and not having to spend time on them would be appreciated.