Quote from: SobekCan it be learned on-line? I'd love to try, but I've never even seen an open box.

The rules are fairly simple.

Here are the rules online:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm

There are servers around for managing moves and recording where pieces are.

Having played the same game with phoamslinger (and met the same fate), I would agree to playing under the same Highlander rules.

It's a fun, fun game--simple mechanics, endless complexity

Quote from: NicephorusThe rules are fairly simple.

Here are the rules online:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm

There are servers around for managing moves and recording where pieces are.

If I was considering this, (and I am) which version of the rules should I be reading through?

In terms of playing the actual game, all we used to do was submit our moves to the GM, who posted a .gif map on the MB demonstrating our movement results (and also posted the text moves).  I still have the last game archived, and can post samples if folks would like.

I had no idea there were other versions of the rules floating around.  The game I'm considering would be simply the core Diplomacy rules, whatever version is more recent.

I love Diplomacy. Unfortunately, outside of conventions, I almost never get to play, when we have that many players it always gets turned to roleplaying. I went so far as to write out my opening move for every country, depending on what country (player) I wanted to eliminate first, and gave them WAR GAMES-style combat scenario names like "French Fry" and "Austria Hungry".

I understand the sentiments expressed by those who would only play with enemies. Rob Shetland said, "That game is evil. Richard Smith stabbed me in the back, and he's the nicest person on the face of the earth."

I don't know that online would be as good, though. I think it would be lacking. Certainly it would be lacking the ability to punch people in the face, which all games need to achieve a certain level of fairness.

As for the point about several people declaring a mutual tie, that does seem wrong, but I can understand a 2-person tie, if for no other reason that by that point, you've got up to 5 other players sitting around bored waiting for the next game to start...or drifting off to other distractions, meaning there would be no next game.