Oh, and I forgot. If multiple countries are marked at the same time, they are allowed to ally with each other or whatnot. But it's quite easy for one ally to promise to support a move, and then renege on the support, which allows him to lose his marked status since he didn't take part in the attack.

what an odd idea. I'm game if you can find 5 others

Hmmm - interesting. So I assume you continue to be MARKED indefinitely (assuming no-one else launches an unprovoked attack).

And can you move to a space of another country provided it's not a SC and not occupied e.g. 1st turn Munich moves to Burgundy. Is this considered an attack?

Only concern would be around the extent to which people are obliged to attack a MARKED country or countries. Would you expect all out assaults regardless of leaving yourself open on other fronts or only units in proximity would have to attack?

What happens if nobody moves aggressively for a year or two for fear of being marked, and then everyone gets bored at the same time and attacks someone.... if everyone's guilty, who gets marked?

Braveheart:

1. Yes, you'd be marked indefinitely, until a new attack came about.
2. As for the second one, I actually was hoping to have some discussion about that one. It probably should be considered an attack, I think-- maybe I'll specify that you can only get away with attacking neutral territories, basically, unless there's an army. What do you think?
3. I'd say you're pretty well obligate to, especially if you're nearby. At least, that's what I would hope to see. But I know that's hard to do. The thing to keep in mind is that when you attack a marked player, you don't get marked, and once the neutral supply centers are gone, attacking a marked player is the only way you're going to get any more SCs without getting marked yourself.

Feckless: If multiple people attack at the same time, every one of those is marked... though I suppose that wouldn't be very effective if everyone just gets themselves marked at the same time...

How about this. You can only avoid being marked if you attack a marked country and you aren't marked yourself. If you attack a marked country while being marked, it's as if both of you were unmarked, and it'd be considered unprovoked and marks would be reassigned accordingly (possibly making you the only marked country).

Perhaps it's better to think of it like this: If you are NOT a country who has attacked an unmarked country when someone else has, those people become "privileged", and they can attack non-privileged (i.e., marked) countries without losing their privileged status. But if you're already marked, you can't be privileged against other marked countries.

Under this, if everyone attacks at the same time (as the Clod has suggested), everyone is marked, but that's basically the same as nobody being marked since there isn't anyone who'd be "privileged" and able to take advantage of it. This would not last indefinitely: Supposing everyone somehow agreed to attack, there'd be plenty of incentive to NMR or otherwise not attack and then become privileged as a result.

I'm thinking of two more variations to this that might make it better. Please discuss:
1. No press or global press only until somebody becomes marked;
2. An option to allow for attacks NOT to result in being marked if all parties involved post globally saying that they authorize it. (Obviously, this adds some strategery with the potential for skullduggery that arises by not affixing your agreement onto the attack and thus condemning the attackers to being marked.)

I know this is awfully contrived, but I really do see a potentially good variant in the works, maybe with a bunch of other fundamentals changed... I'd hoped it would be doable on a Diplomacy board with normal rules outside of these, but maybe it wouldn't be...

I'm definitely in if it can all be worked out - will read more in depth when I get home.

I'm a variant whore, so I'll play once you get the rules figured out.

I need people to discuss if I want to get them figured out. >_>

Sounds great for me. A newb will probably benefit greatly from this variant.

This sounds fun, except that I believe that Marked countries should be able to attack other marked countries without penalty.

So sign me up if you actually launch a game like this.

The reason I don't want them to be able to attack other marked countries without penalty is that if everyone becomes marked at the same time, then it just becomes regular Diplomacy.

I want this to be reminiscent of a group of extremely short-sighted and -tempered people who forget about earlier offenses when some other infraction occurs. Players get bonus points for roleplaying to that effect. >_>

Also, it's not really a penalty-- you go from being marked to being marked again; the question is, if you become the only marked country as a result of all this and find yourself screwed, or if the number largely stays the same.

There's no way to prevent, or even accuse with certainty, nations of moving "half-heartedly" against marked nations when it is not in their best interest.

In relation to that, could you define "beat the living daylights out you." As italy involved in a war versus Austria, would moving my unit in peidmont to marsielles while the all the rest continue east pass?

Could this not boil down to regular dip?

regardless, it's very creative and it sounds like a lot of fun :)

Well, it's not required to move against a marked nation, just a good idea if you want centers without getting marked.

I just think it'd be funniest to see it being all-out. =)

I don't think that moving to any non-SC space should be considered an attack. It might be tactically advantageous to move to an allies territory in order to attack a mutual enemy. It might even be agreed with the owner of that territory. Of course, this might also be true of an ally's SC, especially if you're just moving through it, but not planning to occupy it in autumn....which is where it gets complicated..... this would have to be considered to be an attack, I think, in order for the variant to be workable.

I think it's only an attack if you actually take possession of the SC or attempt to dislodge a unit: that's pretty simple but effective isn't it?

And I'd like to be in if possible.

It's simple and effective, but it does raise the possibility that an enemy action might force your unit to spend the autumn in an allied territory which you intended and attempted to vacate, by bouncing you from your intended destination. Inadvertently missing a turn could have the same effect.... you'd be marked for an attack that you did not intend to make. I'm not saying that this would be a bad thing.....

Clod: That was one of the variants I was discussing earlier: if all involved parties post globally saying that they aren't considering it an attack, then no retaliation should need to occur.

I think that in that case, the original "attacker" would also be encouraged to post globally that he's going to leave the territory, and if he is bounced by someone else after he posts this then it's not considered an attack.

As far as inadvertently missing a turn goes, all I can say to that is be careful, and don't go into an ally's center in the spring if you're afraid of that. =)

So how about this, then. We'll use Churchill's notion of an attack and add that attacking an established allied territory is also an attack.

However, any of these (including actually losing the supply center) can be labeled as a non-attack if all parties post agreement in global chat that they have agreed on it. I'm thinking of also stipulating that if you agree that it's not an attack, then that cannot be overruled. (This prevents someone posting that it won't fly right before the moves are processed)

If nobody else has anything to discuss at this point, I think I'll tabulate what we have so far in a single post, we'll tweak that as needed, then we'll start.

That's what my second question was getting at.
If there's no requirement to move against a marked nation what's the disadvantage of being marked or the advantage of not being marked. If there is none you may end up playing old fashion dip :)

No, I think that if a person is marked they are marked. The simple and effective way is a great rule, it allows for plenty of nasty plans and sublte stabs... "oops you took that SC... what a shame"...

You could say this, that a mark lasts only for the remainder of the year...
So if you are marked in Spring 1901, you lose the mark in spring 1902.
if you are marked in autumn 1901 you lose the mark in spring 1903 and so on and so forth

then, you say that while a person is marked all players are honor bound to attack no one else.

i.e. X Y and Z are playing... Z is marked b/c he attacks y in spring. X and Y cannot attack each other (honor rule) until Z loses it's mark. If an honor rule is broken you are marked for the next turn (note the original mark(s) remain so) and you are forced to non-movement.

So in the example X attacks Y in autumen when Z is marked. Even though Z's mark has run-out, X is now marked and cannot order a move or support move order.

You could also ban communication with a marked coutry andn enforce that as an honor rule...

Agh, now it's just getting too complicated.

I think. It should just be. You can't move, or attempt to move into a square that isn't your color (even if it used to be or something. I'm talking about how you can convert say, Tyrolia to green as Italy). You also can't attack another army or fleet that is sitting in a neutral spot. This covers seas and orange land. Exceptions will be allowed only by correct treaty procedures (borrowing from UN):

In private diplomacy you work out what kind of treaty you want and its terms. Then one nation works up a draft and shows it to the other. When they agree one of the countries posts the treaty's text, and the involved parties. Then each involved party must ratify for it to be binding. If not, if say, I said I'd ratify but lied, well then too bad. This covers an forseeable weird exception thing, and the treaties can even be written broadly, but the only thing the treaties would have to abide by are the general rules of the variant.

For instance: If England were the only marked country, and everyone was sending fleets up to attack him, you could draft a treat between Turkey, Austria, Italy and France maybe, or maybe even more depending, saying "if any fleet attacks another signatory's fleet without support in open waters, this shall not be considered an attack; the instigator of such a move remains unmarked, unless the signatories decide by a majority to overrule this treaty on a case-by-case basis."

Things like that. Or other things like Russia says I hereby let Turkey into Ukraine, no problemo. Or even more bold, like I hereby let Turkey into Warsaw on the Spring of this turn, provided he should quit the city before Autumn should arrive. Should he fail to enact such procedures, the signatories do hereby agree that he shall be considered marked.

All that stuff. Long and complex as it may seem, I really don't think it would be. I'm in this happens for sure. Also I think the phases should be rather long. Like 72 hours or something.

The only treaties that wouldn't be allowed are BS treaties that basically circumnavigate the rules, and this would have to honor based. One such might read:

We six signatories agree that if one of us enters marked status, the other five may vote if this is convenient, and if a majority should vote that the marked status is inconvenient, the nation will not be marked that phase. Should he continue to make moves that make him eligible for marking the next phase, another will be taken up.

No. That's garbage. Lol. Stuff like that, it's not hard to figure. Also another kind to disallow are any authorized SC capturing. No SC capturing can happen without getting marked or when attacking a marked man.

The only last problem I sense is the self-defense concept. Does that really mark you? If I'm Turkey and Austria attacks, can I not strike back? Someone made it seem like I too would be marked but I don't see how this makes sense.

If Austria attacks Turkey, Austria becomes marked, so Turkey can attack Austria at this point without being marked.

And I'll consider broadening it to a treaty-based game with only those basic rules. That actually makes things more interesting.

Alright, new draft of the rules.

BASIC RULES:
1. No power may attack another power as defined below:
- a. If X gains a supply center belonging to Y, X is said to have attacked Y.
- b. If X moves to a territory Y occupies, whether or not the move is successful, X is said to have attacked Y.
- c. Regarding unoccupied non-SC territories belonging to Y, if X moves to such a territory X has NOT attacked Y by default. However, Y may make a statement that move to the territory in question will be considered an attack; this can be done unilaterally, but it must be before the move is processed. It only applies to the Diplomacy phase in question.
- d. Two units bouncing over a territory that does not already have a unit in it, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT HAS AN SC, is not an attack.
- e. All of this applies in both Diplomacy and Retreats. Forward retreating is not a way around this system!

2. If you have attacked a country by these rules, you are considered "Marked". The marks are considered to have been applied after a Retreat phase, but before the next Diplomacy phase. (Thus, if you forward retreat into a country that wasn't marked but will become marked, you yourself will be marked as well!)

3. If you are not marked and you perform an attack on a marked country, above, then you are not marked.

4. Countries may make treaties to form exceptions to the rules listed above. The treaties can be pretty much whatever you want, as long as you want, as complicated as you want, between as many people as you want (but not everyone); subject to the following caveats:
- a. The treaty should be discussed in individual chats, or globally if absolutely necessary.
- b. Once the terms have been agreed upon, one of the powers involved should post it in the global chat, naming the affected parties.
- c. All affected members must ratify it in order for it to be binding.
- d. The treaty must be ratified BEFORE orders are evaluated that would otherwise break the treaty. That is, treaties cannot be used as a last-ditch effort not to get marked.
- e. Once the treaty is ratified, there is no way out of it unless you establish another treaty canceling the first one.

5. When a treaty is formed, the countries not involved may try to override the treaty. If all of the other countries vote in favor of an override, then the treaty is overridden.
- a. Yes, this can be done by just one country unilaterally if six powers try to form a big treaty. So don't do it. =)

6. If another actual attack on an unmarked power occurs later on, the marks are dropped completely and reassigned just by the attacks that turn.

-------------

How's that? Can we start a game with that?

Oh, forgot one more thing. Treaties must discuss one particular situation and must be finite, preferably lasting one phrase. Also, the unilateral claim that a move to a specific non-SC territory can be overridden by a treaty; the only way to override the treaty and get the unilateral warning back out is to get the treaty reversed by another treaty by the same people, or overridden by everyone else.

...Oh, crap, one more change. Okay. Moving toward an unoccupied territory of ANY kind, SC or not, is not considered an attack by default, unless the to-be-attacked makes a statement that he will see it as an attack (before the move occurs, of course).

Another way to think of it is to take 1c above, and say that it applies not just to non-SCs, but to all unoccupied territories that belong to the power in question.

Also, this should be obvious, but a country cannot issue a warning about an attack on a territory that isn't already his. =)

this is amazing! i just thought of something - since no one is actually attacking, everyone would have to move into position for an attack, but not actually attack: if germany moves to BEL, MUN, and RHR (presumably for an attack on france) then france would have to move into position to attack germany. but if he actually did retaliate, he would become marked, even though germany was the attacker!

eventually this would have everyone scattered with units on opposite sides of the board, eg English A GAL and Turkish F GAS. and it would be incredibly funny if everyone stabbed everyone else at the same time, allowing normal diplomacy to resume - but with the incredibly weird circumstances. or better yet, everyone except one person stabs everyone else, and everyone is marked except that person - therefore meaning everyone except that person is allowed to make alliances - so it would be better if he/she actually DID stab everyone else.

You don't get immunity from having the marks resorted if you attack a marked country while you yourself are also marked. =)

still, you'd be marked even if you didn't... but you would have more enemies.

If you attack someone and happen to be the only one, then everyone else loses their marked status and is privileged to attack you without suffering being marked.

But at the same time? If all but one attack at once? Also I'm still confused about two markies attacking eachother.

Also:

What if two people say Germany and England bounce over a Russian territory. And what about moving to a space I am vacating, that could be interpreted as an attack, or are we saying that's ok? Also to cancel a treaty all orignal signatories must cancel together. And the re-marking thing is only when an UNmarked nation attacks another such nation, right?

But otherwise that sounds cool

If two countries attack each other at the same time and they are both marked or both unmarked, marks get reassigned and they both get marked. (Unless it's just one moveset, a bounce, and neither has a unit on the territory in question). If all but one attack at once, marks are reassigned and they all get marked (unless some attacked an already marked country and they themselves were unmarked; this exempts those attackers from being marked). If two marked countries attack each other, marks are reassigned and they are marked again.

By "marks are reassigned", I mean that looking at JUST THE MOST RECENT DIPLOMACY/RETREAT PHASES, everyone loses their mark. Then, a marked country attacking anyone or an unmarked country attacking is marked. So if two marked countries attack each other when there are also three other marked countries, but the other three don't attack, they lose their marked status.

Germany and England bouncing over Russian territory is not an attack from Germany to England or vice versa, unless there's a treaty saying otherwise. (In general, bounces on a territory that didn't house one of the two bouncing countries' units are not attacks). If there's a Russian army, then both Germany and England have attacked Russia, and will be marked. If it's an unoccupied Russian territory and nobody gets the supply center (if there is one) then pursuant to 1c above, it's only an attack if Russia proclaims that it will treat a move there from either country as hostile.

Moving to a space an army vacates is moving to a space that had an army, so it's an attack by default unless there's a treaty in place.

To cancel a treaty all original signatories must cancel OR to override all non-signatories must vote to override.

Re-marking occurs whenever a marked nation attacks, and whenever an unmarked attacks an unmarked. And again, the marks are totally obliterated and re-assigned based solely on the results for that turn.

I think the treaties add unneeded complexity.

It's not that complex, really-- they don't need to be nearly as formal as Thucydides has been writing them. All they are is, an agreement between powers to circumvent the rules, for one particular instance or small set of instances of possible infractions. No need to make them formal.

I'm going to make the game now. It'll be a 20 point buy-in, and it will be password'd. I'll send the password to anyone who has expressed interest.

Actually, I'll just post it here. The password is "Eldrant" (no quotation marks, case sensitive). Please don't join unless you know what you're getting into. =)

You'll want the name of the game, too, I suspect? It's "Less declamation and more retaliation!". Password "Eldrant", like I said earlier.