Having negotiation allowed during retreats and builds allows options that aren't present in FTF. It's true that you can discuss the phases before they happen - but you don't want to do that with an ally. There's a difference between:

During retreats: "Look, I know I stabbed you, but we can actually work it out. If you retreat to <blah> then ..."

and

Before retreats: "I know we're allies, but if I were to dislodge <blah>, where would you retreat to?"

"I know we're allies, but if I were to dislodge <blah>, where would you retreat to?"

I say that all the time. They never catch on...

"Gives an opportunity for further negotiation"

During retreat/disband phase? That's against the rules. Surely no one here would break any rules.

So for the record, what other Diplomacy rules can be broken here? Is there a list somewhere? Could I, say, make an email like "[email protected]" and pretend I was a mod to get player information? Would anyone ever do such a thing?

http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

@ During retreats: "Look, I know I stabbed you, but we can actually work it out. If you retreat to <blah> then ..."

When I play games with my friends on here... my stance is... "You're not suppose to discuss retreats and builds but since I can't enforce it then it's up to whether you want to break the rules." I generally don't mind as long as it doesn't hold up the game. So I guess the question is whether the site is trying to mimic the FTF or not. But again a full time phase for one guy to retreat (disband) seems too long in my opinion. To take the other side of the argument for those that want to take the maximum time... I think there should always be a retreat phase then and all players in the game (whether they have retreats or builds or not) should get a ready button to click. That why if they want to keep the same time for ending then they could.

@Honestly, I feel that negotiation time during retreats and builds would be an improvement in the F2F game as well, but has never been implemented for logistical reasons.

What is the logistic reasons against it?

the game already take 7 hours?

Yup. The games I've played have 15 minute turns with no extra time for adjudication or retreats/builds. Wasted time in those phases wastes negotiation time.

I don't see any reason that retreats shouldn't be instantaneous if there are no actual retreats. If it's just to enter disband when a unit can't go anywhere, it shouldn't even be an option.

So why not another 30 minutes? Chess games used to take that long before they changed the time controls. That's really all those in favor of auto disbands or not having chat available during disbands are asking for.

maybe there is some confusion.what me and ATC are talking about our live F2F games. Somebody asked why the board game does not allow negotiations for retreats and builds, & I was giving a reason.not necessarily the only reason but definitely a major one repaired

There's no confusion. I just typically play 2 day phases and it always seems that every fall someone gets stabbed and then drags the game out for 4 days. We spend 4-5 days playing the game and then another 4 days waiting for the sore loser to disband etc. If you can't negotiation something in two days what is another two days going to get you.

I always play my FTF with two day phases.

@ssorenn: IFTTT is a service that links other services. It stands for If This Then That. For example, if I tweet about my appointment, put it in my GCal. If there is something on my GCal marked 'work', but in in GDoc excel sheet called 'time writing'. You can basically script interaction (limited as of yet) between services you use, which then operate without your intervention.

In this case, I was envisaging my orders put in my GCal to be readied at a pre-designated time. Glad to hear it'll be ready by tuesday.

There have been more than a few of occasions, when I'd committed to more games than I really should have, that I have been secretly delighted by a retreat phase lasting a couple of days.

Thank you MoW.

Just throwing this out there: What if, in case of forced disbands, the phase progressed automatically, but the next diplomacy phase was extended?

You still get the same time for press, and if no one needs it extended, they can ready up. And it stops the problem (mostly in gunboats) where the disbanding player shows up near the end of the retreats phase. Also, more often than not, this happens right before the builds phase, and the disbanding player has no builds.

The autodisband issue is a different thing from silent/rapid build phases though. In the case of autodisband, I'd also be rather conservative and not change the current way it works, for the simple reason that a person can see and confirm what happens to their unit. In FTF, it's easy since there is direct clntact between GM and players. Online, you miss this context, and I think the mechanic of needing to confirm an autodisband is good to realise what just happened.

Think of it this way, in FTF, a GM would immediately autodisband a unit BUT would also find eye contact with the controlling power and say: 'this unit goes, right?'. Online, this subtle interaction means a formal player confirmation and sadly just takes a bit more time.

I feel you "may" have changed my tune a bit. I still feel that auto disbands should occur automatically and without delay but I agree that the player in question should be made fully aware of what happened to their unit.

"And, yes, a 'tournament mode' or similar with no press during the builds or retreats is on the todo list :)"
Yay! That's one of my earliest requests: threadID=463373.
I think players should still be able to send press during these phases, but that the press shouldn't be delivered until the next season starts. It shouldn't be too difficult to store text and then reveal it later, right?