YCHTT, I don't think Argo is arguing that there is never a reason to employ chainsaw diplomacy. The goal of chainsaw diplomacy is still to win or at least gain an advantage. Chainsaw diplomacy is not simply a way to vent and throw games.

I think he is complaining about players who throw games with no apparent strategic or diplomatic purpose.

So, with regard to this:
If the reasons are due to factors outside the game, then it would be meta gaming.
If the reasons are not due to factors outside the game, then no rules would have been broken.

Right, Devon. I'm not sure Handle even knows what chainsaw is. The point of it is to make a last stand to show people that if they attack you or don't attack someone else, then you'll make their strategy a pain in the neck. That's not even irrational. It's just a warning from realizing you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and you need to commit your defense in some direction to make an impact on the game since you can't hold multiple fronts. Sometimes, you do it to persuade an attacking member of an alliance to change sides. Other times, you do it to persuade someone at war with another to relax against you to focus against another.

My concern here isn't that. My concern is: a) when people let themselves get steamrolled without even bothering to put up a defense, and b) when people get stabbed, but then, a bigger player comes along who needs to be united against.

For example, consider a 40, 10, 25, 25% game where the 10% player isn't even defending against the 40% player. The game is basically being thrown away since the 40% mops up those SCs, and the little moves one does against a 25% player push the front marginally back to give the 40% player a future advantage.

In your example, Argo, there could be a good reason for the 10% player to work with the 40%.

If it is a PPSC game, the 40% player may be offering to allow the 10% player to keep 10% to the end. It can also be used in a WTA game. If the player wants a survive instead of a defeat. Another example of why it might be used is if the two 25% players are pushing for a 3 way draw and won't include the 10%. The 10% might be pushing for a shot to be included.

I generally play with a ranking of priority:
1 - Win
2 - Draw with small number of players
3 - Draw with any number of players
4 - Survive
5 - Defeat

Some players add taking second place somewhere in the ranking.
Other players rank draw higher than win. (These are the care-bear alliances.)
Some don't differentiate survive between and defeat.
Others view winning as the only priority. (The Masters Tournament on web dip had this philosophy)
Occasionally, I revise this ranking for specific purposes, just for fun. (No lies, no armies, no fleets, etc.)

So, I always play to get a better result. It keeps it fun even when I am hopeless.
You may want to consider if the other players have a ranking system that differs from you. Then adjust your diplomacy accordingly.

To be clear, I said the 10% player wasn't defending against the 40% player such that they aren't working together. The 40% player would be using the 10% player in a PPSC game. What you're describing is a balanced game that isn't thrown.

If the 25% allies were going for a 3 player draw in a WTA game, then they wouldn't knock the 10% player out. They would work with him against the 40% player. They wouldn't assume the risk of being stagnated and giving the 40% player a chance to solo.

Yes, but the 25% allies often become a Rogan and try to reduce the draw, so the 10% player says "screw it, 40%, it's your game." The 25% allies need to communicate and actually show their willingness to work with 10%, not just give him lip service.

Should have been arrogant not "a Rogan".

That still doesn't work though. If the 25% allies try to reduce it from a 3 way to a 2 way draw, then the chainsaw will either give the 40% player a chance to solo, or make it a 3 way draw between the allies and the 40% player.

At that point, I'd actually be suspicious of metagaming between the allies and the 40% player as if they prefer a 3 way draw with one player more than another.

Always hate it when allies become Rogans

Are we playing Age of Empires now? :-P

I guess without more information, we don't know the rationale of the 10% player. It's very possible that he doesn't trust anyone and doesn't see any other option.

Well right. That's the point I'm making about throwing games. There comes a point where you have to trust people no matter the past relationships because if you don't, you're screwed.

Say the 10% player was stabbed by one of the 25% players, and you're the other 25% player. You realize that a 3 way draw is your best possible outcome there, but your ally who stabbed won't cooperate with the 10% player.

You'd probably be pretty pissed, especially if that 10% player retaliates with a chainsaw move, but it goes haywire, so afterwards, the 40% player becomes a 50% player after the 10% player is defeated.

The 10% player may decide to screw over the 25% allies by not only letting the 40% player take his SCS but also by doing his best to take some of their SCS so by the time he dies, they are 24% allies and the big guy has achieved a solo. It is a legit strategy. If you are being eliminated, screw over the guys trying to take you out by throwing the game. You'really dead anyhow, so your goals change.

As I said before:

1. Win
2. Draw
3. Screw over the guys trying to keep you out of the draw, even if it means throwing the game.

I'm okay with chainsaw diplomacy so long as it's not for reasons outside the game. What I don't think is valid is prioritizing a survive above a draw, which I've seen done here, and done by a mod (or former mod). A survive is meaningless in my opinion, and just another word for defeat.

But can you be certain he did put a survive above a draw. Perhaps he figured he had no chance at being part of the draw so opted for survive over defeat.

Of course, if it was PPSC all bets are off. The survive might have earned more points.

G-man, prioritizing a survive above a draw is probably due to PPSC. That's why I don't like PPSC.

But, I disagree that a survive is meaningless. When you are defeated, you have no say in the end game. To me, a survive means I had a say in the outcome all the way to the last turn. To me, that's worth something. It's rare, but it's possible to fight back from 1 SC to a decent draw.

Yes YCHTT, as a few of us questioned him while he was doing this and he was very clear about it. It was PPSC, but a draw would have earned him more points -- and he gave away a solo!! I don't believe anyone should ever give away a solo at the expense of draw, regardless of format, to pursue a survive. I don't believe ratings and points should ever make playing for a draw less valuable than losing, i.e., "surviving."

G-man, please remember that we are not talking about a particular game. This is a general conversation.

Caerus, The 'goals of Diplomacy' discussion is intrinsic to why players would throw a game. My example helps illustrate a point on why someone should not throw a game, in my opinion: that a goal of surviving used to justify throwing the game should never be prioritzed above a draw and used as a reason for throwing the game -- and that ratings and points should never make "surviving," aka defeat, more valuable than drawing.

G-Man, I agree with you that I would never rank a survive higher than a draw. But, I disagree that I should be allowed to dictate how others should rank their priority.

In my opinion, the fact that every player has a different objective is what makes this game intriguing. If I play under the assumption that everyone will have the same objectives as me, I am likely going to be disappointed. So, when I play, I not only try to achieve my own objectives, but I am trying to learn my opponents.

Devonian, Is it okay then that someone prioritizes throwing a game over a solo?

It's not for me to pick what is important to them. And, realistically, it's not even possible.

However, for the purpose of the game, it would be up to me to use their priorities to my advantage. If I find out they would rather take second place than draw, I will definitely try to accommodate them. :-)

A solo victory means that the player has over 50% control of the board, and therefore it is assumed that if war continued, the player has achieved the power to dominate the entire map, correct? Of course tactics and scenarios may lead to different outcomes but the point is that one player outmatches all the others combined, which is quite significant. This is why a draw is always better than survive, because it means that diplomacy has prevailed and there is not a single dominating player, rather, a player who would be stopped if they tried to conquer the board. 2nd place is only an illusion because the game stops at that point.

So, I believe it is quite appropriate to question a player's game priorities if they feel a strong survive represents a better finish than a draw. That is certainly wrong, and people should know that. However, it all depends on the game. Like many of you who said before, if you'd been perpetually screwed over by all the other players except the winning one, then throwing the game to them is an understandable, if not condoned response. Personally, I would never 'throw' a game intentionally. At worst I would commit solely to defense against those who were attacking me, if it weren't a concentrated effort to thwart the solo efforts of my ally. That would be worst case scenario.

Not true in every scenario. Some scenarios allow for a solo with less than 50%.

Raro, I agree with you, as it applies to my own rankings. But there are people who believe differently. You can try to change their minds during a game, but you will likely fail. Why bother? Use their "illusion" for your own gain.

But, I will go even farther to say that their opinion is not an illusion. For them it is reality. If you are going to insist that this game is an analogy for real war, a strong second is often better than a draw in real life. Especially if the second is allied with the first. Peace is much more likely. However in real life, a draw is really just a cease fire. Real life doesn't pack up and say good game everyone.

Very good point, Devonian

My answer is not going to be popular with the current crowd here, but oh well. If I am fighting that #1 player, holding my own, and one or two "allies" behind me decide to make a debilitating stab, you can bet I am turning my back on that #1 player and coming after the @ss that created the situation. If that gives #1 the game, guess who brought it on? If I am beset on all sides after allies turned, I am giving more leniency toward the one I was fighting straight up and the stabbers beware. Accept the consequences for your actions. I have no problem forgiving earlier hostilities with someone, do it all the time. But this is all about timing to me. If you are saying you will continue to work with people after they stab you and continue attacking you in order to deny the win to another party, you are either Jesus in his 2nd coming, you know the attackers or arranged it because you know you will die, or you are lying.. In my opinion anyway... To stab someone and not expect some kind of response you are not happy with is just asinine.

Sorry, I meant to include in there that this is a reason some will "throw" a game, to tie it in with this thread...

Devonian, you're essentially saying that if someone wants to disregard the rules of the game and play by their own rules, no problem. Official rules clearly state to play to 1) solo, and 2) draw. So, a survive should never be valued above a draw. Now, if you add rules and clearly state that a survive is just as important as a draw or solo, that's another story. Personally, if you are not doing that, I think it does a disservice to the objectives of the game and motivations of the players -- and hence, strategy of the game -- to have people placing draws above solos and survives above both. Would you do such a thing in chess or football?

G-Man. Nothing in the official rules mentions draw as a goal of the game.