I joined as well, lets see how this works.

alright. i've joined. i'd appreciate that if, once the game starts, whoever masterminded this lays down an "official rules" in global that everyone agrees to before proceding. is that alright?

proceeding*

I'm too late to join, but I'd suggest the possibility of alliances, which require allied players to break the alliance a turn before they declare war.

@Thucydides
I started it but don't claim to be moderating it :)
We should be able to sort out any issues and agree on any specific rules needed at the beginning.

@zuzak
I think we'll keep it simple for the first game - have only WAR/PEACE as a status between nations + allowing status change every turn.
If someone drops out I'll invite you to join.

im in

Ok, only fortknox and stratagos remain to join :)

sorry... been busy. I'm in now, though :)

Can we reclarify the rules in the global chat when the game starts? I just want to make sure I know them 100%

sorry for the delay, work was insane today

So, questions for the Committee:

What is an "Attack" - would a German move into Burgundy be an attack, or only a move to dislodge a unit, or to take an SC?

I'd like to think of an attack as being any move on territory not of your own color. (ie: marseilles to Piedmont)

What about a bounce... if russia and germany, for example, weren't talking, and both hit sweden at the same time. Is that war? Can two peaceful nations bounce on purpose (Rus and Turk in the black sea)?
Inquiring minds want to know...

Or even an opening move bounce in the channel between F/E.... violation of rules?

Hi, ok, copying what I wrote in the global chat:
Hi everyone. Please, let's not write so much - can't scroll :)
Let's clarify the rules:
1. Everyone start at peace with everyone else. You don't need to offer peace. You have to be to be at war first.
2. There's no Neutral. Where did this come from? It's WAR or PEACE
3. If you are not at war with another player you cannot attack, or support an attack on any territory that he has a center or a unit in.
4. Please, let's not turn the global chat into forum - so that we can see the war declarations. These are the only declaration that make sense in the moment. Actually, it is only AUS and IT who can attack each-other on first turn.
5. Don't be late. Let's fix 16:00 EST tomorrow as the deadline for this turn?

There was a question from Italy: "Alright so as long as neither I nor Austria declare war before the deadline we may not attack eachother. I get that. PM But hang on... what about territorial incursions into the home territories like Tyrolia or Piedmont? Can you still do those and have peace? "

Yes, you can.
This means I can move to BUR, RUS can move to GAL, etc. Territories get very mixed up mid-game. Only centers and units count.

I dont think a bounce can be considered an act of war - otherwise, who is at fault?

In the case of a bounce (e.g. the Channel) noone is attacking noone. There's no unit in the Channel so anyone can try to move there

So to clarify, only the following acts are prohibited under peace, correct:
* A move to a Supply Center
* A move into a territory that currently contains a unit of someone you are at peace with
* Supporting a movement into a territory that currently contains a unit of someone you are at peace with

The strict definition of the last two would mean you couldn't move into a territory that currently contains a unit even if the person who owns that unit tells you they plan to move it.

I think you're right, but it should only include home territories inside the bolder lines. For instance, if Russia was up in Bohemia but had since withdrawn, Austria would not need a declaration of war on Russia by moving into the vacant Bohemia. But if Russia still had an army there, then one would be required.

And furthermore, if Bohemia were still purple, but vacant, and Germany moved into Bohemia, I would say this would have to consitute a declaration of war against Austria, given that Austria still survived.

An alternative to that is that the home non-SC territory has to be of the same color as the country that owns it to assign the gravity of the necessitation of a declaration of war. This means, once Austria "lost" Bohemia to Russia (even though peace was between Russia and Austria now and Bohemia is vacant), Austria would need to sort of "reclaim" that particular home territory for it to be part of its sovereignty, meaning if it left it purple, then Germany could move in and still have peace with Austria, which is to Austria's detriment. Thus, it would be in Austria's best interest to move onto the purple Bohemia and "reclaim" the territory.

Does this make sense, and which option should we take, Option A (the one where any home territory is yours forever unless occupied) or Option B (the one where you have to reclaim, but can only have claims inside your home borders). Option B is my favorite, because I can see Austria being confined to, say, Greece and being totally exiled from Germany, and the Germans would have to go through the whole farce of a declaration of war on Austria just to step on Bohemia. Also everyone should note that this only applies to non-SC areas.

As to ocean squares, I say that any of those are fair game any time. If I'm France and I somehow get a fleet up in Barents Sea, that's where it's gonna be even in a time of peace with Russia. If Russia wants to dislodge it, they've got to declare war first.

Alright scratch what I said, it's too complex

I'll go with what y'all just said, the strict definition.

Two last clarifications though:

Bounces over neutral SCs like Sweden, that is not war, am I right? I think so but just want to be sure.

Also, if a French army is in Burgundy but moves to Belgium and the German army at Munich moves into the now-vacant Burgundy on the very same turn, is that still war? Because, as stratagos said, Germany technically couldn't have known that France was going to move. You would have to declare war first.


All of this aside, what might happen if someone screws up and accidently does one of these prohibited things without a war declaration? I hope nothing like that happens but I can imagine it might.

I'd prefer to keep it simple - what stratagos formulated. Having home territories count will very soon result in everyone having to declare a war to everyone else simply in order to be able to move around.

Stratagos, you said:
"The strict definition of the last two would mean you couldn't move into a territory that currently contains a unit even if the person who owns that unit tells you they plan to move it."

That is correct. This means that if someone wants your help and you need to move to territories he has units you'll have to declare war to him. Which means it allows for a very ugly backstab - so the one asking for help should think beforehand :)

I can see it all working out because I suppose one could say to someone "if you move into Tyrolia I'll declare war on you so don't."

It's not a strict declaration of war, but it may trigger a formal one in an informal way.

"Also, if a French army is in Burgundy but moves to Belgium and the German army at Munich moves into the now-vacant Burgundy on the very same turn, is that still war? Because, as stratagos said, Germany technically couldn't have known that France was going to move. You would have to declare war first."

Yes, it is war.

Alright, I get it Ivo... I think I understand all and am ready to start this.

Please, try not to screw up :)
If you wish I can try to maintain a log who's at war with who - and provide a list with 'prohibited' directions for movement for all people?

If someone makes a mistake I'd say the other 6 people will decide what to do - should be something reasonable :)

Yeah. I will try my very hardest not to screw up though, and to be honest I think we should look rather skeptically at someone who claims it was an accident....

But really what we have now is pretty simple. So I will adhere.

I am not sure if my ideas are good - it just looks the most straight-forward and easy way. If we decide something makes no sense we can change it.
Let's see how the first year goes (as Spring will be easy, but the Autumn... :)

No I think what we have is pretty fool-proof. It bears some pretty interesting variation though... things could get nuts.

Like, imagine two countries having peace, but only after one of those infamous "retreat waayyyy behing the lines" scenarios. What the heck does that army do lol? He gets in the way and now is foreign agent.
And in private chat you can use the threat of a war declaration to diplomatic advatage. Even if the country you'd be declaring war on is not neighboring, because imagine the psychological implications of "everyone is against Russia" or some other nation. Very good indeed.