I've played a few in which we were being silly. One we all assumed an accent from the country we represented, another we spoke in quotes from The Princess Bride.

Properly played, they're pretty exhausting, because every press has to be much more thought out and subtle, there's usually a lot more press, and people tend to take on crazy personalities. It does change the dynamics quite a lot by making it more difficult to plan specific moves with a partner. It also tends to punish stabby players because they quickly gain a reputation for being untrustworthy.

For me it kills the real purpose of the game, that is diplomacy. And diplomacy can only been done in the shades not in the sun. The rest of the game, the strategy and the tactical adjustments remain but the soul is gone. I do not think I will ever play a PMO again.

It's still better than gunboat!

The only one I played we were all supposed to insult each other. It quickly turned into F/E/G versus I/A/T with Russia caught in between. No one trusted the other side so wouldn't betray their own side, nor was it safe to try to remove Russia, so it ended up a 7 way draw. It was fun...ish.

. . . ish?

I've seen a lot of proposals put forth as competitions. Like England offering to support either France or Germany into Belgium, whichever one occupies Burgundy first.

The press has to be a lot more controlled because lying is exponentially more complicated. You have to clearly state your intentions in a way that clearly aligns with your interests, for credibility's sake, and you're actually in a position where having someone else turn an offer down causes you to lose face. No back channels.

I would really like to see an open-press game with seven classicists.

@Timur, "fun...ish" as in "funish" as in "sort of fun" except I started out saying "fun" and then after a pause to think it over, decided to moderate my statement by adding "ish". Not exactly proper grammar, I know.

Guys, this is offtopic but I didn;t want to start a new thread.

Suppose an ally and an enemy is trying to capture a new territory at the end of Autumn / Fall, which neither of them currently occupy.

You are in position to provide support move an army into that region (since you are in the territory beside it).

So when you "support move" into that region, who gets the support? Your ally or your enemy?

How do I specifically provide support to my ally moving into that region rather than my enemy?


1 more thing, instead of supporting, if you, your ally AND your enemy tries to move into that territory at once, will all of you bounce?

Watch and learn, kids: gameID=93086. (no comments on the on-going game please, ha ha)

Try it. You'll see that you have to specify where the unit you are supporting is coming FROM.

If three units all move into a territory with equal strength, they will all bounce. More specifically, if two units attempt to move into the same territory with the same strength they will bounce, and any number of other units with the same or lesser strength may also participate in the bounce.

For example, A supports B to C. D supports E to C. F also moves to C. So B and E both have strength 2 while F has strength 1. Because the two strongest are equal, they all bounce. If D's support was cut, then B would have strength 2 and E and F would have strength 1 and B would make it into the territory.

Also, don't be afraid to create your own thread for questions like this.

Personally, this type of game is my favourite - the openness of diplomacy adds to the complexity and richness of the deals rather than detracts, to my mind.

I originally asked the question because I just finished my first PMO game and am engaged in another one and I find there is a level of diplomacy connected with the game. My experience agrees with AWB and mendax. Since it's open press for everyone, good diplomacy and persuasiveness still have impact.

@ JECE
there's 180 pages of global chit chat on that game
& all for a 41 point pot
which works out at about 4 point 3 pages of chit chat per point
is it a Dip game or a chat club ????
I only skim read the last 2 pages ---that was enough

@Major - if you look, that game is in like 1940 or something and has been going on for over a year. We actually broke the message recording system and had to have kestas paginate it for us lol

Thank you so much for your help Alderian :)

I really appreciate it :)

MajorMitchell: It's a tournament game. That's why the pot is the lowest possible.

Back on the original topic ... the original term used in PBM/PBeM Diplomacy was "public press" (as opposed to "private press" or "no press"), and it can be very enjoyable when the idea of "press" (as opposed to just "messaging" takes precedence. I would love to participate in a "public press" game in which all messaging takes the form of either a "press release" (only from a government you control) or a "press report" (from a journalist of any persuasion you care to create). Said journalist is free to report comments, confirmations, denials, etc. from any official of any government on the map ... in short, all the ethics of a typical journalist apply. :) Similarly, any press release should be understood as the blatantly political and marginally truthful statement that we are used to from politicians. The only real rule is that you cannot issue someone else's press release.

PM me if anyone is interested and I may try to set something like this up.

@Bob
Well, in PBeM there is also the concept of "white" vs "gray" press, with "white" meaning that the sender is known and "gray" being anonymous. In a PBeM game that allows white and gray "broadcast" (public) press, those "press reports" would usually be submitted anonymously, adding another layer of complexity and intrigue.
Also, in true "partial press" games, not only can you send press to any individual power or as a broadcast, but you can also send the same press to any subset of the other powers and have them see that they received the same press.

yes ... and even "black" press where the sender was not identified and could pretend to be anyone.

Clarification: In "grey press" you were anonymous, and there was no claim about who the source was; in "black press" you were anonymous but could specify any of the 7 powers as the source of the press.