Any variant with fleets in Moscow sounds good to me.

"Is there a full press variant in which the participants ONLY lie to one another? "

So like any game with Valis?

The trouble with lying is that it only works if there's a good chance it's not a lie. If you know it's a lie it's no different to knowing it's the truth, only more tedious. The joy is in the uncertainty :).

I would actually been interested in this, if we could find some way to inforce the integrity of the lying.

"Everything he says is a lie."...
'I am lying.'

@ HoM

You can't enforce it. To come close you'd need a gamesmaster to read everyone's press and root out honesty. Even then it's difficult, as some lies last a hell of a long time before it becomes apparent that they are a lie.

You also have accidental honesty to contend with. What if you missorder yourself into doing what you said you'd do? What if you told an ally you'll never stab him and you get eliminated before you have the chance, thus having honesty thrust upon you?

Also, what actually counts as a lie? Lets say, as England, I tell France, Germany and Russia I am allied to them without meaning it. A year later I decide to stab Russia. Another year later it makes sense to stab France. Another year later I intend to stab Germany but have to keep him onside to stop Turkey. In this example when I promised the alliances I was being equally dishonest to all three, but from the German point of view I will have looked like an honourable ally and from the Russian point of view I would have looked a traitorous bastard. How does one judge the lie?

The best you could do is use the honour system, and simply trust that everyone at least intends to lie at all times, even when it's apparent that they haven't.

I think the above explanations were lies

And what to do about opinions? If I were to say that CAPT Brad is an irritating buffoon, am I lying or not? Less important for opinions of players, perhaps, than opinions regarding what constitutes an alliance. One man's opinion of how a good ally should behave can vary wildly from another's. How can one lie about being in an alliance when there's no clear definition of what an alliance actually is?

I hate all these responses!

Hey, hey, my response was decent.

I may be irritating but I am not a buffoon, I'm serious!

I'm not completely sure what you mean... what would the point of this "variant" be...?

"I hate all these responses! "

Liar ;)

Octavious is not irritating but he is a buffoon; and I am telling the truth!

Probably best is where you have to lie 80-90% of the time. Sure on the honor system still, but that way you think almost everything is a lie, but it isn't always, so keeps that element of uncertainty.

This is my normal playstyle

We could make it unranked and hope people intentionally lie. Or at least it's a lie at the time. I feel like it would sorta work. We could at least try.

How exactly would this lying requirement game be any different from virtually any game I've ever played with anybody?

Even the honest players would lie. That's the difference. For everyone else, it would be a normal game.

Here you go, I'll try it: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=187431
If a player doesn't lie, let everyone else know, and then we'll all promise each other to gang up on that player, which will of course, be a lie.

I don't want to play this, I will not register in this game, I should buy a boat! With guns. A gunboat!