A tenet to stab when the moment is right? Umm... who defines 'right'. That's a pretty subjective tenet.

no, that sort of game would be hard to plan (interpreting natural language to code in rules based on what people have said is hard, but would be cool) that said once created it would become a game of tricking your opponents into agreement which appear good for them but really screw them over on some legal technicality. (depending on how compicated you can get)

i remember a game where i bribed one player with 98% of my income, and then on the same issue brided a second player with the thing which generated that income, thus decreasing the value of my first bribe (they then voted my way and were shocked that i gave my source of income away - it being the case that they expected me to want a high income, but i had decided my own goals which hinged on winning said vote)

it all backfired on me when they broke their agreement, and i (while winning a giant PR gain) had given up everything else to get the agreement, and thus was left with nothing (because they stabbed me) that should always be an option (in any game, in my opinion) to guarentee things are stil fun.

I wouldn't want to play every game the way you outline but it does sound like a fun variant to try out. You'd have to be careful not to enter into too many strictly binding agreements with others or you could find yourself locked out of any chance of winning!

If there was to be a change/addition to this game, i think it should be proxying units.

allowing you enter the order - proxy [unit] to [player]

and then that player can enter orders for your unit, thus guarenteeing that the unit does what he wanted (and reducing the strain in big games on the player who has too many units to control) of course allowing a player to withdraw their proxy and a proxied unit to be passed on to another player...

@orathaic - I don't think he was proposing that the varient be hard coded into the game, just that everyone would agree to abide by the rules. There wouldn't be any built in mechanism for enforcement other than just not playing with jerks.

I created a fixed alliance game a while back with the help of Geofram where the Allies are pitted against the Central Powers with Italy being able to choose a side. Does that kind of game interest you?

I thought the UN variant that was played here a lot a while back was based on a similar concept as the OP's. Anyone have experience with those?

the problem with this is that it makes it hard to change your alliance and what about old agreements? for example in the first year france will probably pick one country to ally with and one country to attack, both of those being either germany or england. well the first thing most people do is establish DMZs. so france and italy make a DMZ at piedmont, gulf of lyon and west med while germany and france beat up on england. well france is likely to make some alliance agreement with germany as well so they can take down england. so once england is dead france has no where to go. he cant attack germany his ally and can only attack italy through north africa. this also promotes unbeatable alliances that people hate like the juggernaut and leaves you stuck with a weak ally for the rest of the game if you choose a weak ally at the beginning. this takes the focus off doing what is best for yourself and winning the game and turns it into being 'technically truthful' and always faithful to your ally, which is not what the game is about. in the original board game you are actually allowed to cheat and put an extra unit on the board if no one notices. its called the "flying dutchman". being truthful is not what the game is about.

the described scenario above is good but you still deceived him and what is the real difference between outright lying and subtle deception?

also im actually in one of the 'gentlemans' games and i believe the original intention of gentleman was not players who are truthful but players who dont get upset at stabs, dont hold grudges, and are willing to negotiate with everyone.

Breaking assumptions is the same as breaking your word, in my opinion.

I never lie, I just change my mind at the last minute ;)

I just lose the game. Not the Diplomacy game. Look up "the game" on urban dictionary.

DMZs and alliances can still be set up and easily broken, you just add in a warning clause or a timeline. It is very easy for France and England to set up a DMZ in the english channel for 1901 only. They can rehash the conversation at any time. It's just as easy to make it clear that the DMZ is to last indefinitely until someone announces a move ahead of time. I have done this several times.

I don't envision a coded-in variant, just a game in which people agree to play this way. It's very similar to writing contracts. The terms are flexible and open to negotiation, but they are binding. The problem comes when disputes arise over whether or not an agreement was broken. For this you really need a human GM. I think.

Does anyone have any idea on how to fix that problem. There is no way to really stop players from violating an agreement, and there is no way to punsih the
is that right? Does this variant require either a human GM or reaaaaly honest players?

Also does anyone want to start a binding diomacy/no stab game sometime soon?

Stabing is great when done correctly: ie. you destroy a persn in a matter of a few turns or at least criple him significantly or you pick off SC's and they are
1 too busy elsewhere to fight you
2 you negotaite peace and stab 1 once 2 until he is dead

Hey Paulsalomon, I'd be keen to try out such a variant. To get the most out of it, you should have all agreements that are binding as no working around the words etc (eg 'at the moment i won't move there' - hmm, now that it is 5 seconds later, i guess i will move there). But if the game was basically that for all intents and purposes you couldn't break your word, that would be cool.

@jasoncollins Awesome. I'll add you to my list and when I've got a good 7 I'll set up a game and message everyone. You're right about the tricky wording. Once everyone realizes that negotiating will be all about the wording and terms of the agreement they will negotiate with that in mind and make everything very explicit. Messaging becomes contract negotiation. I'm very excited about it. You can stay intentionally vague for a while, putting pressure on someone to get your support before the phase ends. That kind of negotiating leverage is usually not in the game with stabs. You set up alliances and expect them to stay until they don't, you're stabbed, and move on. (not exactly, but often). I like this idea of short term negotiations and agreements. There's risk to an agreement as you don't know what other agreements have been made. I'm into it. message soon

now who else is up for a game this way?

Abgemact - I played one of those UN Variants - they were very good, and well worth playing. If I wasn't so tied up with Masters and League games, I'd play another.

Essentially, 2 players (or more) agree a treaty in private, then publish it in Global - both parties must agree publically (i.e. England and France agree to DMZ the Eng Channel for one year). Treaties could not be broken, if they were accidentally there was a one turn penalty - all units could not move except for support holds.

The idea was to create a situation where treaties could be established for short periods (no longer than 3 years) and broken where the wording wasn't tight enough - i.e. if your drafting wasn't good enough, tough luck.

If anyone wants more details, then let me know.

That also sounds interesting. The public part gives the treaties some oversight and helps players stick to them. Making the agreements known however takes a bit of the fun out of it. I like the idea of negotiating on a fairly turn-by-turn basis, where negotiations can break down and there is a sense of urgency. I also love that I don't know how France's negotiations are going with Germany. I only know what germany tells me about it (which could easily be misdirection). Hmmm.

Perhaps this can help: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

:-)

Especially article 80.

That's fairly comprehensive I guess.

I agree with paulsalomon - though it does sound cool for a public game, it perhaps could very much limit the amount of diploming that can be done. For example, if France and Germany agree to something formally, England can no longer argue the point!

This sort of game should also have reasonbly long turn phases lol - you need to make sure you hear a number of perspectives before agreeing with them I guess :)

Jasoncollins is right. I think a longer turn phase wpuld be needed. Negotiations are quite a bit more intensive. You really have to settle on amicable terms, some of which may be down the line, in order to cut a deal. One shouldn't make promises until they are 100% satisfactory, or the best you can get depesing on circumstance. It makes cooperation between non allies more likely as everything has a price and everyone has common interests.

Are agreements made public then? Or can one differentiate a treaty (which is public and binding) and an agreement (which is private/secret and nonbinding)?
Just a note: The system of secret alliances and treaties pushed Europe in WW1.

I think the game we are talking about setting up would involve private, but binding agreements. It would be impossible to enforce should disputes arise, so all players must go in with the understanding that they will need to get the most explicit language possible from the other players. The best agreement will almost certainly include a list of moves being traded as well as a time line. All arrangements would be private, between two parties, and binding.