newbie question : convoying

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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
>
>

 

[Guest]

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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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. )

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/

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.
--

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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
>
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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/

 

[hace]

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/