Any time you can say "Oh yeah, I'll do that" and then don't and another player says, "Oy! 'e broke 'is word!!" and that player says, "Well, hey, mate, I didn't say /when/ I would do it. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*," you're asking for trouble.

It'd be better to just say "if you claim x, you do x." The second example, the "I won't move to EC as long as the Austrians play the music!" is more okay, because when Austria is eliminated, your contractual obligation has ended.

What would be the consequences of lying? It seems to me that you can gain advantage by lying just as in the real game.

it would be honor system that e not break the rules of the game we were trying to set up. It would pass protected so just the people who wanted to try the game (And therefore hopefully not intentionally break it) would be joining.

Ancient, I tried a month ago with an honor variant. Password protected. It broke twice. The crux of the problem was, the rules were not well-defined enough. I would strongly advise you to refine your OP into a set of numbered rules. Let the community pester you with questions for a week or so to confirm your set of rules makes sense and covers everything you want it to.

That makes sense and thank you for the advice. Do you have any suggestions for what the rules should be?

Your basic idea seems to be "if you claim x, do x," so I would start there.
As I said initially, don't play around with the "time frame" idea. What one player calls "I didn't say when" looks to the rest of the board like a lie.

of course, "I will help you into Sweden in three turns." then you have obligated a time frame. But you imply the tag on "if you are in position to be helped into Sweden." the issue with "I'll help you into Sweden" is that the implication is "this turn." the difference between this instance and the supporting of the "wrong" unit is, you can actually support the wrong unit and say "look! I tried to help! It is you who moved incorrectly." You can't say that about time frames.

One mans misdirect is another man's lie... For isntance:

"Neighbor" Would you consider supporting A into B?
"Me" OK

Then I promptly leak it to someone else and don't support it in. Is it a lie? I say no. I considered it and rejected it. Others scream "Why did you lie to me?" So, no, the pedant in me would never play this game.

Is this a game only for lawyers then? lol

Draugnar... then there's the example, Player 1: "Would you support A to B."
Player 2: "Sure".
Player 2 doesn't support A to B.
Player 1: "You lied".
Player 2: No I didn't, I was being sarcastic.

Well, I would have said "And why would I do that,e xactly?" then after hearing their reason say "OK" convincing them I was agreeing to do it when In reality I was justy acknowledging their reasons as existing.

Yep! And that's happened to me many times. lol.

A lot of people do that already... nitpick the wording of what you said, etc... I try not to lie outright, but it's nitpicky on how I do it.

Strangely enough in the field of play I much prefer an outright lie to weasel truth twisting. I'm not sure I could cope with lies being banned. The dishonesty of it would wind me up too much.