Well (If it is Classic), you could probably assign each country a certain number of other countries that it can talk to, based off of who's around them.

For example:

Italy can talk to Austria, Turkey, and France.
France can talk to England, Italy, and Germany.


That way we don't have a Turkey ending up with England.

Turkey could send messages to England on how to deal with Russia.

If you get the right people, this can work really well. I'll give it a shot

Interesting idea. I assume that they people you'd be allowed to talk to would change each year or two? Also, you'd be allowed to read incoming messages, but not necessarily respond right?

The honesty is just in holding yourself to which two countries you can talk to, right? I can tell Austria that I can talk to Italy for him even if I can't, right?

partially, but I think everyone should know who each person is allowed to talk to. That might make it easier to enforce the rules.

I disagree. If no one knew, then you could manipulate people better, and Diplomacy is about manipulation.

If its the same people for the entire game it could work, but if we're changing every year, how do we ensure people actually are talking to someone different?

What about this as a possibility-

what if each player got a chance to 'shut-down' someone's communication? I'm thinking that right when a spring season starts, 1 (or 2) players send a message to another player stating that their communication to [receiver] has been shut down for the year. They can do this immediately if they are smart, or if they drag their feet then it is simply unfortunate time wasted for them.

Everyone will know who had the ability to perform the.. shall we say... 'comm-attack' during that year, but noone will know what line was shut down (except of course for the person's who's comm was shut down [sender], and that was only between 1 other player, the [receiver]).

For example, spring '01 Italy has a comm-attack so he sends Austria(sender) a message stating: "your communication to Russia [receiver] has been disabled." The receiver will not hear anything, and will just be lost in confusion. At the end of the year during the build phase, the 'comm-attacking' country will announce what line was disabled, to clear up the confusion and verify that fair gameplay was enacted. It still will be honor based, and the receiver will be held to honor system to verify that no message was recieved from the sender.

I think it would be fun with an even number of players, where 2 countries get a comm-attack each year. The template could be drawn up before the game starts.

Get seven people who aren't jerks.

unless you guys think it will be better to destroy an entire line of communication, instead of just a 1-way disabling.

@Drano - you're totally on the money.

@Raro - I think your idea could also work, although I personally saw more communication mayhem.

I also don't mind Sacred's idea about being able to pass on comms about what other players are saying, the flip side allowing for a bit of Dip mischief.

The good part so far (based on forum responses) is we're getting interest from respectable players. Newbies could play but i don't think it'd be as good. Maybe set it so only reasonably experienced players are in?

It would definitely have to not be anon. You would need the time stamps to know that someone has indeed read your message. How would global work?

Global should probably be reserved for asking for pauses/extends and other similar business. anything else and you risk people using it to circumvent the system

Sounds weird seeing I suggested this game idea, but I'm too over committed now signing up for (gratuitous plug) all those awesome Pirate games ;-)