> First off,lets get one thing VERY clear.A win is
 >everything.Reputations are only built on these...so to win is the
 >only thing that is important and anyone playing for adraw when they
 >have the opportunity for a solo win has missed the point.

This is not always true.There is a certain degree of gamesmanship, and also a certain degree (in non-gunboat games) of the Big Picture (tm).

In the first case, I cite a Judge game which I played to a 3-way draw. The nature of this game was one in which I had done certain favours to another player, and had had them returned fully, just as I had returned the favours I owed to the third player. We worked very well as a team, and had an alliance stronger than any I had experienced before or since. Had any one of us stabbed another, we'd have been trounced by the other two, and it would have ended a 2-way.

So it was more sensible for all 3 of us to agree to draw. We'd all enjoyed and appreciated each others' gameplay and interaction so much that we were all quite happy about that - we felt better people for it, in fact.

Before that event, I'd have always said that winning was the only reason to play.

Of course, this could just be propaganda from Aard Inc. to convince you that I'm a really nice guy and you should always ally with me...

In the second case, where Dipping is confined to a known group, you get a reputation. If you have a reputation for being either trustworthy or an easy-walkover, it's so much easier to mislead your opponents in future games. Not that I'd know anything about that, of course.

 >Without the offer of a draw,The only motivation for a
 >person reduced to 1 unit is to either exact revenge on the person who
 >stabbed them or to become a pawn to another power ...

...Or play two major powers off against each other as a double agent - I cite Ydris as Turkey in Dipmeet 1. Bastard. Clever, respect-deserving bastard.

So, yes, a 1-unit country can be a very interesting and sometimes very rewarding challenge.

More strategy articles