Rules change or has it always been this way?

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

It has definitely not always been this way.

"RedShark92" <redshark92@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041221173527.14386.00002035@mb-m13.aol.com...
> Just something that I noticed in the rulebook for the newish Hasbro
version...
>
> Downloaded the rules off the Pouch... My set is the Avalon Hill version
with
> the plastic pieces (Stars and Anchors)... Anyway, it's at a friends
house so
> I can't double check the rules.
>
> In this rulebook it describes a situation with an army that is being
convoyed.
>
> The situation is thus:
>
> The army is only crossing one sea territory. There are two fleets that can
> carry it across and the convoy army is written for both of them.
>
> If the two convoying fleets are left alone, then it doesn't matter. If one
of
> the two fleets is dislodged you are allowed to continue the convoy on the
back
> of the other fleet.
>
> Is this a change or just something I missed in an earlier version?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

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

That rule was also in the AH 2nd ed from (I think) 1982. It may have
been different earlier than that.

RedShark92 wrote:

> Just something that I noticed in the rulebook for the newish Hasbro version...
>
> Downloaded the rules off the Pouch... My set is the Avalon Hill version with
> the plastic pieces (Stars and Anchors)... Anyway, it's at a friends house so
> I can't double check the rules.
>
> In this rulebook it describes a situation with an army that is being convoyed.
>
> The situation is thus:
>
> The army is only crossing one sea territory. There are two fleets that can
> carry it across and the convoy army is written for both of them.
>
> If the two convoying fleets are left alone, then it doesn't matter. If one of
> the two fleets is dislodged you are allowed to continue the convoy on the back
> of the other fleet.
>
> Is this a change or just something I missed in an earlier version?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

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

redshark92@aol.com (RedShark92) writes:

> Is this a change or just something I missed in an earlier version?

No, it's always been like this, but some previous rule versions hasn't
been as clear about it, according to some people.

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

bkhl@elektrubadur.se (=?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_Lindstr=F6m?=) writes:

>redshark92@aol.com (RedShark92) writes:

>> Is this a change or just something I missed in an earlier version?

>No, it's always been like this, but some previous rule versions hasn't
>been as clear about it, according to some people.

And it is the alleged lack of clarity of this rule for programming
that led the first code writers for the Judges to require that a
path be specified by the convoying army. On a Judge, of course,
this rule is not executed this way because the Army must designate
a path.

Jim-Bob

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

Hi Red Shark,

The most elaborated source on the history of the rules is my DATC:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/

This is issue 4.A.1.

It was different in the 1971 version.

In contrary of Jim-Burgess, this issue did not need clarity in the 1971 rules,
it was just different. The 1971 needed clarity on convoying to an adjacent
place (issue 4.A.3). According to my sources, the path specification in
judges, was not because of this unclarity, but just that the programmer
did not know how to program it.

Regards,

Lucas

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

You are right, Lucas. I am pretty sure the 71/76 rules said that if any of
the possible convoy paths were disrupted, the convoy was disrupted.

"Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
news:41c933d7$0$6368$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
> Hi Red Shark,
>
> The most elaborated source on the history of the rules is my DATC:
>
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/
>
> This is issue 4.A.1.
>
> It was different in the 1971 version.
>
> In contrary of Jim-Burgess, this issue did not need clarity in the 1971
rules,
> it was just different. The 1971 needed clarity on convoying to an adjacent
> place (issue 4.A.3). According to my sources, the path specification in
> judges, was not because of this unclarity, but just that the programmer
> did not know how to program it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucas
>
>

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

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

>Hi Red Shark,

>The most elaborated source on the history of the rules is my DATC:

>http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/

>This is issue 4.A.1.

>It was different in the 1971 version.

>In contrary of Jim-Burgess, this issue did not need clarity in the 1971 rules,
>it was just different. The 1971 needed clarity on convoying to an adjacent
>place (issue 4.A.3). According to my sources, the path specification in
>judges, was not because of this unclarity, but just that the programmer
>did not know how to program it.

>Regards,

>Lucas

I'm not disagreeing with you, Lucas, that is precisely right on the
rules issue. But on the Judges, I was around then (anyone else??)
when the debate and the programming was going on. There was some
concern about how to program it, but there also was some concern
about what the "right rule" was. The conclusion was a combination
of "easier to program" and "this is what the rule should be" in
determining that outcome. As you note in the DATC, this has
been improved upon by other programmers.

Jim-Bob

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

Historical rule books can be found here
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm

When there are multiple convoy routes, on the issue of whether dislodging
one convoying fleet disrupts the convoy, the 1982 and later rulebooks make a
change from 1971/1976. All rule books from 1971 and onwards are quite clear
on the issue but earlier rule books do not address it at all.

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

"John Fisher" <bitbucket43@yahoo.com> writes:

>Historical rule books can be found here
>http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm

>When there are multiple convoy routes, on the issue of whether dislodging
>one convoying fleet disrupts the convoy, the 1982 and later rulebooks make a
>change from 1971/1976. All rule books from 1971 and onwards are quite clear
>on the issue but earlier rule books do not address it at all.

And the key here is that different people use (in their heads or
formally) different rules. I learned on the 1961 or pre-1971 rules
and that's what's stuck in my head.

Jim-Bob

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

RedShark92 wrote:
> Just something that I noticed in the rulebook for the newish Hasbro version...
>
> Downloaded the rules off the Pouch... My set is the Avalon Hill version with
> the plastic pieces (Stars and Anchors)... Anyway, it's at a friends house so
> I can't double check the rules.
>
> In this rulebook it describes a situation with an army that is being convoyed.
>
> The situation is thus:
>
> The army is only crossing one sea territory. There are two fleets that can
> carry it across and the convoy army is written for both of them.
>
> If the two convoying fleets are left alone, then it doesn't matter. If one of
> the two fleets is dislodged you are allowed to continue the convoy on the back
> of the other fleet.
>
> Is this a change or just something I missed in an earlier version?

This rule has changed. In at least one earlier version (1966?) the move was
stopped if either convoying fleet was dislodged.