Rules Clarification

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

First off, apologies if this has been asked before.

Anyways, I searched the rules for clarification, but I can't find the
exact issue addressed, so I figured I'd ask here.

Basic layout of the area in question:

English F Barent's Sea
Russian A St. Petersburg
German A Norway
German F Sweden

The moves were as follows:

F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
A St. Petersburg -> Norway
A Norway -> St. Petersburg
F Sweden -> Norway

Now, the dispute arises over what happens with Norway. England
believes that the army in Norway gets displaced, and Russia moves in,
effectively blocking the F Sweden -> Norway. Germany, on the other
hand, believes that F Sweden -> Norway is still blocked, but that
Norway is vacant (since the army is dislodged but has nowhere to
retreat to). Since no one can agree on what happens, it was decided
to go to an uninvolved third-party (you guys) for a final decision.

Thanks in advance.
14 answers Last reply
More about rules clarification
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    The move of A StP-Nwy is supported by F Bar and therefore has an
    attacking strength of two. The moves of A Nwy-StP and F Swe-Nwy are
    not supported, and each have an attacking strength of one, but those
    strengths do *not* get combined. The head to head battles are each
    decided 2v1 in favor of A StP. F Swe remains in Swe. A Nwy is
    dislodged, and may disband or retreat to Fin (unless there was a
    unit/activity in Fin that was not mentioned).

    andrew.gammell@gmail.com (Andrew Gammell) wrote in message news:<1252c25b.0408302156.771849b9@posting.google.com>...
    > First off, apologies if this has been asked before.
    >
    > Anyways, I searched the rules for clarification, but I can't find the
    > exact issue addressed, so I figured I'd ask here.
    >
    > Basic layout of the area in question:
    >
    > English F Barent's Sea
    > Russian A St. Petersburg
    > German A Norway
    > German F Sweden
    >
    > The moves were as follows:
    >
    > F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A Norway -> St. Petersburg
    > F Sweden -> Norway
    >
    > Now, the dispute arises over what happens with Norway. England
    > believes that the army in Norway gets displaced, and Russia moves in,
    > effectively blocking the F Sweden -> Norway. Germany, on the other
    > hand, believes that F Sweden -> Norway is still blocked, but that
    > Norway is vacant (since the army is dislodged but has nowhere to
    > retreat to). Since no one can agree on what happens, it was decided
    > to go to an uninvolved third-party (you guys) for a final decision.
    >
    > Thanks in advance.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In message <1252c25b.0408302156.771849b9@posting.google.com>, Andrew
    Gammell <andrew.gammell@gmail.com> writes
    >First off, apologies if this has been asked before.
    >
    >Anyways, I searched the rules for clarification, but I can't find the
    >exact issue addressed, so I figured I'd ask here.
    >
    >Basic layout of the area in question:
    >
    >English F Barent's Sea
    >Russian A St. Petersburg
    >German A Norway
    >German F Sweden
    >
    >The moves were as follows:
    >
    >F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    >A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    >A Norway -> St. Petersburg
    >F Sweden -> Norway
    >
    >Now, the dispute arises over what happens with Norway. England
    >believes that the army in Norway gets displaced, and Russia moves in,

    Correct. A St.P is moving with the force of two, so it is stronger than
    both the unsupported A Nor and the unsupported F Swe.

    >effectively blocking the F Sweden -> Norway.

    Correct.

    >Germany, on the other
    >hand, believes that F Sweden -> Norway is still blocked,

    Correct.

    >but that
    >Norway is vacant

    well, apart from the Russian army that just moved there -

    > (since the army is dislodged but has nowhere to
    >retreat to).

    Being unable to retreat does not mean that it can stay in place. It
    means that it gets disbanded.

    >Since no one can agree on what happens, it was decided
    >to go to an uninvolved third-party (you guys) for a final decision.
    >
    >Thanks in advance.

    Nick
    --
    Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "Andrew Gammell"
    > Anyways, I searched the rules for clarification, but I can't find the
    > exact issue addressed, so I figured I'd ask here.
    >
    > Basic layout of the area in question:
    >
    > English F Barent's Sea
    > Russian A St. Petersburg
    > German A Norway
    > German F Sweden
    >
    > The moves were as follows:
    >
    > F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A Norway -> St. Petersburg
    > F Sweden -> Norway
    >
    > Now, the dispute arises over what happens with Norway. England
    > believes that the army in Norway gets displaced, and Russia moves in,
    > effectively blocking the F Sweden -> Norway.
    That is correct. The move from St.Petersburg has power 2, beating the
    power of Norway and Sweden, because they have all power 1.

    > Germany, on the other hand, believes that F Sweden -> Norway is
    > still blocked, but that Norway is vacant (since the army is
    > dislodged but has nowhere to retreat to).
    This is incorrect.

    > Since no one can agree on what happens, it was decided
    > to go to an uninvolved third-party (you guys) for a final decision.
    You can also use an automatic adjudicator. You can find several on the
    the Diplomacy page, www.diplom.org and then Online Resources.

    There are three with DATC tested adjudicators:
    JDip, DipTool and PalmPolitik.

    But Realpolitik is also rather reliable.

    Regards,

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

    Andrew Gammell wrote:
    > F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    > A Norway -> St. Petersburg
    > F Sweden -> Norway

    Stp succeeds into Nwy.
    The German army in Nwy may retreat to Fin.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Thanks to everyone who posted a response. I agreed with England on
    the results, but seeing as this was the first game of everyone
    involved, I thought it would be best to check with someone else to
    make sure.

    Thanks also to the people who mentioned the various tools available.
    I tried a few, and found one that I like (jDip). So I won't be
    bombarding you with questions anymore.

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

    Nick Wedd <nick@maproom.co.uk> writes:

    >In message <1252c25b.0408302156.771849b9@posting.google.com>, Andrew
    >Gammell <andrew.gammell@gmail.com> writes
    >>First off, apologies if this has been asked before.
    >>
    >>Anyways, I searched the rules for clarification, but I can't find the
    >>exact issue addressed, so I figured I'd ask here.
    >>
    >>Basic layout of the area in question:
    >>
    >>English F Barent's Sea
    >>Russian A St. Petersburg
    >>German A Norway
    >>German F Sweden
    >>
    >>The moves were as follows:
    >>
    >>F Barent's Sea S A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    >>A St. Petersburg -> Norway
    >>A Norway -> St. Petersburg
    >>F Sweden -> Norway
    >>
    >> (since the army is dislodged but has nowhere to
    >>retreat to).

    >Being unable to retreat does not mean that it can stay in place. It
    >means that it gets disbanded.

    Can't the army retreat to Finland???
    That's important.

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

    Feel free to continue to bombard, and do not follow the adjudication
    program's adjudications without carefully reviewing them. Some have bugs,
    and all have as their basis a rulebook which is, in places, either vague or
    incomplete, and they therefore reflect the opinions of their programmers,
    who have to fill in the holes. In other words:

    The programs all get it wrong, some of the time, just like a human GM.


    "Andrew Gammell" <andrew.gammell@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1252c25b.0408311142.44645478@posting.google.com...
    > Thanks to everyone who posted a response. I agreed with England on
    > the results, but seeing as this was the first game of everyone
    > involved, I thought it would be best to check with someone else to
    > make sure.
    >
    > Thanks also to the people who mentioned the various tools available.
    > I tried a few, and found one that I like (jDip). So I won't be
    > bombarding you with questions anymore.
    >
    > - Andrew
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > Feel free to continue to bombard, and do not follow the adjudication
    > program's adjudications without carefully reviewing them. Some have bugs,
    > and all have as their basis a rulebook which is, in places, either vague or
    > incomplete, and they therefore reflect the opinions of their programmers,
    > who have to fill in the holes. In other words:
    >
    > The programs all get it wrong, some of the time, just like a human GM.
    JDip is tested with the DATC, following all the preferences.

    The idea that adjudicators can't be made without bugs, is history.

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

    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message news:<41357a6c$0$284$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net>...
    > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > Feel free to continue to bombard, and do not follow the adjudication
    > > program's adjudications without carefully reviewing them. Some have bugs,
    > > and all have as their basis a rulebook which is, in places, either vague or
    > > incomplete, and they therefore reflect the opinions of their programmers,
    > > who have to fill in the holes. In other words:
    > >
    > > The programs all get it wrong, some of the time, just like a human GM.
    > JDip is tested with the DATC, following all the preferences.
    >
    > The idea that adjudicators can't be made without bugs, is history.
    >
    > Lucas

    Hello Lucas. Not what what I said. I find it easy to believe there
    are adjudication programs out there that have no bugs (whether of not
    that program is DATC compliant is another thing entirely). I am not
    aware of any adjudication programs that would give results in all
    instances that I would consider to be correct, and I am sure I'm not
    the only person to have that opinion. Non-bugginess and correctness
    are two different issues.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > Hello Lucas. Not what what I said. I find it easy to believe there
    > are adjudication programs out there that have no bugs (whether of not
    > that program is DATC compliant is another thing entirely). I am not
    > aware of any adjudication programs that would give results in all
    > instances that I would consider to be correct, and I am sure I'm not
    > the only person to have that opinion. Non-bugginess and correctness
    > are two different issues.
    Well, I don't want a discussion about what is "correct". I conside the
    rules just ambiguous.

    However, if you say:
    "Feel free to continue to bombard, and do not follow the adjudication
    program's adjudications without carefully reviewing them. Some have bugs,"

    If you use JDip, which Andrew have chosen, then you don't do justice to
    the quality of the program. JDip is DATC tested and uses a very reliable
    decision based algorithm. So, it is very likely that the program on the
    technical part of adjudication is without bugs and there is for the reasons
    of bugs no necessity for 'carefully reviewing'.

    You further write:
    "and all have as their basis a rulebook which is, in places, either vague or
    incomplete, and they therefore reflect the opinions of their programmers,
    who have to fill in the holes."

    I consider this simply incorrect for JDip (DipTool and Palmpolitik). They
    are based on the preferences of the DATC. This is not just the 'opinion
    of the programmer'. I don't say that this is the correct interpretation,
    nor that this is the consensus on the internet, but at least it is a
    little bit more than just the 'opinion of the programmer'. At least it
    is a reviewed document.

    So, my advice to Andrew, just take the output of JDip. As beginner in the
    rules you can't beat the knowledge in that program. Don't review the
    adjudication, just take the output and make the output of that tool
    your houserules.

    But, with the note, that indeed JDip, follows just one interpretation
    (at least a reasonable one) of the rules. However, to choose an other
    interpretation would require a deep study of all the ins and outs of
    the rules.

    Regards,

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

    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:41378465$0$278$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    >
    > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > Hello Lucas. Not what what I said. I find it easy to believe there
    > > are adjudication programs out there that have no bugs (whether of not
    > > that program is DATC compliant is another thing entirely). I am not
    > > aware of any adjudication programs that would give results in all
    > > instances that I would consider to be correct, and I am sure I'm not
    > > the only person to have that opinion. Non-bugginess and correctness
    > > are two different issues.
    > Well, I don't want a discussion about what is "correct". I conside the
    > rules just ambiguous.

    You can't just ignore it. Lucas. That *is* one of the main jobs of the GM.
    To provide a correct adjudication. That would mean if the GM adjudicates
    using software, reviewing the adjudication, and changing it, if necessary,
    to comport with what the GM believes is the correct result pursuant to the
    rules as the GM understands them.


    > However, if you say:
    > "Feel free to continue to bombard, and do not follow the adjudication
    > program's adjudications without carefully reviewing them. Some have
    bugs,"

    > If you use JDip, which Andrew have chosen, then you don't do justice to
    > the quality of the program. JDip is DATC tested and uses a very reliable
    > decision based algorithm. So, it is very likely that the program on the
    > technical part of adjudication is without bugs and there is for the
    reasons
    > of bugs no necessity for 'carefully reviewing'.

    See my first comment. To me, a good GM will always carefully review an
    adjudication, whether the GM adjudicates with software or not.

    > You further write:
    > "and all have as their basis a rulebook which is, in places, either vague
    or
    > incomplete, and they therefore reflect the opinions of their programmers,
    > who have to fill in the holes."
    >
    > I consider this simply incorrect for JDip (DipTool and Palmpolitik). They
    > are based on the preferences of the DATC. This is not just the 'opinion
    > of the programmer'. I don't say that this is the correct interpretation,
    > nor that this is the consensus on the internet, but at least it is a
    > little bit more than just the 'opinion of the programmer'. At least it
    > is a reviewed document.

    Ok. It is the opinion of the programmer and Lucas Kruijswijk. LOL By the
    way, I still owe you my comments on the DATC, which I have reviewed again.
    As I have said before, a very good job. I don't put links on my web site to
    just anyone, after all, and the DATC has been on there for quite some time.


    > So, my advice to Andrew, just take the output of JDip. As beginner in the
    > rules you can't beat the knowledge in that program. Don't review the
    > adjudication, just take the output and make the output of that tool
    > your houserules.
    > But, with the note, that indeed JDip, follows just one interpretation
    > (at least a reasonable one) of the rules. However, to choose an other
    > interpretation would require a deep study of all the ins and outs of
    > the rules.

    I can't agree with you there. As a newbie GM, he should be striving to gain
    a deeper understanding of the rules. It will help him as a player, too.
    And he could certainly agree with almost everything, but make an exception
    here or there. Many rules issues are not deeply intertwined or related to
    one another, and can be decided independently.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > You can't just ignore it. Lucas. That *is* one of the main jobs of the GM.
    > To provide a correct adjudication.
    > ...
    Well, we almost agree on all issues of the rules. However, we have a totally
    different way of looking to rules :-)

    I still want your comments, but I give no promise when I process them. It
    can take a year.

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

    By the way, do you want stylistic comments as well as substantive? You do
    have some typos and other miscellaneous boo-boos in there, though of course
    your English is about ten thousand times better than my Dutch.

    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:4138eb93$0$3899$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    >
    > "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > > You can't just ignore it. Lucas. That *is* one of the main jobs of the
    GM.
    > > To provide a correct adjudication.
    > > ...
    > Well, we almost agree on all issues of the rules. However, we have a
    totally
    > different way of looking to rules :-)
    >
    > I still want your comments, but I give no promise when I process them. It
    > can take a year.
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "David E. Cohen" wrote:
    > By the way, do you want stylistic comments as well as substantive? You do
    > have some typos and other miscellaneous boo-boos in there, though of course
    > your English is about ten thousand times better than my Dutch.
    All comments are welcome. But it can take a while before I processed them,
    don't think I don't value them.

    Lucas
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games