newbie question : convoying

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Hi All,

Sorry about the question being basic.

I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
following work :-

if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
dislodged ?

Many thanks in advance for any help.

SteveB.
30 answers Last reply
More about newbie question convoying
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    My personal opinion would be that the dislodgement is possible, since you
    are not yourself attacking one of your own units, but I know of at least one
    person who disagrees. This is a question that is not specifically addressed
    in the rules, and therefore a subject for a house rule. The Model House
    Rules for Non-Judge E-Mail Diplomacy, which can be found at
    http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/diplomacy/id7.html , address the problem
    as Rule VI.(7):

    (7) Convoy of an attack against a unit of the same nationality as the
    convoying fleet:
    If a player convoys another player's unit to a space occupied by one of the
    convoying player's units, the convoyed unit will

    Alternative A: not succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked.

    Alternative B: succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked if it has
    received enough valid support to do so.


    "fisab" <stevebuy@eircom.net> wrote in message
    news:b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > Sorry about the question being basic.
    >
    > I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    > supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    > following work :-
    >
    > if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    > by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    > dislodged ?
    >
    > Many thanks in advance for any help.
    >
    > SteveB.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:

    I agree that this is a subject for a house rule, but I've always
    leaned toward Alternative A in a "totality of the orders" sense,
    since you are contributing to your own dislodgement and self-dislodgement
    is prohibited. There also is a "additional level" to the problem
    with "unwanted convoys" once you choose Alternative A.

    Imagine the following orders:

    France:
    F Eng C English A Lon-Bel
    A Bel h

    England:
    A Lon-Bel
    F Nth C A Lon-Bel
    A Hol S A Lon-Bel

    I don't agree with this argument either, but some would say
    that because there exists a valid convoy route that is not
    allowed by another rule (Alternative A for self-dislodgement
    in convoys) then the convoy would FAIL.

    Jim-Bob

    >My personal opinion would be that the dislodgement is possible, since you
    >are not yourself attacking one of your own units, but I know of at least one
    >person who disagrees. This is a question that is not specifically addressed
    >in the rules, and therefore a subject for a house rule. The Model House
    >Rules for Non-Judge E-Mail Diplomacy, which can be found at
    >http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/diplomacy/id7.html , address the problem
    >as Rule VI.(7):

    >(7) Convoy of an attack against a unit of the same nationality as the
    >convoying fleet:
    >If a player convoys another player's unit to a space occupied by one of the
    >convoying player's units, the convoyed unit will

    >Alternative A: not succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked.

    >Alternative B: succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked if it has
    >received enough valid support to do so.


    >"fisab" <stevebuy@eircom.net> wrote in message
    >news:b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com...
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> Sorry about the question being basic.
    >>
    >> I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    >> supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    >> following work :-
    >>
    >> if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    >> by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    >> dislodged ?
    >>
    >> Many thanks in advance for any help.
    >>
    >> SteveB.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Jim Burgess wrote:
    >
    > I don't agree with this argument either, but some would say
    > that because there exists a valid convoy route that is not
    > allowed by another rule (Alternative A for self-dislodgement
    > in convoys) then the convoy would FAIL.

    Fascinating. Applying the rule that if at least one convoy route allows
    the move to succeed the move succeeds, then I think there is a logical
    basis for discarding unwanted convoys that would bring the self-attack
    rules into effect. Assuming, of course, that the rules actually
    specified that self-dislodging convoys are prohibited.

    My opinion is that under the 2000 rules, convoying an army that
    dislodges one of your own units is affirmatively allowed. After all,
    the prohibitions against self-dislodgement and supporting an attack that
    would dislodge your own unit are specific (they use the words "move",
    "attack", and "support", not "action"). Lacking a similar specific
    prohibition for convoys in the rules, I believe there is no ambiguity
    and such convoys are allowed.

    Whether that reflects the intent of the designer is, of course, a
    separate issue entirely.

    --
    Will Berry
    Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    stevebuy@eircom.net (fisab) wrote:

    >Hi All,
    >
    >Sorry about the question being basic.
    >
    >I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    >supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    >following work :-
    >
    >if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    >by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    >dislodged ?

    I'd say yes. I can't recall any rules for convoying fleets that are
    based on ownership of pieces.
    --
    Politas
    To reply, replace nospam with diplomacy
    http://www.livejournal.com/users/politas/
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    It depends on what set of rules you are playing by, I suppose. The question
    is whether you are "contributing" in a forbidden way, or not. You are not
    adding any attacking strength by the convoy, after all. I wonder what the
    odds are that this, and all the other rules omissions and conflicts will be
    dealt with in the next edition of the rules, one way or another. Maybe
    someone could take bets for each one. :^)


    "Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
    news:cchanl$rdp$1@pcls4.std.com...
    > "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
    >
    > I agree that this is a subject for a house rule, but I've always
    > leaned toward Alternative A in a "totality of the orders" sense,
    > since you are contributing to your own dislodgement and self-dislodgement
    > is prohibited. There also is a "additional level" to the problem
    > with "unwanted convoys" once you choose Alternative A.
    >
    > Imagine the following orders:
    >
    > France:
    > F Eng C English A Lon-Bel
    > A Bel h
    >
    > England:
    > A Lon-Bel
    > F Nth C A Lon-Bel
    > A Hol S A Lon-Bel
    >
    > I don't agree with this argument either, but some would say
    > that because there exists a valid convoy route that is not
    > allowed by another rule (Alternative A for self-dislodgement
    > in convoys) then the convoy would FAIL.
    >
    > Jim-Bob
    >
    > >My personal opinion would be that the dislodgement is possible, since you
    > >are not yourself attacking one of your own units, but I know of at least
    one
    > >person who disagrees. This is a question that is not specifically
    addressed
    > >in the rules, and therefore a subject for a house rule. The Model House
    > >Rules for Non-Judge E-Mail Diplomacy, which can be found at
    > >http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/diplomacy/id7.html , address the
    problem
    > >as Rule VI.(7):
    >
    > >(7) Convoy of an attack against a unit of the same nationality as the
    > >convoying fleet:
    > >If a player convoys another player's unit to a space occupied by one of
    the
    > >convoying player's units, the convoyed unit will
    >
    > >Alternative A: not succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked.
    >
    > >Alternative B: succeed in dislodging the unit being attacked if it has
    > >received enough valid support to do so.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >"fisab" <stevebuy@eircom.net> wrote in message
    > >news:b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com...
    > >> Hi All,
    > >>
    > >> Sorry about the question being basic.
    > >>
    > >> I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    > >> supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    > >> following work :-
    > >>
    > >> if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    > >> by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    > >> dislodged ?
    > >>
    > >> Many thanks in advance for any help.
    > >>
    > >> SteveB.
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> schreef in bericht news:cchanl$rdp$1@pcls4.std.com...
    > "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
    >
    > I agree that this is a subject for a house rule, but I've always
    > leaned toward Alternative A in a "totality of the orders" sense,
    > since you are contributing to your own dislodgement and self-dislodgement
    > is prohibited. There also is a "additional level" to the problem
    > with "unwanted convoys" once you choose Alternative A.
    You introduce new problems. Suppose you are not convoying, but
    supporting a convoying fleet, that is convoying a unit that
    dislodges your own unit.

    Forget it! Unless if you want endless discussions.

    Lucas
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    One thing is for sure. All automatic adjudicators
    allow that you convoy a unit that is dislodging
    your own unit.

    Lucas

    "fisab" <stevebuy@eircom.net> schreef in bericht news:b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > Sorry about the question being basic.
    >
    > I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    > supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    > following work :-
    >
    > if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    > by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    > dislodged ?
    >
    > Many thanks in advance for any help.
    >
    > SteveB.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    I see no problems here. If you allow dislodgment, German Fleet X is
    supporting German Fleet in Y to remain in place. Fleet Y convoys British
    army Z to X. Logically, if you are in favor allowing the unit to be
    dislodged, you should be in favor of allowing support to be cut, though I
    suppose one could come out in different ways on this (i.e., allow support to
    be cut, but not allow dislodgement). This isn't quite covered by MHR Rule
    VI.(7), so I guess I will put something in the next iteration of the MHR.

    Thank you for bringing this up, Lucas.


    P.S. I printed out the DATC, and will try to get around sometime to
    providing you with comments.


    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:40ec4609$0$2999$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    >
    > "Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> schreef in bericht
    news:cchanl$rdp$1@pcls4.std.com...
    > > "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
    > >
    > > I agree that this is a subject for a house rule, but I've always
    > > leaned toward Alternative A in a "totality of the orders" sense,
    > > since you are contributing to your own dislodgement and
    self-dislodgement
    > > is prohibited. There also is a "additional level" to the problem
    > > with "unwanted convoys" once you choose Alternative A.
    > You introduce new problems. Suppose you are not convoying, but
    > supporting a convoying fleet, that is convoying a unit that
    > dislodges your own unit.
    >
    > Forget it! Unless if you want endless discussions.
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    I say this when I am in disagreement with the results of adjudication
    programs, so I will say it when I am in agreement:

    Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another has
    absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.

    All it amounts to is a possible personal opinion of the programmer (if in
    fact the programmer even considered what the result of the particular
    adjudication by the software should be, which in some cases would be very
    doubtful).


    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:40ec4663$0$3002$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    > One thing is for sure. All automatic adjudicators
    > allow that you convoy a unit that is dislodging
    > your own unit.
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    > "fisab" <stevebuy@eircom.net> schreef in bericht
    news:b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com...
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > Sorry about the question being basic.
    > >
    > > I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    > > supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    > > following work :-
    > >
    > > if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    > > by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    > > dislodged ?
    > >
    > > Many thanks in advance for any help.
    > >
    > > SteveB.
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> writes:


    >"Jim Burgess" <burgess@TheWorld.com> schreef in bericht news:cchanl$rdp$1@pcls4.std.com...
    >> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> writes:
    >>
    >> I agree that this is a subject for a house rule, but I've always
    >> leaned toward Alternative A in a "totality of the orders" sense,
    >> since you are contributing to your own dislodgement and self-dislodgement
    >> is prohibited. There also is a "additional level" to the problem
    >> with "unwanted convoys" once you choose Alternative A.
    >You introduce new problems. Suppose you are not convoying, but
    >supporting a convoying fleet, that is convoying a unit that
    >dislodges your own unit.

    >Forget it! Unless if you want endless discussions.

    >Lucas

    But we live for endless discussions here!!! I would draw a line
    between actually CONVOYING the unit the dislodges you and supporting
    the unit that convoys the unit that dislodges you. It is well
    understood that supports ARE allowed for other purposes as long
    as they aren't to support the dislodgement. The rule is silent
    on convoys.

    Jim-Bob
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another has
    > absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.
    I do not agree with that. I have also to say that this is soooooooo
    English/American way to look to rules. I am sorry, that I have to say this.

    I you have a judge that has to interprete a law, he looks to the rules
    but also what common practice is. This combination gives the final
    judgement.

    I only wanted to say, that since all adjudicators adjudicate this way,
    that this common practice. And when I would be a GM I would always try
    to adjudicate according to the rules and common practice.

    I will not list this in the DATC, because, as I have indicated in the
    DATC, I do not list every individual opinion and I want some feeling
    that people are really playing according to such interpretation. With
    this situation, I do not have such feeling. Although, from a rules
    point of view, you might have a point, that is for me not enough to list
    it.

    Regards,

    Lucas
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Lucas B. Kruijswijk wrote:
    >>Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another has
    >>absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.
    >
    > I do not agree with that. I have also to say that this is soooooooo
    > English/American way to look to rules. I am sorry, that I have to say this.
    >
    > I you have a judge that has to interprete a law, he looks to the rules
    > but also what common practice is. This combination gives the final
    > judgement.

    This is how things are done in Louisiana, from what I hear. But of
    course, Louisiana justice is based on the French common law system. :o)

    More seriously, I think that since we still have "God" to consult when
    things get really dicey, the best way for us to gauge which
    interpretation is true is to research Calhamer's personal opinion. I
    would bet he has already addressed this issue at some point in time.

    But generally I agree with Mr. Cohen. The rules do not change according
    to a majority of adjudicator authors.

    --
    Will Berry
    Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:40ec7583$0$3002$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    >
    > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another
    has
    > > absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.

    > I do not agree with that. I have also to say that this is soooooooo
    > English/American way to look to rules. I am sorry, that I have to say
    this.

    No, it is a David Cohen way of looking at the rules. LOL


    > I you have a judge that has to interprete a law, he looks to the rules
    > but also what common practice is. This combination gives the final
    > judgement.

    Sometimes so, sometimes not so, and I am an attorney, so I have some
    knowledge of the way judges do things. If common practice is due to an
    early programmer screwing up or being lazy, should it be accorded deference?
    Not really, especially when it concerns situations that are not terribly
    common, so that there really hasn't been a body of precedent built up.


    > I only wanted to say, that since all adjudicators adjudicate this way,
    > that this common practice. And when I would be a GM I would always try
    > to adjudicate according to the rules and common practice.

    Perhaps I would care more if I needed an adjudication program.


    > I will not list this in the DATC, because, as I have indicated in the
    > DATC, I do not list every individual opinion and I want some feeling
    > that people are really playing according to such interpretation. With
    > this situation, I do not have such feeling. Although, from a rules
    > point of view, you might have a point, that is for me not enough to list
    > it.

    Which interpretation are you *not* listing?
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Jim Burgess wrote:

    > I would draw a line between actually CONVOYING the unit the
    > dislodges you and supporting the unit that convoys the unit that
    > dislodges you. It is well understood that supports ARE
    > allowed for other purposes as long as they aren't to support the
    > dislodgement. The rule is silent on convoys.

    The rules specifically state, AS AN EXCEPTION TO NORMAL
    PRACTICE, that if you support an attack which would dislodge
    your own Unit, the attack fails. No such exception has ever been
    mentioned for Convoys, in any version of the rules. Why?
    Because no such exception exists. A Convoy is not an attack; it
    is a sub-class of Movement that allows an Army to cross Sea
    spaces.

    Power X:
    Army Aaa -> Ggg
    Army Hhh SUPPORT Aaa-Ggg

    Power Y:
    Army Ggg HOLD

    Does the attack succeed? Of course it does. If we add:

    Power Y:
    Fleet Jjj Convoy Army Aaa-Ggg

    does that change the attack in any way? Not according to
    the rules.

    Eric.
    --
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> writes:

    >Jim Burgess wrote:

    >> I would draw a line between actually CONVOYING the unit the
    >> dislodges you and supporting the unit that convoys the unit that
    >> dislodges you. It is well understood that supports ARE
    >> allowed for other purposes as long as they aren't to support the
    >> dislodgement. The rule is silent on convoys.

    >The rules specifically state, AS AN EXCEPTION TO NORMAL
    >PRACTICE, that if you support an attack which would dislodge
    >your own Unit, the attack fails. No such exception has ever been
    >mentioned for Convoys, in any version of the rules. Why?
    >Because no such exception exists. A Convoy is not an attack; it
    >is a sub-class of Movement that allows an Army to cross Sea
    >spaces.

    >Power X:
    >Army Aaa -> Ggg
    >Army Hhh SUPPORT Aaa-Ggg

    >Power Y:
    >Army Ggg HOLD

    >Does the attack succeed? Of course it does. If we add:

    >Power Y:
    >Fleet Jjj Convoy Army Aaa-Ggg

    >does that change the attack in any way? Not according to
    >the rules.

    >Eric.
    >--

    I certainly agree with that, I was being hypothetical.... ;-)
    To create "endless r.g.d debates", it was fun to think about to me.

    But let me not be misunderstood, I completely agree with your
    rule interpretation. But the rule is silent on convoys, so
    someone with an extrapolating mind COULD argue conversely.

    Jim-Bob
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > Sometimes so, sometimes not so, ...

    And earlier you wrote:

    >Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another has
    >absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.
    I got you here.

    Lucas
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    I am a lawyer. I am not a judge (I have never even played on one--LOL).

    I stand by the earlier statement. The program *may* represent the opinion
    of the programmer as to any given adjudication problem, or it may just be
    the program applying itself automatically in an inappropriate fashion to a
    particular type of adjudication problem the programmer never even
    considered, or it may represent an opinion of a programmer that has now
    changed, but the program was never rewritten. I therefore accord it no
    weight. If the programmer wants to step forward and say why the program
    adjudicates the particular problem in a certain way, I may accord that
    answer significant weight.


    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:40edb590$0$3003$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    >
    > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > Sometimes so, sometimes not so, ...
    >
    > And earlier you wrote:
    >
    > >Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another
    has
    > >absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.
    > I got you here.
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy,alt.fan.joel-furr,alt.messianic (More info?)

    Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in
    news:cchs7t$n5l$1@pcls4.std.com:

    > But we live for endless discussions here!!!

    No, we live for Wispride Port Wine Cheese Food Product.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In this particular case, njudge as an ajudicator does not allow units
    to be dislodged by their own powers units, even if by convoy, as the
    test game below shows:

    ---------------

    :: Judge: USTV Game: Ct Variant: Standard
    :: Deadline: S1901M Thu Jul 15 2004 23:30:00 -0600

    Predicting turn S1901M for game 'ct'.
    *** Note: This is NOT definitive results, DO NOT DISCLOSE TO PLAYERS
    ***


    Movement orders for Spring of 1901. (ct.001)

    England: Move Required, Abandoned.
    England: Fleet North Sea CONVOY Army London -> Belgium.
    England: Army London -> North Sea -> Belgium. (*bounce*)
    England: Army Belgium HOLD.

    France: Move Required, Abandoned.
    France: Army Ruhr SUPPORT English Army London -> Belgium.

    -------------

    The code was specifically implemented to prevent self-dislodgments, no
    matter by what means said dislodgement was attempted (convoy or
    other).

    I thus understand it as a deliberate intention of the original
    programmer that it work this way and it is also mine: if njudge did
    not ajudicate this way, I would alter it to do so.

    Any judge is supposed to have a predicted way of ajudication (ideally
    conforming to the DATC, or at least stating its compliance) - all
    functionality is implemented with that in mind and any deviation is
    treated as a bug and corrected.

    Just because the judge might have an existing behaviour that is judged
    incorrect is not seen in itself a reason to continue it, unless there
    is a significant body of thought that thinks that said behaviour
    should be maintained (examples could be the explicit listing of convoy
    routes, or behaviour on not specifying coasts for coastal provinces).

    If a judge clearly defines how it is going to arbitrate moves (for
    example, against the DATC) what makes it any different from a human GM
    who provides his house rules that state essentially the same thing?

    BR,
    Millis


    "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MlkHc.90023$kz.18668900@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
    > I am a lawyer. I am not a judge (I have never even played on one--LOL).
    >
    > I stand by the earlier statement. The program *may* represent the opinion
    > of the programmer as to any given adjudication problem, or it may just be
    > the program applying itself automatically in an inappropriate fashion to a
    > particular type of adjudication problem the programmer never even
    > considered, or it may represent an opinion of a programmer that has now
    > changed, but the program was never rewritten. I therefore accord it no
    > weight. If the programmer wants to step forward and say why the program
    > adjudicates the particular problem in a certain way, I may accord that
    > answer significant weight.
    >
    >
    > "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    > news:40edb590$0$3003$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    > >
    > > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > > Sometimes so, sometimes not so, ...
    > >
    > > And earlier you wrote:
    > >
    > > >Whether an adjudication program adjudicates an order one way or another
    > has
    > > >absolutely no bearing on whether the adjudication is correct.
    > > I got you here.
    > >
    > > Lucas
    > >
    > >
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy,alt.fan.joel-furr,alt.messianic (More info?)

    "Joel K. 'Jay' Furr" <jfurr-nospam@furrs.org> writes:

    >Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote in
    >news:cchs7t$n5l$1@pcls4.std.com:

    >> But we live for endless discussions here!!!

    >No, we live for Wispride Port Wine Cheese Food Product.

    No, we really prefer "Laughing Cow", but seriously Jay,
    note that ONLY I respond to your nonsequiturs.....
    we should get you in another game so I can beat your
    butt again!

    Jim-Bob
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Millis wrote:
    > England: Fleet North Sea CONVOY Army London -> Belgium.
    > England: Army London -> North Sea -> Belgium. (*bounce*)
    > England: Army Belgium HOLD.
    >
    > France: Move Required, Abandoned.
    > France: Army Ruhr SUPPORT English Army London -> Belgium.

    These orders do not represent the issue, because an English army is
    trying to dislodge another English army. The owner of the convoying
    fleet is irrelevant. These orders would be better:

    Germany: Army Denmark -> Belgium
    Germany: Army Ruhr SUPPORT German Army Denmark -> Belgium.

    England: Fleet North Sea CONVOY Army Denmark -> Belgium.
    England: Army Belgium HOLD.


    I believe that given these orders, njudge *should* allow Denmark to move
    to Belgium, dislodging the English army. I see no basis (in the 2000
    rules, at least) for disallowing such a convoy.


    --
    Will Berry
    Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    ----------
    In article <b63db82f.0407070258.64b6aa5d@posting.google.com>,
    stevebuy@eircom.net (fisab) wrote:


    >
    >
    >Hi All,
    >
    >Sorry about the question being basic.
    >
    >I know that I cannot dislodge my own unit by attacking it myself, and
    >supporting another players' attack on it also fails but will the
    >following work :-
    >
    >if I convoy another players' army to my territory (which is occupied
    >by my army) and the other player supports the attack, will my unit be
    >dislodged ?

    Two ways to approach this: "what is not expressly forbidden is therefore
    permitted" allows the dislodge.

    Viewing the game as a simulation of warfare at the strategic and diplomatic
    level, then no fleet can be expected to willingly act as the conduit for an
    attack on their comrades in arms. This would disallow the dislodge.

    I would argue that the rules as they currently exist would appear to permit
    the dislodge. As others have mentioned, it is still possible to consult
    the views of the game's creator to determine whether the rules should be
    amended to deal with the issue.

    Ta,
    Oliver Thornton
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    millis@megamail.pt (Millis) wrote:

    >In this particular case, njudge as an ajudicator does not allow units
    >to be dislodged by their own powers units, even if by convoy, as the
    >test game below shows:

    Well, that's nice, but that's not what was being discussed. It was
    whether you could convoy another power's unit to dislodge one of your
    units.

    >
    >
    >Movement orders for Spring of 1901. (ct.001)
    >
    >England: Move Required, Abandoned.
    >England: Fleet North Sea CONVOY Army London -> Belgium.
    >England: Army London -> North Sea -> Belgium. (*bounce*)
    >England: Army Belgium HOLD.
    >
    >France: Move Required, Abandoned.
    >France: Army Ruhr SUPPORT English Army London -> Belgium.

    Make the army in London French, and that would test what was
    discussed.
    --
    Politas
    To reply, replace nospam with diplomacy
    http://www.livejournal.com/users/politas/
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:09:09 +0000 (UTC), Jim Burgess
    <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

    > Imagine the following orders:
    >
    > France:
    > F Eng C English A Lon-Bel
    > A Bel h
    >
    > England:
    > A Lon-Bel
    > F Nth C A Lon-Bel
    > A Hol S A Lon-Bel

    Imagine the slight change + addition of:

    Germany:
    A Kiel - Ruh (bounce)

    France:
    A Bel - Ruh (bounce)


    > I don't agree with this argument either, but some would say
    > that because there exists a valid convoy route that is not
    > allowed by another rule (Alternative A for self-dislodgement
    > in convoys) then the convoy would FAIL.

    Those people than forgot half of 'the other rule'. The 'other rule' is
    that a SUPPORT prevents self-dislodgement. No such thing exists for the
    convoy-order, so in both of the above examples, the English Army does
    indeed dislodge the French army in Belgium.


    --
    http://hace.dyndns.org/
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    > But generally I agree with Mr. Cohen. The rules do not change according
    > to a majority of adjudicator authors.

    Especially when it comes to games, I believe that common practice
    trumps the rule book. In any baseball game, the strike zone is
    whatever the umpire calls, not what the rulebook says. For decades in
    MLB, the actual strike zone was strikingly different from what was
    written down. Certain rules in the NBA - how one is allowed to touch
    the ball when dribbling, how many steps a star player can take when
    shooting, etc - have almost nothing to do with the offical rulebook
    and everything to do with common practice. When and where I grew up,
    everybody placed money under Free Parking in Monopoly. Quite simply,
    that is how the game was played, even though the rule book said
    otherwise (IINM, the offical rules now mention the Free Parking thing
    as a variant.)
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    salmoneous wrote:
    >
    > Especially when it comes to games, I believe that common practice
    > trumps the rule book.

    Well sure it does; the rulebook has no power to stop the players from
    going against the rules! ;-P It's really a standards problem. Do you
    follow the standard, or do you act like the other guy does (who isn't
    following the standard)?

    I don't think playing under house rules is "bad"; it is, after all, just
    a game. In the e-mail games I play in, we have been playing Fleet Rome
    for some time and are happy with it. But I do think it's important to
    always try to arrive at the "true" interpretation of the rules, canonize
    them, and treat any house rules as being relative to the standard,
    canonical rules.

    > Certain rules in the NBA - how one is allowed to touch
    > the ball when dribbling, how many steps a star player can take when
    > shooting, etc - have almost nothing to do with the offical rulebook
    > and everything to do with common practice.

    I don't think this is the best analogy, since physical-space things like
    dribbling and the strike zone are so fluid. Whether a particular way of
    dribbling is or is not actually dribbling in the referee's mind is
    inherently subjective, unlike how discrete logic rules should be
    implemented. I would rather compare dribbling rules to the concept of
    "poorly written orders". Since there are so many different ways to
    hand-write orders poorly, this issue is best left subjective and in the
    hands of the GM.

    > When and where I grew up,
    > everybody placed money under Free Parking in Monopoly. Quite simply,
    > that is how the game was played, even though the rule book said
    > otherwise (IINM, the offical rules now mention the Free Parking thing
    > as a variant.)

    I like this analogy much better. Again, I don't think that playing
    variants is "bad", as long as the variant is treated as such, that is,
    relative to the standard rules, creators' intent, etc.


    All I'm really saying is that it is fallacious to argue that since
    njudge and jDip and so many other adjudicators say X is the result, that
    that's what the official rules really mean. Absolutism, not relativism!

    --
    Will Berry
    Director, Techwood Con gaming convention
    http://www.techwoodcon.com/
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    > I don't think this is the best analogy, since physical-space things like
    > dribbling and the strike zone are so fluid. Whether a particular way of
    > dribbling is or is not actually dribbling in the referee's mind is
    > inherently subjective, unlike how discrete logic rules should be
    > implemented.

    Yes, there are some things that are fluid and made up in a particular
    referee's mind. In baseball, some umpires will give you a slightly
    wider strikezone than others. But that's not what I'm talking about.

    I am talking about systematic differences. If you look at the height
    of the strikezone in baseball, every umpire called it the same way - a
    way that was different from the rulebook. They went to umpire school
    and were taught where the stikezone was - and that strikezone was
    different than what was in the rulebook. If any umpire tried to call a
    strikezone as defined in the rulebook - as opposed to the common
    practice they were taught - they would have been reprimanded and told
    they were doing things wrong. Every pitcher, every batter played the
    game with the expectation that the strikezone would be called
    according to common practice. They (at least the batters) would be
    furious if any umpire tried to apply the official definition.

    At this point it's a semantic argument. Do the official rules still
    define the game if nobody follows them? Is baseball the game written
    down on paper, or the game everybody plays? I would say that want
    everybody plays *is* baseball, not a variant. The official rules are
    just out of date.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    salmoneous@aol.com (salmoneous) wrote [edited]:

    > > I don't think this is the best analogy, since physical-space things like
    > > dribbling and the strike zone are so fluid. Whether a particular way of
    > > dribbling is or is not actually dribbling in the referee's mind is
    > > inherently subjective, unlike how discrete logic rules should be
    > > implemented.
    >
    > Yes, there are some things that are fluid and made up in a particular
    > referee's mind. In baseball, some umpires will give you a slightly
    > wider strikezone than others. But that's not what I'm talking about.
    >
    > I am talking about systematic differences. If you look at the height
    > of the strikezone in baseball, every umpire called it the same way - a
    > way that was different from the rulebook. They went to umpire school
    > and were taught where the stikezone was - and that strikezone was
    > different than what was in the rulebook. If any umpire tried to call a
    > strikezone as defined in the rulebook - as opposed to the common
    > practice they were taught - they would have been reprimanded and told
    > they were doing things wrong. Every pitcher, every batter played the
    > game with the expectation that the strikezone would be called
    > according to common practice. They (at least the batters) would be
    > furious if any umpire tried to apply the official definition.
    >
    > At this point it's a semantic argument. Do the official rules still
    > define the game if nobody follows them? Is baseball the game written
    > down on paper, or the game everybody plays? I would say that want
    > everybody plays *is* baseball, not a variant. The official rules are
    > just out of date.

    Was that the American League's strike zone you were talking about, or
    the National League's? (If you were in Japan the question would be
    Central League or Pacific League, I suppose. LOL)


    The analogy might be applicable if everyone actually played the same
    way, with regard to various rule issues. They do not, so it is not.
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrotes:
    > The analogy might be applicable if everyone actually played the same
    > way, with regard to various rule issues. They do not, so it is not.
    You are generalizing things in an unfounded way. There are indeed issues
    which are highly disputed and played very different. Such as the coast
    specification in a support order.

    However, you can't generalize to all issues. Such generalization is
    illogical. There are issues which might not be that clear in the
    rulebook, but given the way are adjudicators are programmed (and
    considered correct to the users), houserules and other discussions
    a good judgement can be made how the game should be played.

    By the way, the rulebook can't never be perfect, since English is
    a natural language.

    Regards,

    Lucas
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Sure I can generalize. Whether I would be correct to do so is another
    story. ;^) And if everyone agreed about issues, then they wouldn't *be*
    *issues*. LOL

    Seriously, the discussion has been specifically about things that
    (presumably) informed people are in disagreement over, so "good judgment"
    can cut more than one way.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net>
    Newsgroups: rec.games.diplomacy
    Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 5:10 PM
    Subject: Re: newbie question : convoying


    >
    > "David E. Cohen" wrotes:
    > > The analogy might be applicable if everyone actually played the same
    > > way, with regard to various rule issues. They do not, so it is not.
    > You are generalizing things in an unfounded way. There are indeed issues
    > which are highly disputed and played very different. Such as the coast
    > specification in a support order.
    >
    > However, you can't generalize to all issues. Such generalization is
    > illogical. There are issues which might not be that clear in the
    > rulebook, but given the way are adjudicators are programmed (and
    > considered correct to the users), houserules and other discussions
    > a good judgement can be made how the game should be played.
    >
    > By the way, the rulebook can't never be perfect, since English is
    > a natural language.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Lucas
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Basic Video Games