i know its probably a bit early seeing as how we just started the first two games of this type, but im already thinking about the map for the next one, im thinking crowded, but im open to feedback

What about modern diplomacy?

I just want to say that this all treaty and announcement tasks drastically incease the time effort you will spent in such a game. With 7 player it is on the edge to be too complicated. With 10 players it might be a complete mess. So I recommend maps with fewer or equal number of players rather than more. Just think about the theoretically number of all possible bilateral treaties!
However, we can try out what happens in a big game.

It could turn out a Disaster, but what fun would a 4 or 5 player game be? not much... I think Modern or Crowded would be amazing to try out...

Since coloration doesn't matter for SC's, I assume it doesn't matter for non-SC land also? In other words, it's fine to move into a pink Argentinian unoccupied non-SC without declaring war.

Unless it's a DMZ.

Then war will be declared on you.

yeah even if it isnt they can still declare war on you, it depends on how defensive the individual player wants to be

how about playing these rules on karibik or 1880?

It may be very interesting with more players, but could cause conflict two, I am already predicting a big mess with all these treaties in War! but it may be very enjoyable to play in that chaos.

yeah, chaos would be interesting to see, but with 34 people it would be hard to keep up with what is going on, i know it works on stardard european style maps with 7 players, and it seems to work well on south american supremacy, it has so far on this site and it was working well on the other too, colonial might work, havent tried it yet

of course im toying with the idea on world map, but that might be too many people, but im thinking of trying to come up with a global map scenario, basically a team game thats a cold war gone hot scenario, warsaw pact versus nato with neutral thrown in, but i dont know how that would work

***RULE DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION***
Due to the current events in the game "WAR!" (gameID=43) I'd like to start the discussion about the rules again as there seem to be several interpretations.

Just to summarize: We all clearly agreed on that SC owned by a player are protected by the war declaration rule which says that a player must declare war 6 months before he may attack a Supply Center occupied by another player.
There was also only little to none discussion about that non-SC territories owned by a player are also protected by the war declaration rule.
But there is a lot of disagreement on the so called "costal waters". Are they protected by the rule or not. What are costal waters actually? And what about the unclear cases like the English Channel bordering on France and Britain.

About the last issue I propose the following:
Costal waters are NOT protected by the war declaration rule. They may be attacked and conquered by everyone without a declaration of war. But the attack on occupied costal waters can be considered as an act of war authorizing the defender to declare war immediately without the 6 month latency. This applies to EVERY territory considered costal waters including the English Channel.

Speaking of instant war declarations I'd like to discuss these, too. They should be only allowed to be announced directly after they had been triggered. I.e. Britain attacks Mid Atlantic Ocean which is considered costal waters of France. France must declare instant war directly afterwards. Otherwise it must be assumed that France tolerates the attack and/or occupation. This rule should apply for every case of instant war declaration for instance if they are part of treaties or announcements like "Attack region X and me and my allies will crush you faster than you can say war declaration".

I agree with Sandmann's approach.

True. This is a very kind application of the "waiting rule" that protects SC. Entering costal waters allows the adjuncted country to declare instant war. The waiting rule does not apply then. But from the perspective of the adjuncted SC, the rule DOES apply. Because the attacked country has "enough" time to set up the defense of the SC. In the later case it could also be an advantege not to declare war though the owned SC are safe, thus tolerating the hostile navy in front of your living room.
Ironically, this seems having became a defense strategy in our current game making owned SC protected. E.g. it seems that France will not declare war to England because it sees his navy in a disadvantagerous position compared to the Royal Navy. (?)
However, this game - and this discussion is the living proof- is much more diplomatic and complicated and funny than other dull games.

seas can be free game if majority agrees, i mainly wanted to do the war declaration rule to prevent brutal stabs that completely destroy a persons game, that and i like the rants :D

I am cool with all that, just the preconditions for war were unclear re: coastal waters prior to this clarification. Previously it was unclear if the attack on coastal waters occupied by another (eg Wales to EC with a French fleet in EC) was itself a nonverbal declaration of war. This ruling infers it is not, and it is still up to the aggrieved party to declare war. I'm fine with this, but again if we had this rule clear from the start a different set of outcomes would've occured.

I'm also assuming England's original unsuccessful of Wales to EC (which failed), based on these sets of rules, could've resulted in me declaring war right then and attacking in spring 1904. Again, this wasn't clear and I would've successfully taken the North Sea based on the plan I had in place once it was clear war had arisen.

Based on what's been discussed here and global it is appropropriate at a minimum for England to take EC back to Wales and allow sufficient time for me to rebuild a fleet in Brest etc to make the presmise of the game true to what was intended and true to this new clarification on the rules.

Plus it'd give more time for the peace conference to meet and discuss these and other high matters of state as our man servants groom our pegusi and unicorns.

I agree with The Ambassador's opinion.
Since the rules have not been 100% clear (and I promise you, they will never be perfectly clear) England should withdraw from EC. France therefore can rebuild the crushed fleet. We can value this as a first success of the future peace conference.

Just for my clarification. If Country A attacks, destroys or what ever country B's fleet in neutral/coastal areas, this implies that the attacked nation has the right for immediate declaration of war w/o the waiting rule applied? I stress out that B CAN declare war, not that he is forced to do so. As I said earlier on this thread, be passive and tolerate this violation might be part of a very sensibile defense strategy, protecting home SC that might be in danger. However, nobody hinders the attacker A to declare war, Then the waiting rule applies.

The attack from A can be done w/o any form of declaraton before, and the immediate declaration of war also can be executed w/o having an explicit treaty/announcement or what ever. But reasonable diplomats, and I presume that we all are reasonable diplomats, will set up a globally posted treaty in advance to inform the rest of all player about his concerns.

Just to prevent misunderstandings. What I posted is just a proposal how I'd like the rules to be. I'm glad that everyone so far seems to like it.
Ambassador is absolutely right saying that a different interpretation of the rules would've affected his order significantly. The same goes for my orders.
I'm also willing to revert the game and replay with the "improved" rules. Giving France the English Channel would be an advantage for France in my opinion so I'd revert to a point where EC was still DMZ. This way no side would profit from the reversion. I would, of course, let France build up the crushed fleet and get into position.

@Betrachter: Yes, it's meant exactly the way you described it. The defender CAN declare war and strike back in every possible way immediately. The attacker, though, must declare war and can only attack SCs and occupied land territories with the common 6 month latency.

Oh, the last sentence is mistakable. I mean the attack must declare war before he may attack an SC or occupied land territory.

@Sandmann - ok, I'm cool with that. A good diplomat knows when its best to compromise ;-)

<just as long as Wikileaks doesn't tell the world about it later on!>

LOL. Yes, I fully agree. And a good compromise is when all sides think they've gotten the largest piece of the pie. :)

Is somebody interessed about how the German Secret Service is thinking about the leadership of Russia? Or the Pope? There are rumors that German spies have installed a hidden camera into the Pope's bedroom chamber......Interessting material, indeed :-)

The Pope has no comment on the last sentence other than he dismisses it and will send one of his pegusi to fly to the ceiling (since to Pope is to short to reach) and to kick the camera and destroy it with its hooves.

which russian leadership? the czar or the president? or maybe lenins shadow government....