I have seen something similar to this, but only slightly different. Mack Eye has a tendency to declare war on me, just after the order phase is finalized and his forces are streaming into my territories. :-)

The closest I can think of would be a "public press" game. At any rate, a player would readily be able to identify an alliance against him, though a solo invasion would obviously not be so easy to catch.
It's an intriguing idea. One would have to rely more on tactics, but plenty of Diplomacy would still be involved.

Snelly, your profile suggests that you have never played a game with Mack Eye.... puzzling.

There is a UN variant, where you can make binding agreements, but they are public, so everyone knows.

ouch, called out...!

I've played Snelly in PBEM games. The trick was to wait about 3 minutes before orders were due in to the receiving account, and send out the DOW then. With so little time to react, it was possible to stab him in the back, and still be 'honorable'.

Yeah, Snelly doesn't look to be a multi, so don't worry about that.

Friendly Sword, did you also go through my garbage?

BTW, PBEM *does* allow you to hvae this kind of Gentlemen's Agreement game, as the adjudicator can simply exclude orders that would violate a certain set of parameters (i.e. no English units can enter German Territory until a DOW), but it has a *lot* of grey areas, and running the games is a pain in the a**. That's why I came here - it does all the work for me :)

Yeah, I'm not talking UN or Public Press - merely a requirement that there be a (global, I suppose) Declaration of War. It seems, well, ahistorical otherwise, and the absence of such a declaration removes an important opportunity to declare one's disgust for another player.

Funny to hear that Mack Eye does this voluntarily, as I was on the brink of the same approach in a game recently but withheld the declaration for no obvious reason.

I'm interested in pursuing "Diplomacy with honor" further if it can be made practical.

i played a game like that not to long ago on here, you had to declare war before you could attack

Richard, I would be interested in playing a game by those rules.

gameID=8672, we made it you have to declare war with half the phase still left to play, people on different time zones etc

Cool. I've got some work to do tonight but once that's done, let's set something up.

Excellent

I'm in, if possible.

Oh dear, why is that in italics? Does this new forum just put all of one's own posts in italics or am I confused?

Yes, it does. Your posts look normal to me, but my own posts are in italics.

very interesting concept. i would be down for a game of that.

I would be also

Does this only applies to Supply Centers? If so, you can still stab pretty easily by position yourself to take a bunch of SCs in the Fall...

Ok. I'm still procrastinating from work I HAVE to do. Will get to this early in the morning. Any technical issues? I assume we just do this by the honor system and make it invite only or something so that everyone understands the rules? I'm not green, but am pretty green with the mechanics of this engine is all.

I think "Peace with honor" might be a good name for the first game. LOL

To druskin, fair question. In my mind, it doesn't, but that creates a technical challenge, I guess. I'm old school: in my mind, if you have a foreign army moving through your territory (Italy in Tyrolia if you're playing Austria, for example), and it's not invited there, it's an attack on Austria. So by that standard, any violation of "soveriegnty" - presumably including even a retreat - requires permission, or "the honorable thing," a declaration of war. That's how I'd see it. The point of the 'honor' system in this case is to encourage a certain, but not excessive, level of civilized international conduct in keeping with the period. But I'm open to suggestions.

A couple of things you guys may want to consider (I've experienced these in PBEM 'honour' games):
a) What happens if 2 powers (who have not declared war on each other) move into the same space? Are they now at war?
b) If I promise an ally support for a move/hold, and then do not follow through on the order, is that the same as a DOW?
c) If someone *does* attack someone without warning, what are the penalties?
d) What method will you guys use to sort out the 'grey areas' of the game?

To clarify my point (a) above, say that orders for [Russia] Sev-Rum and [Austria] Bud-Rum in the S1901 turn are submitted. Are Austria and Russia at war? Or is this not considered to be a DOW?

I wasn't going to start anything without some 'house rules' in place because of these questions. But to try to answer some - before I get back to work LOL -

a) What happens if 2 powers (who have not declared war on each other) move into the same space? Are they now at war?

If it's a neutral space or an ocean space, I'd see that as an 'incident.' Kind of like, say, Fashoda. Something likely to start a war, perhaps, but not an automatic conflict; the only thing that can start a war would be a conscious declaration that one had started.

b) If I promise an ally support for a move/hold, and then do not follow through on the order, is that the same as a DOW?

Why should it be? Why would it be?

c) If someone *does* attack someone without warning, what are the penalties?

It is this question that has me curious about feasibility. In a PBEM game or FTF game, you could simply reject the unlawful, 'dishonorable' attack orders. Here, I don't know...

d) What method will you guys use to sort out the 'grey areas' of the game?

We will appoint a grand veteran master with an impeccably honorable reputation like yourself - ;-) - to act as adjudicator. :-)

Further to (a), a standoff over an unclaimed neutral would not be an act of war. A conscious effort to take a neutral away from a country would be, in either spring or fall. A rule quirk that would make sense would be leaving soveriegnty murky until fall.

That's a good way to sort out the 'neutrals' question - until they fall under the influence of one power in a Fall turn, they are fair game.

I like it!

As for my reputation, Snelly paints me in a bad light - I've always submitted my DOWs at least a *few* seconds before the submissions deadline ;)

Why would you play this? Its just a much more boring, straightjacketed version of diplomacy. Once people declare war on you, the rules make it near impossible to turn things around.

Well, you accidentally highlight one area of appeal: suddenly, having a peace deal actually means something, too. :-)

I'm not saying I'd like it to replace Diplomacy anymore than I want gunboat to replace Diplomacy. But it seems worth a try.

The worst idea ever goes to....

Richard III

Congratulations!!!

You're welcome. ;-)

Want a bad idea? How about having to declare war on neutrals?

I'm interested in the definition of "war" here. I'm assuming that a declaration of war is always needed to take another player's SC, but I'm also uncertain about the following possibilities:

1) "Colored" but unoccupied, non-SC, non-home space: e.g., Austria moved into Albania early on, so that space is colored with Austria's tag, but he has moved out since. Italy wants to move in. Does Italy need to declare war on Austria?
2) "Colored" but occupied, non-SC, non-home space: Same thing, but Austria now has an army in Albania.
3) Unoccupied, non-SC home space: e.g., does Russia need to declare war in order to move to Galicia? (What if he does so successfully and then Germany comes in - does Germany have to declare war on Russia, or Austria, or both to move in?)
4) Do bounces count as successful invasions requiring declarations of war? E.g., Russia and Austria are allied (although Russia is ready for a stab). Austria mentions that he will move to Galicia, and Russia doesn't like this idea and bounces the move from Warsaw. Does this need a declaration of war, since Russia never entered Austrian territory?

Declaring war on neutrals? Awesome.

"GERMANY: I declare war on Denmark!"

Awesome.

@grncton
Especially with number 4 where a bounce (espcially at sea: English channel/ Black sea) could be non invasion and a friendly gesture of security.

What about when two players are allied and they are trading a center. For example, Russia is supporting Austria into Berlin and Russia is taking Rumania from Austria. Made as part of a non-public deal.

With an actual person running this game they could send that person an email saying that the move is approved without everyone knowing about it. But doing it through this website doesn't seem feasible.

Plus there is no way to block non-allowed orders.

I disagree with those who see no point in this. It has just as much point as no-press and public-press variants. They change the way the game is played just for something different. I just don't see how you could do it through this website.

we played if you break the honour system you cant move in the next turn just put in hold orders, we never traded centres etc, think we played that you couldnt move to a sc or into a space where another unit previously was (i.e you dont know if it would have moved out or not) without declaring war, you also couldnt support moves without declaring war

A. I really want to play a variant like this. I thought of something tangentially related. A couple problems though.

A. Can you declare war with more than one country at once? Because if you can, I'm going to declare war with all 6 at the beginning. :-P

B. Similarly, MUST you move (Or attempt to move) into someone's territory after you declare war?

C. Can you declare peace?

D. MUST you declare peace, if you are not attacking that person and may want to in the future?

I think this is a very interesting idea. In keeping with the honesty and the WWI theme, perhaps there could also be unbreakable alliances (which must always be announced publicly), which require you to declare war on your ally's attacker and move against them. Or, perhaps that is just getting to be too much.

That was the variant I suggested grover. :-) No one liked it.

Except I suggested really weird alliances. R/F/I, E/G and A/T, if I remember correctly.

I have to second what rlumley said - my first thought when reading the description was, "Why not declare war on every country at the start of the game, so that when you do attack them unexpectedly, you are not violating the honor rules." I would assume that, having declared war on a nation, it would be required to attack that nation within a given predetermined timespan.

@Sirither: I think your diplomacy would probably suffer from the fact that you made a potencial enemy out of everyone in the board.

War only requires one person to decide on it, peace is a mutual agreement, so you can't declare it, but you can offer it.

It's Richard's call, but I'd see any occupied territory that you hit requiring you to delcare war UNLESS you and the occupier have an agreement in advance that you can do that to protect the territory.

Any unoccupied territory that isn't a home territory (SC or non) or an owned SC is free game.

Owned SCs and home territories require an act of war unless an agreement has been entered in advance (i.e. to get support from an ally).

Bounces in open territories are incidents.

But I think the game needs a moderator who would receive the emails and keep track each turn as to who allowed what moves without a declaration as well as the state of relations between all the nations. After all, moves that are for support but would normally require a DoW can't be publicly announced or the plans are spoiled, but someone needs to know so a cry of "foul" can be validated or disallowed.