In my opinion, this may have been relevant to the 1975 when people were only able to play 1 game per year by post. However, in the current game, the only reason a player should win a game is if enough other people fucked up. If 7 good players play in one game, nobody can win. Good players are able to win my finding who the weak players are and exploiting them. In the absence of these weak players, a victory should never occur. If it did, somebody fucked up big time.

I do agree that the "study" of stalemate lines is a waste of time. Any experienced player should be able to look at a map and know several stalemate position just by glancing. Again, I think this article stopped being applicable when the internet allowed us to play several games at a time.

^ I couldn't agree more. However, there always seems to be one player who is so pissed off with one of the other lesser powers that he will allow the major power to solo. Sad, but true.

"In my opinion, this may have been relevant to the 1975 when people were only able to play 1 game per year by post. However, in the current game, the only reason a player should win a game is if enough other people fucked up. If 7 good players play in one game, nobody can win. Good players are able to win my finding who the weak players are and exploiting them. In the absence of these weak players, a victory should never occur. If it did, somebody fucked up big time."

Jimbozig, I understand your sentiment, but I think your reasoning is flawed. I apologize up front for the length of the reply. It is not meant to be any kind of personal attack, but an expansion on what I think Ruffhaus was getting at as well as a reply to your reasoning.

1. Ruffhaus was discussing the value of Stalemate lines as a worthy strategic goal, rather than adopting a more offensively-oriented goal of pushing ahead all the time. At least, that is what I got out of it. However, I think the issue is not so much going for Stalemates as it is players going for the quick Draw to get cheap points and move on to the next game.

2. The fact that players long ago played postal Dip, did not restrict them to one game a year. In fact, players often were involved in several games. In any event, there is no relationship between playing for Stalemate (Draw) by post, e-mail, Internet, or FTF. The issue is not the medium, but the thinking. And those old postal players had plenty of time to think things through!

3. Next, Internet gaming has not necessarily increased player skills or remove the notion of Stalemates and drawing. With short deadlines on sites like this, it seems to me that drawing a game has become more common. And the time for developing sophisticated or complex strategies and negotiations has decreased.

4. Next, the fact that you have 7 players of equal skill going against each other does not specifically rule out a solo (back then or today), even without any one player messing up. Why? I think you are correct that in many or most cases, a solo happens because the stronger player takes advantage of a weaker player (or more likely, a weaker position). There are various possibilities that do not require player error. Two or three good players in alliance can almost always beat down 1 good player who stands a chance to move ahead. A well-timed stab by one player in an alliance can also make the difference between a DIAS and a Solo, though I suppose you could argue that getting stabbed is an error in judgement. But sometimes you just can't be everywhere at the same time. And sometimes people are not always logical.

5. You must also consider the importance of communications. This is, after all, the game of Diplomacy, not RISK or Chess. That is, it isn't just tactics. It's also about psychology, persuasion and cunning. I want to convince you to do something that helps me more than you, while making it look like you got the better deal.

5. Ashleygirl noted that sometimes a player will throw the game to another player to win, out of spite or for other reasons. But that's not necessarily wrong, though it may be sad for the other players hoping for a Draw. Self-sacrifice has been a difficult, but persistent tool in life for thousands of years. Why not in games? In Dip, if there is no chance for you to win and you think your ally or opponent (as it were) should or could win, there is no reason to not help them, if you like. That is, in effect, what alliances do. We ally with each other with the promise of mutual aid, but in the long run, we also consider whether keeping an alliance is worth giving up a real opportunity to win.

Okay. I'll shut up. Maybe I missed the mark, anyway.

Stalemate lines can be effectively used to hold off one front while making gains on another, or as pointed out, when things are hopeless they can help turn a sure loss into a draw.

True, enough! Sometimes defense is a worthy offense. At least, for a short while.

The study of stalemate lines has guided my early-game strategies in many cases, noting particularly how some centers can be easily held in related stalemate conditions from either side. Good examples in standard Diplomacy are Spain, Portugal, Marseilles, Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin, Munich, Naples, and Venice. Early control of these centers and their supporting nearby provinces (MAO, Ukr, and Ion, to name a few) guides decisions of how and when to strike.

I think some people are mistaking solid defensive tactics with stalemate lines, and clearly missing the larger point of the discussion.

Correct and I made that point in a post that, however, seems to have not survived. I must have done something wrong in pasting my response to G-Man. I meant to note that a stalemate line, by definition, is not something you just put up wherever it is useful and then drop. It is meant to force a draw, since it is formed along certain borders to prevent any forward movement by either side. I agree that stalemate lines should not be considered good strategic goals, unless it becomes the only way to prevent a solo or your demise. You should, however, know where those lines are, especially if you are the one on the way to a solo, in order to prevent one from occurring.