Not sure as to what an Unbalanced CD is entirely. However, what I find as an important factor. Is that the ones that start losing, enter their draw in hope others will to. Then leaves, all make the value of a game change. Seems that is usually the difference maker. Ones that are close and can take advantage of the CD'ed player gets advantage over the rest of the board. Making us even have to have a reliability rating and a way to control it so that the competition is equal in every game. Personally, I enter orders and ready them right up to my last unit on the board. It is a honorable thing to do for the competition of the game. I sometimes allow my known and trusted allies to take my centers while I try to hold up a player that never followed through on his words. I am big on the out right lying about your intentions and giving up just because your not winning.
The system and ability to make sure a reliably player can only join is a brilliant idea. However, I do feel that playing to the last piece needs to be added somehow. Also would love to see some form of voting on Trustworthiness, Unsure, or Not Trusted to be able to be voted on (after the game or even during it) for each player to vote on the others that were in the game. That kind of information can lead to a even better game in my opinion. Everyone will not get the Trusted votes. Some will find that they feel a certain player was not honest. However, sometimes game circumstances brings on betrayal that has to be done. So that you still have a chance to survive. Most of us know the difference and would honestly vote that way, I believe. You will have the occasional player take it personal and give you a bad Un-trusted vote, or whatever you want to call it. Then there are the ones eliminated that you never got to work with or even have an opinion on. Those would be the Unsure or what you might call neutral votes.
I know this idea doesn't eliminate the need for the reliability rating we have in place now. However, If one joins a game, doesn't compete, quits, CD's, out right never follows through on his words. This could give everyone a reliability of play, this player brings to the board on a competitive standpoint. All are, or could be also controlled as to rather or not to allow them into a game. With the same basic choices as to who is allowed to join when setting up the game.
For example. If I was in a Classic and started as Austria. Have a player in Turkey with a 75% trust-able, 15% unsure, and a 10 untrustworthy rating compared to an Italy that has a 30% Trust, 20% unsure and a 50 untrustworthy. I would definitely be more willing to trust and work with the Turkey player. Not that it eliminates me from willing to work with Italy (as some of his untrustworthy votes could have been personal vendettas and can be overlooked). However, a more defensive strategy toward Italy would most likely be in my mind if he offered me Peace, NAP, or an alliance.
I know stabbing and misleading is an important part of the game, I get that. However, it can be done with some form of class IMO. Then add in that Untrustworthy players are not just ones that lie or stab, but rather in the face of your peers did not compete to the best of their ability or just gave up and caused a unfair advantage for the non neighboring countries next to them on the board. A kind of Competitiveness rating mixed with honorably system, that a lot of players seem to talk about.
Just some thought of what I would like to see added to our profiles. Information that can help determine what type of player we have in the game. To me if you join a game you should try to play until eliminated. Not just playing if everything is going good. Competition is what I think we all want. Unfair advantages is the most common form of draws, I have found. In the spirit that we join to play and then have to draw because someone quits or wont try. Then it's join another game and try it again. Seems to take up and wastes a lot of time for those of us that truly like to play. Join a 3 day phase game with the full intentions of it taking 3 days and never tries to hurry someone or complains about them wanting to work on there diplomacy with others. I get so tired of players that are in such a hurry. That is what the choosing of joining a 1 day phase compares to a 3 day game give you time. Why join if your wanting it to go faster. You agreed when you clicked the ok to join based on its stated pregame set up. Then as soon as your waiting you start saying Globally how "it should take this long to do this". Guess what not everyone is accessible to internet 24/7 nor do they not discussing plans with others and waiting on replies. To me this comes all back to trust. Did you join? Did you not agree to play? Are you not trying? How is all that fair in a competition standpoint to the rest of us by quitting? Do you join to cause conflict for no reason and then vanish?
I guess in one word I would have to say, "Commitment" rating of how we play and if we play to the end. All in the name of competition to the players that are remaining in the game after your gone.