I'd guess that at least as many countries go into civil disorder in open games, it's just that people jump in and take them over so the games don't stay "joinable".

Can't anyone start a new (open) game if there are none available?

Perhaps a compromise would be to post the password for some games in the forums - assuming that genuinely interested people will read the forum and find it, while that's too much effort for the fairweather players.

That's what I'm going to do- run an open game whenever there'e none available.
But your other suggestion is a good one, and worth trying.
Perhaps make one thread to post passwords for games like that, to prevent cluttering of the forum.

Sory to double post, but-
Free #1 is already filled up.
No need to start Free #2 until Farahaer is filled, but it proves that open games are needed.

Personally, I have never hosted a private game, and don't mind playing with new people. I have to say, that in my experience, very few players actually go into civil disorder. And Worldbeing, thats a very nice gesture, but seriously, 50 active games? Even if I played diplomacy 24/7 I would not be able to reliably play 50 games, not even 25. Now this may not be true, but I think you'll find if everyone played less games you'd have a better time, coming up with more unique strategies, and having less civil disorder.

Keep in mind that Diplomacy was meant to be a by-mail game where phases took weeks, and a lot of time was spent thinking of every possible permutation of moves. This was not designed for lightning play, and while an online version does facilitate this, I think we should try to keep the idea of Diplomacy in mind.

Last point, (boy ive gone a little off topic), I think you'll also find you win more games when you take on less, because then you are more focused and devoted, and other players will more readily co-operate with active players. Feel free to check my record, I've won a little under half my games, but most notably, I have played less than a total of 25 games, IN TOTAL. And I've been here for half a year I believe, give or take, I can't exactly remember.

I have 26 active games- what I'm saying is that I will take it up to 50, if required. I doubt we'll get it up to that- I certainly hope not.

I don't mean to boast, but I've already won 3 games in a month and a half- 60% of the games you've won, in 25% of the time. My strategy does work, and I do consider many possibilities. OK, so one of those games I took over at about 10 units, but it's still a good record. Yes, I've lost quite a few, but the majority are ones where I've been hopelessly outnumbered or allied against.

Ok, just realized it says when I joined in my profile, and apparently I joined Oct. 17, 06. I've finished only 11 games. Won 5. I am currently playing through 4 active games. So I've been around a little over 4 months, which is still longer than most, except for some of the core group that joined in August, of which perhaps only a few remain active. =\

Lol, I return the boast, and some numbers. ; )

I take pride in my good record, and I have a 5/11 = 45.5% Win percentage. While you have won more games in less time, you have a 3/18 = 16.7% Wins. I do not consider myself a diplomacy prodigy, but I do not consider myself a newbie either. You claim to have lost the majority of your games for being hopelessly outnumbered or allied against, but you have to realize that it is never hopeless. This is part of the game, and it happens, but it happens not because of bad luck. I'm sure that if you concentrated on say 5 games, and put out your best arguments you'd find yourself being the one orchestrating the alliances, and you'll always find an ally, because only one player can win.

Anyways, my point in the end is that, to all of the people out there who are participating in over 10 games at one time, please consider putting more effort into less, because it makes for more interesting individual games, and less, pick and choose the games that you didn't get demolished right away in. Remember this is not merely a tactical game, it is a diplomatic game. Communicate.

clarification: the original Diplomacy board game required its phases to be in minutes --- 30 minutes for discussions prior to the first move and then 15 minutes for subsequent discussions

I think I've joined too many games... the trick is to have something fresh to look at every 2 or 3 hours, but for some reason the cycles of all my games seem to synchronise! (the same sort of thing that happens to women sharing a house)
(off topic, are any of the 1000-odd registered members women?).
It would be nice if "your games" was just "your current games" - I keep getting momentarily excited about a game period ending and then realise it's one I've been knocked out of. The novelty will probably wear off in a month or two!

I honestly have nothing better to do with my time right now. Well, I do, but I don't want to do it. xP I usually have around 10 games running, and that's plenty for me. Don't really need anymore. xD But yeah, a lot of my cycles seem to synconize as well. I guess it's because I check my games every night at the same time. Hmm...
(Off topic: I'm a woman^^ Or a girl, more like. -rolls eyes-)

Chris, I support your poin of view. I was engaged in about 12 games at once when I realised I couldn't work them out without cutting some time for my real life. Therefore, less games means a better gameplay for me and my opponents.

I must say that it would be very good to have the ability to remove a game password. Personally, I've led password games, because I wanted to say who was in it, but I would like to be able to remove it and have anyone else join once my choices were in!
Chris - you're never going to get inot the big alliances now you've pointed that out, we dont trust you not to win :P

OK, with the 20-30 games I normally play, maybe 15 of those will be in early/early-mid game, taking 2 or three minutes of thought each at most, unless there's diplomatic tangles.
The others maybe take 10 minutes of concentrated thought, if that, as well as thinking on and off throughout the day.
I have plenty of time to devote to phpDip, whether it be in breaktimes or in the time I spend online in the evening.
Quite simply, I have time to devote to several games. Free #2 is open now; although it seems impossible to join; and it's about a day after Free #1 was started. If there's that much demand for new open games, it'll still take 3 weeks to reach my limit of 50, or 2 weeks to reach the point where I'd start to feel uncomfortable. By then, other games would have closed to me, whether by defeat or victory.
So- I manage to deal with several games concurrently. That is my business. A couple of my friends are good at and enjoy Dip, and prefer to play only 2 or 3 games at a time. I prefer to play more.

At least other players in your games can always rely on a timely return of orders from you! Keep doing that and you can play as many games as you want, as far as I'm concerned.

I shall make another open game as well.

Or not, it won't allow me to make a new game. :/

Why can't you make another game?