The basic rule is that if a player beaks a treaty, then he/she is due to have one NMR turn and all other players have the chance to unilaterally drop current treaties with him. (Other rules exists, but is irrelevant to mention them here).

I joined the game thinking that the game itself would have been an exercise in positive assertiveness, without having the element of backstabbing of the normal games. With this in mind, I made an early alliance with Germany (let's take down England together!) and with Italy (NAP).

Everything got as planned until Fall03, but then Germany got something strange in their messages, and – having the player governing that country a strong reputation for easy back-stabs and cheats on the forum – I guessed just-in-time that he planned to back-stab me using an ambiguous formulation of our common public treaty.

So in Spring 04 I managed to contain the damage, but I also got very disillusioned about the variant: everybody seemed very focused on writing “watertight” treaties and ways of inject advantageous ambiguity into them, and nobody seemed interested in bringing diplomacy to an higher level. Since the UN variant is so press-demanding, I asked if I could drop-off and find a replacement for me, but the other players did not agree, so I kept on playing.

Luckily for me, the stab I had been given was tactically appealing, but strategically counter-productive, so that by Spring 05 Germany had all his units amassed at the border with me, with the perspective of still losing a SC and me having already a new fleet heading into the Mediterranean (Italy never went CD but had a NMR that crimped his strategy in the beginning of the game). The outcome of this situation was a new treaty with Germany, basically allowing him to use his units elsewhere and me getting Belgium back immediately, thus having an extra build into the south.

Meanwhile I was seeking a cooperation with Austria: the plan would have been for us to share Italy's SC's, then he would have sealed the Ionian (protecting my back) and I would have sailed for a campaign in the east of the Atlantic. Unluckily Austria made another of the “tactical appealing” and “strategically counter-productive” moves that characterised this game: he chose to go for a fast expansion in all directions, leaving Turkey free to roam into the Med and triggering a 5 way alliance against him. Without any specific wish to trick Italy, I suggested a convoy Tun-Alb that took Austria by surprise, but that left Tun open for me a couple of turns later (and I took that chance).

While Austria was severely impaired by the treaty-bond alliances between most of the other players, Italy found himself in a near-death situation and offered me his unconditional alliance (in change of being kept alive till the end of the game).

The game kept on smooth until Spring 1909 (by that time I was leading with 13 SC's, the second most powerful power having 7)... then Germany failed to submit orders (in my opinion on purpose, but it really does not matter), and thus broke a treaty with me... or so I thought, as in reality we could not reach consensus on whether Germany was guilty or not.

Although – after all – for the sorts of the game the matter would have been irrelevant, I was so much unwilling to keep on playing this variant that I preferred to give away the likely solo victory in X turns in change of an immediate draw, and so we did.

My learning points: the “public treaties” idea is great and can potentially give the chance to refine a lot one's diplomatic skills. If the attention is contrarily on writing “watertight treaties” the game becomes totally different: it becomes a “writing exercise” that might be very interesting for some, but I personally find bares no learning in relation of a “normal dip game”.

Thanks to all the other players who played this intensive variant, and thanks once more for having agreed on a draw.