@Dogberry

You're right, and this isn't about strategy so much as the rules of the game, so the only reason to post it there is so it'll be taken seriously.

I don't get why we're discouraged from posting serious topics here, though. Is there not an off-topic board for that reason?

I have encountered that quite a few times in open diplos too (diplos that are not based on invites, but are in the open games tab). I usually just answer with the argument that every diplo-player knows that both have to wait 1 turn. I have always been supported with that argument so far, because its true and thus never really faced a problem with that.
Since I plan my wars ahead and usually move my armies to the front 2 turns before the war starts, counter attacks are usually rendered useless. (Moving to the front in Turn 1, declaring in T2, Waiting out T3, destroying in T4)

TL; DR

If you plan ahead, and dont attack players that are significantly stronger than you, you usually will win nonetheless.

I agree with this: a pre-emptive strike is just as bad as the defender as the attacker.

I think this is yet another reason to get rid of altogether ridiculous and pointless "declaration of war" rules. All they do is cause arguments, and limit the very interesting aspects of *diplomacy* that people are apparently playing for.

If you want a mostly peaceful game, use settings to achieve that. For instance, a very high defensive kill percentage will achieve your desired outcome quite nicely. :)

I've spoken of this before here:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/160624-diplomacy-dumbies

@ M. Poireau
You have the right idea. Ideally, declaration of war rules would be unnecessary. I've been in several games where a form of this has been tried as an potion to attack the same turn as declaring, but for an rp diplomatic penalty. Unfortunately, all it takes is one jerk with a big country to ruin the whole setup, and usually rp penalties aren't enough to dissuade people from a good attack opportunity. I've even seen this happen in exclusive diplos. Any game made along those lines would have to have a very, very carefully selected list of players.

It doesn't sound like you used settings to encourage the type of play you want.

Why don't you want "one big country" to act as a tyrant and invade others? That's an important question to answer. (It doesn't sound bad to me! So, why?)

Using the right setup to encourage that behaviour is all you need.

For example:

Want more of a democratic feel to the proceedings? Include a good number of Sanctions cards.

A group which agrees to take someone down will now almost always succeed.

If you have a large, powerful country which preys on the weak, the little countries can work together and apply Sanctions to the bully.

There are many such "tricks" you can use to get the gameplay you want, without all the weird rules and the arguments, disagreements, and pointless rules debates which come with them.

Edited 8/10/2016 00:28:32

While I still think your point is solid, I would argue that this poses problems of its own.

A central tenet of irl diplomacy is the power large nations hold over little ones. Even coalitions of little states can't stand up to superpowers much of the time.

In addition, these kind of rules would work to eliminate war entirely, which, as I see it, isn't the aim here.

Remove the idea of waiting a turn and keep declaring war in your game. If you need to disadvantage a large country, make it so where you don't need to declare on them.

Had a good game with a large warmonger, ended up making him give me lots of land, and his vassal of Austria, even when I was weaker than him. He wasn't very smart. Point is, warmongers can be ok in diplomacies.

No they can, they can absolutely move it along, but usually warmongering is looked down upon, and thus 1 of the limiting factors of war in diplomacies.

I'm not really keen on the idea of eliminating the wait-a-turn rule, possibly because of my own bias, but I think it's more that it seems like kind of the lynch-pin rule of diplomacies. i do like the idea of gearing the settings to discourage it, that's a lot less micromanaging and stress for the host than having to constantly clarify and intervene based on a series of rules. Thanks for the suggestion M. Poireau.

@Cauta Clauda, I'm surprised you haven't run into any issues. I think...about 4 times now I've had to remind people that both wait, and then they've argued over it with me. I feel like either people are telling eachother this idea as a new tactic, or they just pick up on and try it. A lot of times, no one really disagrees with them, they just go with it. It leaves me somewhat perplexed tbh.

I think I'm going to with M. Poireau's suggestion.

Davidian:

If you click through to the link I posted earlier, you'll find a lot of other discussion and suggestion along those lines. Hope it helps!