Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rules Clarification

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 2:56:13 AM

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.

More about : rules clarification

Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:55:38 AM

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.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:11:32 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:47:54 PM

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
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 1:57:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 4:42:31 PM

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
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:13:27 PM

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
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 5:02:21 AM

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
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 1:23:13 PM

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
Anonymous
September 1, 2004 3:26:23 PM

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.
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 2:30:11 AM

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
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 4:05:17 AM

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.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 4:02:40 AM

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
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:08:03 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 5:04:48 PM

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
!