[RIGHT]– A life in Exile - The Diaries of Sultan Garius of Turkey[/RIGHT]
That, sir, was genius!
Hey its true - i had fucking Russia on its knees you silly sod. We could have kicked arse! 
This time I shall endeavour to truly stick it to the Russkies. Unless they end up being me. In which case I shall crush the soulless life from their bodies, as any great Russian leader would his own people.
Well, except the fact that you never sent me an email and others got in ahead of you early this morning. I say you team up with Garius and fight Ming!
Le jeu s’ont fait!
Our players:
Lobsang - England
Garfield - Turkey
Lockz - Germany
grimpixie - Italy
Garius - Russia
Omniscient - France
??? - Austria
Note that Austria hasn’t yet identified his handle to me and therefore he’s a man of mystery. I’m sure not giving his real name here.
There will be a web site up shortly for the game.
I thought there might have been one of those email catches but I didn’t read the OP carefully enough. When you start droning on about the rules and all my ADD/ADHD kicks in. 
Anyway, I can be your stand by for when you need a replacement. Want me to send an email to verify that?
Oops, sorry. Austria checking in. Ready to beat you girlie men.
Before we start, I’d like a little clarification on the rules. Actually, not so much the rules as the flavor of play.
Two months ago I was fortunate enough to be involved in two LARPs, both based on Harn. While that is a FRPG, both of these LARPs were completely diceless, mapless, and statless. Both involved nothing but negotiations, and all matters were settled at roundtable discussions (or backroom deals). Sometimes the backroom discussions would go on for hours. Promises were made, alliances were made, kept, and broken, and there was much backstabbing.
In case you’re curious, one LARP involved a dead king who didn’t name a successor. He left behind no fewer than 15 sons, cousins, neices, and nephews who all had some claim to the throne. We spent about 4 hours in private negotiations before the first council was even convened.
The other was about two factions of clan heads locked in a dispute about a knife. (and a supposed “victim” who was locked in a room with an 8-year-girl, who he claimed beat him up, when it was clear that he just fell down on some furniture. Repeatedly.) The dispute escalated into discussions of trade agreements, accusations of piracy, and ideological (and religious) battles between the conservative and liberal factions. All of this was moderated by the king, who, of course, had his own agenda. Once again, negotiations lasted about 4 hours, while actual roundtable discussions lasted only about an hour.
Years before this, I played a lot of Risk. While the rules encourage diplomacy, I found that we were far more concerned with building armies and being rules lawyers than with discussion. It pretty much devolved into a standard boardgame. Alliances were usually little more than “Let’s not attack each other for 3 turns, OK?” In the computer game, this is all they are.
So what is Diplomacy like? Are people more concerned with the map than with discussion? I find it interesting that the rules spend the bulk of pages on armies, support, and convoys, and a scant paragraph on negotiations.
Can someone give me an example of how negotiations might go? What might be a typical “deal”? What percentage of the game would be given to discussion as opposed to mechanical tactics?
Bear in mind that I’m up for this either way, but I’d like to know what I’m getting into.
Do you want preliminary orders and final orders? Also, will we be using press?
I’ve never played but always wanted to. Will you except a newb?
This game is already full but perhaps one of the other GMs around will offer to start one.
Prelims will be accepted but are not required. I prefer press be sent by players. I don’t allow anonymous press in my games unless that specific game is designed for such.
tdn, one gets out of Diplomacy what you put into it. Simply put, one cannot win a game of Diplomacy without negotiating (heavily) with the other players unless one knows that none of the others are negotiating either. There is a variant called ‘gunboat Diplomacy’ that entails no negotiations but it’s more a tactics game than a strategy game. If I were to play in a gunboat game in which two players were allowed to communicate but none of the others were I would lay HEAVY odds that the two who communicate would win…big and fast.
Negotiations are the heart and soul of the game. The reason they’re not defined in the rules (other than 15 minutes and ‘no negotiating during retreats and winter’) is that there is little to define. “GO FORTH…SPEAK” would look odd in the rules.
In short, the Diplomacy rules are there to provide the mechanics. The players make the game.
Here’s a resource site for you all: The Diplomatic Pouch.
When are we starting?
Also, are you going to email us the names of everyone along with their email addresses?
Shortly, actually.
The site for the game is up!
http://www.wooleysark.com/dip/SDMB
I have decided to name this game…Heartspark Dollarsign.
Go forth, negotiate. All that you need is on that page, maps, contacts, what-have-you.
Rules questions and such go to me. You know how to reach me!
Italy eh?? That’ll teach me for not expressing a preference at the outset
Pizza has already conqured the world, why shouldn’t I do the same?
Grim
Three real quick questions from the newbie here, also copied to Jonathan Chance:
- I’m a little unclear on how to get new forces. Let’s say, for example, that I’m playing Austria (as a random example :)).
My first move is A bud-rum in the spring. In the fall, I move A rum-bul. In both cases, all of my holdings are uncontested. Does this mean that I get 2 new forces in the fall, in bud and rum, since I last controlled both supply centers, for a total of 5?
Let’s then say that I move A bul-gre, and for some reason get disbanded from vie and bud. Since I still control rum and bul, do I get more forces there again, for a total of three? (I still hold tri). Assuming vie and bud remain unoccupied, do I still get more forces there? Or do I have to retake them?
The rules are sort of unclear on this.
-
The rules list 2 seasons – spring and fall. The SDMB page lists winter as well. What’s up with that?
-
Can my e-mail addy be changed to nealtodd@comcast.net? I’d rather play from home than from work. Yes, this means that all of my replies to negotiations will be made at around 7-9pm EST (12-2am GMT), but at least I won’t get fired that way.
Sorry about my thickness here, I fully intend to be well-versed in the rules by submission of first orders.
I’m not Dirty Mary, y’know. You can say my name aloud.
You know what would be neat? A Chaos game. Boy, it sure would be hard to win one of those games. 
OK, if 7 more people want to play, I’ll run the overflow game. Post here if you’re interested.
Hey! I just checked your webpage, and you never completed the last turn on Penguin Hearding or listed the eventual winner on the index page. Whatta ya trying to pull? Trying to diminish the glory of Holland, are you? :wally
Right, no problem. It’s what I’m here for.
Supply Centers (SC in the lingo) can be OCCUPIED in any Spring or Fall turn. But CONTROL (and therefore ownership) is only determined at the end of the FALL turn.
So in your scenario below you have
A bud – rum then A rum – bul.
So you would NOT be occupying rum in the fall therefore you do NOT control it. For purposes of building new units you may ONLY get credit for bul.
New units are built when, at the end of the fall turn your number of SC’s controlled EXCEEDS your number of units. If this is the case you may build new units. If your number of SC’s controls is FEWER than the number of units you must DISBAND units until your UNITS are equal to your SC.
Note, also, that units may ONLY be built in your home SC (the ones you begin the game with). Note also that each province may only have one unit at a time in it. So if you have the right to build 3 units but two of your home SCs are occupied by your own forces you only get to build one unit that turn. So heads up.
As for turns the game flows in this manner (more detailed than in the rules):
Spring Orders
Spring Retreats
Fall Orders
Fall Retreats
Winter (Builds and Disbands)
Calling it ‘Winter’ is merely player shorthand for that space of time used for builds and disbands.
Note, again, that units may also be disbanded in three other ways.
- If a unit is dislodged by an attack and has no possible retreat then that unit is destroyed and may not be replaced until the next Winter phase in which you are eligible to build a unit.
- If two units (from any countries) are dislodged and submit retreats to the same space then they are both disbanded.
- If one of your units is dislodged you may ELECT to disband it instead of retreating to an adjacent space. This is rare but circumstances do bring it about.
Also, remember that you may NOT retreat to any space that has been contested the previous turn.
How’s that?