Now I have to say my little comment about changing sides was nothing serious and John is quite correct in saying that everyone plays for themselves only. After that though we get into the foggy ground of motivation.
First off, let's 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 a draw when they have the opportunity for a solo win has missed the point. But after that, you have to consider carefully the reasons for people playing the game and how they react afterwards.
When the call goes out for a new game, the anticipation is extreme. The possibilities seem endless and world domination seems at our very fingertips and all we have to do is reach out to attain it. Then, before you know it, those cunning plans come tumbling down as your ally and unknowing passport to your success goes and does the dirty and leaves you well and truly stuffed. What then?
A draw to some is a waste of time. Understandable, but (and this is the case on the Judges rather than afpdip) it also can mean that when someone is reduced to 1 or 2 units, they up sticks and leave for a fresh game forming elsewhere. Leaving the others either dealing with a country either in civil disorder or waiting for a nice person to come and play the forsaken country. Neither of which are what you'd call ideal.
If a person is reduced to 1 unit, what is his motivation in the game? This, I believe, is where the justification for the equal draw comes in (ie: it does not matter if you have 1 unit or 17, the credits are the same). 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 irrespective of whether this is the best options for the game or the choices faced by the leader if it was real life.
By giving the possibility of the draw, the player can still play as per real life in deciding what would be in the best interests of his people to keep them independent, while at the same time still being on the lookout for any opportunity to increase his forces. (I use the word his here because no women would be silly enough to be reduced to one or 2 units as a man would. ;-) ) Added to this, should a person establish themselves on a stalemate line (for good articles on stalemate lines see The Diplomatic Pouch), they will make themselves invaluable to others and therefore their influence on the game will be much greater than their size should dictate. To play with only one unit can take a very different but just as valid a skill as winning the game.
That's one side of the coin. The other is for the other players playing with a 1 unit country. Although they may prove helpful allies....they are also, by nature, the worst of allies, in that they can change alliegances quicker than you can blink, if it means they will survive longer or increase in size. Added to which, should the game head towards a draw, they will detract from your efforts by making it a 3-way draw instead of a 2- way draw or whatnot.
Finally (I'm sure you're glad to hear), it might be worth noting that if you are in at the end game, then you might just win no matter what your situation is. For those with an interest in how to be a complete pain in the bottom with just1 unit, the recently ended game called Carrot has 2 examples of this. Firstly, Russia lasted for about 17 years on 1 unit while Italy was the 1 sc needed by both England and Turkey at the end.
As I think I mentioned, there are different schools of thought on this subject. Perhaps if others would care to put other thoughts up and then Murky can do his tricks to put it into an article for the files section.
More strategy articles