Modern II worked well for the last few I've played, but I thought I heard of one being done on Known World. I'm shooting for Modern II or a similar one (like Abstraction or maybe even Youngstown).

Witch Youngstown? There's 2 of them.

Probably Youngstown Redux. Treaties game you say? Haven't seen one in a long time, count me in.

I'd be in but I need to read the rules first

Yeah, Redux would be better. The more players, the better...
1. KA
2. DoubleCapitals
3. pyrhos

And I'll have the rules up before we start it.

sounds good. Looking forward to it

1. KA
2. DoubleCapitals
3. pyrhos
4. Lukas Podolski

And we will make use of the unrated-games feature right?

^ Yes, we will.

Then count me in. Sounds like fun, I do have one going on a WWII map right now.

1. KA
2. DoubleCapitals
3. pyrhos
4. Lukas Podolski
5. nesdunk14

Alright, here are the rules (they are subject to objection).

1. All Alliances, Declarations of War, Public DMZs, and Truces must be announced globally in order to take effect. If any party involved in the announced agreement takes offense to said agreement, the agreement will be considered null and void.
2. Any power, in order to attack another, must first declare war with that player a DIPLOMACY turn in advanced. As this is always, to some extent, a rule that allows for confusion, allow me to clarify what an attack is:
a. If you order your unit to enter another player's territory. Whether the move succeeds or fails, you must declare war prior to making this attempt.
b. If you support a unit into a neutral territory that is being occupied by another player and you dislodge the other player's unit.
c. It is not an attack if you attempt to move a single unit against a neutral territory, either bouncing or bumping another player's unit.
d. It is an attack to violate an established DMZ between you and another player, unless the DMZ is not announced globally.
3. In agreements of alliance, any power within the alliance must be at war with any enemy of the alliance. If the otherwise neutral alliance member refuses the declaration of war, their alliance is to be voided.
4. Any power who violates the rules by attacking another player or by violating a public DMZ will be forced into suspension for one year or two Diplomacy phases (during which time, retreats may be entered, but not orders or builds).

Here's an example of a game:

S1901
France and England, DMZ English Channel
Germany declares war on France (Germany may attack in the Fall)
Austria declares war on Italy (Austria may attack in the Fall)
Italy and Turkey sign Alliance
Turkey and Russia, DMZ Black Sea

F1901
England declares war on Russia (England may attack in the Spring)
*Germany attacks France*
*Austria attacks Italy*
Turkey declares war on Austria (as per alliance, may attack in Spring)
Russia violates DMZ Black Sea (May not build in Winter)

S1902
France and England sign Alliance
*England attacks Russia*
Austria and Turkey sign Truce (Italy-Turkey Alliance void)
Turkey declares war on Italy (Turkey may attack in the Fall)
Turkey declares war on Russia (Turkey may attack in the Fall)
Russia: SUSPENSION (May not issue orders)

F1902
England declares war on Germany (as per alliance, may attack in Spring)
Austria and Turkey sign Alliance.
*Turkey attacks Italy*
*Turkey attacks Russia*
Russia: SUSPENSION (May resume orders with builds phase)

Bump.

Im in if there are still space

There is still plenty of space...

1. KA
2. DoubleCapitals
3. pyrhos
4. Lukas Podolski
5. nesdunk14
6. JacktheGiantSlayer
7.
(8)
(9)
(10)

just curious, does a retreat into another power's center count as an attack? ^^

Could you declare war on everyone pre game and do what you like?

You could. But then you'd likely find yourself the target of other people since you'd essentially be a "wild card" on the map, and lots of people don't like that.

Good point...
Retreating into another player's territory should be considered an attack if the player being "attacked" is not your ally and does not state his consent globally prior to the retreat.

And, to get into the sense of the game, it helps if people take offense to declarations of war as a real leader of a country would. Theoretically, yes, you could get away with that, but there can be a fail-safe against that so long as no more than one power does that at any time.

tassa, Strider, join!

^Bump

need more players

I'll play! Sounds fun! :) PM when ready :)

Sounds fun - count me in. :)

..and PM when ready.

Interested, not completely sure yet though.

1. KA
2. DoubleCapitals
3. pyrhos
4. Lukas Podolski
5. nesdunk14
6. JacktheGiantSlayer
7. Lackbeard
8. urel

I'll give it two days. On Wednesday (my birthday) we'll start a game with these eight people unless we can get more before then.

I am in it sounds fun a nice break from the usually back stabbing.

I am in if there is still a spot.

1 KA
2 DoubleCapitals
3 pyrhos
4 Lukas Podolski
5 nesdunk14
6 JackTheGigantSlayer
7 Lackbeard
8 urel
9 Darkarus
10 ScubaSteve

Now we're all good to set sail!

Passwords are going out. gameID=18421

There's an open spot right now and we need it filled. If anyone would like to join, ask right away.

I would like to join.

The phrase "takes offense to" in relation to the announcement of a treaty that they are part of means that there is a treaty if there is silence? Shouldn't all parties need to acknowledge the alliance? What happens if a party announces a treaty immediately before the moves? If the silent partner then attacks in 5 minutes are they subject to suspension?

Yes, that would be kind of subjective, but the hope is that no player should make a public declaration without receiving prior consent first. The second player's affirmation should be merely a formality.

But doesn't the problem that Steve identified remain unsolved?

I would argue that for a treaty to be valid, both people must post globally that they agree to it. Otherwise, people can, and will, manipulate it for their gain and you'll have a clusterf*ck on your hands.

If you don't have everyone show up, I would be delighted to play

I'd agree with drano here that an alliance or any other treaty should be confirmed by all parts that it concerns.

My preference would be that all parties must publicly announce. Everyone did show up, but I would play another if there is any interest.

Do a alliance always have to be followed? If my ally declares war on someone for no good reason - do I have to follow or void?

Not unless it's specifically written out in the alliance urel.

Even if it is specifically written out in the alliance it seems impossible to enforce. The non-supporting party could always come up with a rationale for why they did or did not do what they did. Unless it is so specific such as "If Uganda attacks Brasilia, Siberia agrees to support a unit from Krakow into Warsaw" it seems like there would be a question about what was done, should have been done, was enough... etc."

Also, in real life allies don't always support. The Warsaw uprising in WWII is an example. Russia promised the Poles support if they fought the Germans. Poles did, Russians didn't and the Russians took control of Poland after WWII. Realpolitik in action.

Scubasteve -

He didn't ask whether or not he'd actually have to FIGHT the person, he just asked whether he'd have to declare war. If an alliance spells out that: "If Ally A goes to war with Person X, then Ally B must also go to war with Person X", then that needs to be honored, or it's a broken treaty.

As for real life...this is diplomacy...are you really trying to use the RL argument? RL has nothing to do with Diplomacy.

Actually, reading rule 3, it appears that if Ally A goes to war with Person X, Ally B must also, otherwise the alliance is null and void. IMO that's a terrible rule.