agreed. So on maps with more than 2 players, the win would go to the player who hasn't conceded the game. 6 players vote to concede, then the win goes to the 7th.

I like this "concede" option/variant thing ...

It's just a thought really, I don't know how hard it would be to code - if it is possible at all.

I love this idea.

I like this idea as well.
I assume it is only for 1v1 games and WTA games, right? In PPSC game I guess it would be too hard to manage the assignation of points and the "survive/defeated" outcome for the stats.
In maps with a neutral player (say Duo,RInascimento) shouldn't be too difficult assuming they're voting "Concede" since the start.
If this will be done, I reccomend a "confirm" box question as you press Concede: "Are you sure you want to concede this game?OK/Cancel" and, possibly, 'cancel' should be the default option (if you press 'Enter' then the Concede vote is aborted)

Concessions should count as resignations as far as draw/pause/cancel votes are concerned as well. That way if, say, France and Germany are sweeping the classic map on the way to a 2wd, the resisting powers can click Concede, France and Germany both click Draw, and France and Germany get the 2-way.

This would provide very interesting diplomatic opportunities, as it could be used to call the bluff of a player clamoring for a 2-way draw but secretly looking for the chance to solo.

If implemented, I think all Conceded players should receive a Survival on their stats -- even if the game is Drawn -- but receive no points, irrespective of variant. That way Concession is better than Defeat and Resignation but doesn't cheapen a Draw.

ok if u all concede to me! :)

No, no, and no. Definitely not. The only way this should be implemented is in 1 v 1 games.

Reasoning: Concede button cheapens the game.

How many times have you all heard some new player complain they're position is gone and they're dead when with a little diplomacy, they can resurrect their position? All the Concede option is doing is giving those player a chance to say "screww it". We should be encouraging playing until the end, not giving up. The best games are the ones where people dsuke it out until the end.

@PE - why should a concession be better than a defeat? If you're conceding to a 2wd, you theoretically would be eliminated. Simply put, conceding IS defeat. A concede button says "I give up", which means defeat. On principal, I would never accept a concede vote if it meant they get a survive instead of defeat. Finally, part of the game of Diplomacy is bluffing. If you're willing to take the risk of a 2wd, you should have to earn it all the way to 17-17 and risk the stab for a solo. Otherwise, don't go for a 2wd. Giving a cheap way out by everyone conceding when the 2 allies are at 13-14 elminates part of the inherent risk of a 2wd.

BUT a conceded game occuring in a game larger than 2 players would be contingent on the other players agreeing to concede. If anything the ''concede'' option would give an upper hand to the experienced in 1v1 games, not group games.

I'm not saying it givesthe upper hand to anyone, I'm saying it cheapens the game. Yes, its contingent on agreement, but why not just fight back? Both diplomatically and tactically. There's no harm in trying, all it can do is help your skills. And if they have such an unbreakable alliance, well, you must have failed somehwere earlier in the game and allowed it to happen, and you deserve the defeat. That, or they aren't playing for the win, so I would blacklist them and not play them again.

Doesn't the original rules allow for players to concede? I thought it did.

I do not believe so. It was win, draw, survive with someone soloing, or be defeated. Ill check though.

Just checked. 1959 rules say either someone winsby gaining a majority of the SCs., or its a draw. No mention of concesson.

Out drano, if you have 7 players, and 6 of them click "concede", wouldnt it mean they all are so bad diplomats that the 7th player would win anyway?
Also there are many cases in which this button could be useful, not only to cheapen games, but to save time.

In that case, yes. But why the hell would 6 players all be giving up? Do they all somehowhave like 2 scs each?

The point is, if there's that many players willing to concede, there's probably enough of them to effectively fight back. Learn to talk. I don't think we should encorage giving up.

As for saving time, at most it will likely save a couple turns until someone won anyways. And hey, you all signed upo for the game, so you should play it out. Its like people who join a 10 day/phase game and then complain that it takes 10 days. Hey, you signed up for it!

Also, thethirdone, please provide examples of these "many cases in which this button could be useful......" so that I can show why its just as good or better not to have it in most cases.

I recommend we name it instead of "Concede", "Surrender" and stats be counted separately. I for one think a surrender is the same as a resign but with the decency of letting other players know they no longer give a crap about the game. It should definitely not be a survive.

Drano and Kaner are, in different ways, both right. That's why I proposed it ONLY for 1v1 and for WTA games. "I concede" must mean only "I admit I'm defeated" and I am speaking for myself. -- In WTA, I remind, the losers are recorded as defeated. --
That's why it can't be used for DRAWS because it would be a "I vote for players X and Y to be the winners" or "I vote for X, B, Z and F to be the winners". It would be probably very hard to code and basically useless.
Also, it must not be a "resign" button. You can't resign! You can't have the possibility to screw the game!

So, the uses I propose are just these 2:

1) 1v1 (AvB). If player A concedes then:
- B is the winner
- A is either defeated or survived, depending on if it was a WTA or PPSC game.

2) Multiplayer WTA games. Only when ALL the active players EXCEPT ONE have voted "Concede" this lone non-voting-player is the winner and all the other players are defeated. Until 2 or more players are not voting, the game goes on.

NEUTRAL POWERS (like in Duo, KnownWorld...) start with the "Concede" vote on.

I don't see how it could work in a different way. Thoughts?

I think concede should only be allowed in 1v1 games. Players should fight to the end.

Some of my favorite games have come from pulling out a draw with 1 SC, or coming back from 2 SC's to win the game. The nature of diplomacy gives people who are hopeless, a chance to come back. If there is a conceed button, there might be too much of a temptation to check out and not play it all the way through.

For someone to win, they need a majority, which means a conceed would go to someone who has less than 50% of the SC's. In these situations, if the whole world wakes up and see's what is happening, they should be able to stop the win.

Devonian, you say that players should fite to the end, yet you suggest that it be allowed for, nonetheless only for, 1v1. i am sure that many games would end after a simple misorder if this happened.
"darn, that was meant to go to kiel, now imma lose, i give up"
VERSUS
"crap, that should not be in Munich now. how can I make this work, time for a new strategy.
which sounds better?

You are right, I don't think it is necessary on 1v1 games either. And your point is well taken.

At best, I say that it should be allowed in 1v1 games. But, it would be a concession, not my preference.

concede just encourges people to quit. Always try until the end.

England once went from owning just Brest (aka, 1 non-home sc) to winning the game.

can I see that game?

but having concede, and having the duty to convince others to concede, is itself diplomacy, and in the process of which people might band together to stop a solo.

I think I'm able to understand whether I can recover or not a 1v1 game I'm losing. And I'd think about whether to press it or not TWICE. I wouldn't press "concede" just for laziness because I don't like to have survivals or defeats on my stats. Who does?
"Concede" button would have only the purpose to avoid you spend your last 2 turns finalizing all hold orders in a hopeless game, and therefore to avoid you wait unusefully for that game to end and to have the possibility to join a new one if you're playing the max number of games your RR lets to you.
"Concede" looks indispensible in Duo. In this variant you need more than the simple majority of SCs (15) to win, you need 19. All the Duos I've played ended when one player reached 15 or 16 and a good position. We agreed the game was over, but we had to put orders in for a couple of years more (a couple of RL days). Absolutely boring.

For Multiplayers map, as I said, it looks doable only for WTA games. And I agree it would be much less useful than in 1v1. Devonian is right saying "if the whole world wakes up they should be able to stop the win."
But ,first, the vote would pass only if ALL the players except one voted it. This would mean that NOBODY woke up, so why shouldn't they lose?
I'd never vote it if there's a chance to set up a resisting alliance. And one player REFUSING to vote the Concede should reawaken sleeping minds.
Second, it happened many many times to me that a 2way alliance was rolling over the map and at some point one ally stabbed the other one. In several cases the stabbed one was so bad positioned to be unable to react or he went even in CD. We were ALREADY woken up and fighting them, but nothing we could do to stop the stabber's win, with or without the stabbed's help. A week playing an hopeless game until the foregone conclusion.

About the point of having more or less than halaf the board, i must say, diplomacy is not just about who has more units, but also about who is best positioned. One player can go from 15 to 18 in 1 year, given the adecuate circumstances, and the other would not be able to resist it.

As an example, in this game: http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=2813#gamePanel
France might as well concede, as the other 3 playes have been for a week waiting for him to dissapear and then 3-way draw.

Daiichi, no. "Concede" must not be "Resign", Drano explained why.
If it will be used in maps with more than 2 players, it can only be a vote to end the game, a vote that must be ineffective until ALL players, except the winner, vote "concede" as well.

If he would concede, we would draw. He would get a defeated and we 3 a draw.

Mm. Maybe I can see what you mean, now, Daiichi. It could work this way: when ALL the active players voted either "Concede" or "Draw", then the game is over and who voted "draw" is part in the draw, who voted "concede" is defeated. Could it work? Mm. At least one drawer should wait for all losers to vote, otherwise the last loser could vote "draw" and end the game :D

just forget this... - mute - :D