DATC and DATC Test Case 6.E.15.

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

Lucas B. Kruijswijk's DATC
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk

Hi Lucas,

Your DATC is a great document. I find enjoyment in looking through
it and reading the different and creative test cases you have come up
with.

First Topic
-----------

In one post, you said:
QUOTE
In the DATC. The first bug is in test case 6.E.7. This is a bug in the
DPTG, that has been known for a long time. The second bug is rather
similar. It is the same case but combined with a circular movement.
If you correct the DPTG for the first bug, the same situation will
still go wrong when it is combined with a circular movement.

The third bug is really different. The DPTG fails on test case 6.E.15.
In this case the DPTG is not deterministic. It depends on which orders
you start, so that is clearly wrong.
UNQUOTE

So, I take it that the second bug as described above does not yet
have an official DATC test case.

Second Topic
------------

I believe that I disagree with your results for test case 6.E.15.
Please be patient if I have missed something obvious; obviously,
if I have made a beginner's mistake, then please consider this a
learning experience for me.

In the following scenario, the DATC asserts that the head to head
battle between Kiel and Berline prevents that either unit involved
in this head to head battle is dislodged. I, though I am a beginner,
find that I do not agree with this interpretation.

Scenario: Test Case 6.E.15:
England:
F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
A Ruhr - Kiel

France:
A Kiel - Berlin
A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin

Germany:
A Berlin - Kiel
F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel

Russia:
F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
A Prussia - Berlin

Written, human-being based adjudication procedure (though the same
results would
be obtained using the "Perfect Adjudication Engine (once it has been
perfected!) and using the tools called the Hot Spot indicator and the
stacked,
ordered to-do list):
The first hot spots to
consider are Kiel and Berlin. Both the French and the Germans are in a
head-to-head battle each having equal strength of three. Therefore,
the
movement of the French from Kiel to Berlin fails and the French army in
Kiel now holds in Kiel, similarly, the German army attempting to move
from Berlin to Kiel, bounces, and thus is now holding in Berlin.

This resolves the hot spots in Kiel and Berlin with respect to the
head-to-head
battle between the French and the Germans.

However, during the adjudication process, the next hot spots to light
up are
again Kiel and Berlin but for different reasons (those different
reasons being
that now the French army in Kiel is holding and now the German army in
Berlin
is holding). Because the British attack
into Kiel is supported, the French in Kiel are dislodged and the
British move
in; similarly, because the Russian attack into Berlin is supported,
the Germans
in Berlin are dislodged and the Russians move in.

Final adjudicated result: The French army in Kiel is dislodged; the
German
army in Berlin is dislodged; The British army in Ruhr moves to Kiel;
the
Russian army in Prussia moves to Berlin. No other units move.

The above adjudicated results vary significantly from what the DATC
says are
the adjudicated results (assuming that I have read and interpreted the
DATC
correctly), for the DATC says that the results are:
"None of the moves succeeds."

Explanation: The British attack into Kiel is not an example of a
"traffic jam."
It would be a "traffic jam" if the British were not supported. If the
British
were not supported into Kiel their movement to Kiel would fail. But
since
the British are indeed supported, the attack by the British succeeds.
Thanks
85 answers Last reply
More about datc datc test case
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    Perhaps also relevant is this article:

    http://www.geocities.com/diplomacy2007/HotSpotDefined.html
    and other articles at

    http://www.geocities.com/diplomacy2007/

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

    Hi,

    Please also see the year 2000, fourth edition
    rule book: Diagram 12.

    In Diagram 12, the German army in Munich
    failed to successfully attack and move into
    Silesia. Nevertheless, this German army
    in Munich did not create a "traffic jam"
    and was dislodged due to the supported
    Austrian army moving from Bohemia into
    Munich with a total strength of two.

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

    Lucas B. Kruijswijk wrote:
    > If in a head to head battle, the unit is not dislodged,
    > then it can still prevent another unit to go to the
    > place it attacked.
    >
    > See diagram 14 in the rules. This situation explains the
    > opposite, but from this explanation one might conclude
    > that when the unit is not dislodged, such prevention is
    > possible.

    Hi Lucas. Thanks for your responses so far. The above
    states a double negative, which is harder to understand.
    If you can restate it, then I can more accurately understand
    your position.

    >
    > So, it is incorrect to resolve the head to head battle
    > and then say that this battle is over and that the units
    > used their power. They are still there, have still power
    > and can prevent other units to go the place. This is not
    > disputed in the Diplomacy community.
    >
    > So, the army in Kiel (not dislodged), prevents that the
    > army in Prussia goes to Berlin.

    NOW I SEE! Thanks for presenting your concept here!
    I would never have seen this. It is very subtle. You are
    saying that somewhere in the adjudication process, the
    army in Kiel moving to Berlin (with a strength of 3)
    also stopped the movement of the army from Prussia
    to Berlin which had a strength of 2.

    Very interesting!

    I'm not saying that I agree or dis-agree with you at this
    time; but, I am very glad that I understand your point
    of view.

    Here is another interesting twist to add to the above
    scenario as I think about it: What would be the differences
    in adjudication if the army in Kiel had been ordered
    to Berlin via convoy? How does this inform or fail to
    inform our thinking processes on this issue?

    But, concerning your main point which you say that the
    Diplomacy community as a whole agrees with you on,
    I don't yet have an opinion (having just read your post).
    My first step will be to try to find a similar scenario in
    the rule book.

    Thanks much, Lucas. Again, your DATC is a great resource.

    >
    > The rules do not have a 'sequence'. Introducing such in
    > an algorithm is very cumbersome. The modern adjudicators
    > use decision based algorithms and as far as I know that
    > are the only implementations that are fully correct (although
    > you might dispute some interpretations of the rules, of
    > course). I do not know of any sequence based algorithm that
    > is fully correct.
    >
    > So, your hot spot indicator and to do list, is an attempt
    > which any programmer that starts with Diplomacy would do
    > (or something similar), but it is not the way to go, to
    > my opinion. It creates similar bugs as in the DPTG.
    >
    > The rules are more a set of equations. In the next update
    > of the DATC, I will make this more clear. In the current
    > version the algorithm and the mathematical description are
    > not fully separated.
    >
    > The second DPTG bug is in the DATC. It is one of the cases
    > after 6.E.7, but I don't which one exactly.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    > "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> schreef in bericht
    news:1106492718.560731.310450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Lucas B. Kruijswijk's DATC
    > > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk
    > >
    > > Hi Lucas,
    > >
    > > Your DATC is a great document. I find enjoyment in looking through
    > > it and reading the different and creative test cases you have come
    up
    > > with.
    > >
    > > First Topic
    > > -----------
    > >
    > > In one post, you said:
    > > QUOTE
    > > In the DATC. The first bug is in test case 6.E.7. This is a bug in
    the
    > > DPTG, that has been known for a long time. The second bug is rather
    > > similar. It is the same case but combined with a circular movement.
    > > If you correct the DPTG for the first bug, the same situation will
    > > still go wrong when it is combined with a circular movement.
    > >
    > > The third bug is really different. The DPTG fails on test case
    6.E.15.
    > > In this case the DPTG is not deterministic. It depends on which
    orders
    > > you start, so that is clearly wrong.
    > > UNQUOTE
    > >
    > > So, I take it that the second bug as described above does not yet
    > > have an official DATC test case.
    > >
    > > Second Topic
    > > ------------
    > >
    > > I believe that I disagree with your results for test case 6.E.15.
    > > Please be patient if I have missed something obvious; obviously,
    > > if I have made a beginner's mistake, then please consider this a
    > > learning experience for me.
    > >
    > > In the following scenario, the DATC asserts that the head to head
    > > battle between Kiel and Berline prevents that either unit involved
    > > in this head to head battle is dislodged. I, though I am a
    beginner,
    > > find that I do not agree with this interpretation.
    > >
    > > Scenario: Test Case 6.E.15:
    > > England:
    > > F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
    > > A Ruhr - Kiel
    > >
    > > France:
    > > A Kiel - Berlin
    > > A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > > A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > >
    > > Germany:
    > > A Berlin - Kiel
    > > F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > > F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > >
    > > Russia:
    > > F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
    > > A Prussia - Berlin
    > >
    > > Written, human-being based adjudication procedure (though the same
    > > results would
    > > be obtained using the "Perfect Adjudication Engine (once it has
    been
    > > perfected!) and using the tools called the Hot Spot indicator and
    the
    > > stacked,
    > > ordered to-do list):
    > > The first hot spots to
    > > consider are Kiel and Berlin. Both the French and the Germans are
    in a
    > > head-to-head battle each having equal strength of three.
    Therefore,
    > > the
    > > movement of the French from Kiel to Berlin fails and the French
    army in
    > > Kiel now holds in Kiel, similarly, the German army attempting to
    move
    > > from Berlin to Kiel, bounces, and thus is now holding in Berlin.
    > >
    > > This resolves the hot spots in Kiel and Berlin with respect to the
    > > head-to-head
    > > battle between the French and the Germans.
    > >
    > > However, during the adjudication process, the next hot spots to
    light
    > > up are
    > > again Kiel and Berlin but for different reasons (those different
    > > reasons being
    > > that now the French army in Kiel is holding and now the German army
    in
    > > Berlin
    > > is holding). Because the British attack
    > > into Kiel is supported, the French in Kiel are dislodged and the
    > > British move
    > > in; similarly, because the Russian attack into Berlin is
    supported,
    > > the Germans
    > > in Berlin are dislodged and the Russians move in.
    > >
    > > Final adjudicated result: The French army in Kiel is dislodged;
    the
    > > German
    > > army in Berlin is dislodged; The British army in Ruhr moves to
    Kiel;
    > > the
    > > Russian army in Prussia moves to Berlin. No other units move.
    > >
    > > The above adjudicated results vary significantly from what the DATC
    > > says are
    > > the adjudicated results (assuming that I have read and interpreted
    the
    > > DATC
    > > correctly), for the DATC says that the results are:
    > > "None of the moves succeeds."
    > >
    > > Explanation: The British attack into Kiel is not an example of a
    > > "traffic jam."
    > > It would be a "traffic jam" if the British were not supported. If
    the
    > > British
    > > were not supported into Kiel their movement to Kiel would fail.
    But
    > > since
    > > the British are indeed supported, the attack by the British
    succeeds.
    > > Thanks
    > >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    Thank you all for taking the time to
    give your personal comments on the
    scenario. This makes it even easier
    for me to understand your point of
    view, for each explanation has its
    own coloring which makes the
    learning task easier.

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

    Hi,

    Randy Hudson wrote
    QUOTE
    That's just wrong. How can a once-supported English army move into Kiel
    when the twice-supported German army fails? It can't.
    UNQUOTE

    Hello Randy and everyone,

    It is unfortunate that perhaps, as it will depend on my future study
    and
    analysis of this position, it appears that I might end up in the
    minority
    opinion. That is, I hope that the discussion won't get overly heated.

    Please, everyone, keeping in mind that I will have to go over the
    manual, go over the examples, and again read over everyone's inputs,
    please do not assume that I have made up my mind one way or
    the other, or that I have simply refused to consider your majority
    opinion.

    I am about to begin my analysis (or instead, I may go watch the
    football game, I haven't decided yet).

    But, here is a preliminary thought which came into my head in
    response to Randy Hudson's comment above; a thought which
    did not initially occur to me when I was being influenced and
    almost persuaded by his argument.

    It is this: I have not set up my map yet, so I forget where
    all the units are, but basically, you have two military
    units, each supported twice, MOVING into EACH OTHER'S
    territory.

    So, it is important to recognize, at least as part of a
    preliminary analysis, that when I said the English
    moved in with a strength of 2 and dislodged whoever
    was there, keep in mind that whoever was there
    had no defensive supports! The army that
    the English dislodged had offensive supports into,
    what, Berlin was it.

    So, I think there is something here to be considered
    in my initial idea.

    At the same time,
    I can see how Randy's idea makes sense also!
    How can the British with a force of only 2 dislodge
    whoever was there when the German army with
    a force of 3 bounced. This also rings true to me.

    But then I see the Germans with a force of three
    bouncing off another force of three, and that
    other attacking force
    have "their backs to the attacking" British. So, in
    this context, a force of 2 by the British may be
    sufficient to dislodge. That is, the British never
    engaged the Germans--this rings true to me,
    because the Germans never left Berlin.

    This whole thing sort of reminds me of a figure of a box, and when
    you look at it, you can visualize whichever end of
    the three dimensional box you consider closest to you.
    And, as you look at it, sometimes which side is
    considered closest to you changes.

    That is sort of how I feel at this moment. Sometimes
    my initial analysis makes sense, sometimes the majority
    opinion makes sense. So, I'm definitely undecided at
    this time.

    Maybe I will watch that football game!

    Any way, I will have to analyze this and think about it.

    I appreciate your opinions, and will have to think about
    this very, very interesting situation that the DATC
    has created: one among very many creative scenarios.

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

    Hi,

    Here is the new scenario. I have changed the scenario so that there is
    an
    option for a convoy which may, perhaps, stimulate my thinking process.

    Scenario 1:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Turkey:
    Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.

    We should keep in mind that we are all reasonable people; thus, if we
    actually
    had hard facts in front of us, then presumably we would agree with each
    other
    completely. But, instead of hard facts, we have a rule book (or even
    rule
    books); and, apparently, since there exists a minority opinion
    (presumably even
    if I personally held the majority opinion), the rule book would then
    not be
    considered completely unambiguous, because the rule book left open the
    possibility that a small minority might interpret it differently.

    As long as there are no hard facts about, then my statements in this
    article
    can only be opinion. Let it be known that my opinion may represent a
    very
    small minority; let it also be known that it is not my intention to
    attempt to
    persuade anyone to accept my opinion.

    I am essentially exploring this topic. It is like arguing about how
    many angels
    can dance on a head of a pin! Who can say, because we don't know how
    big an
    angel is: that is, we have no hard facts.

    Nevertheless, even without hard facts, there can still exist, as there
    does,
    a common understanding among the majority about what exactly should be
    what.
    This is fine; this is called conventional wisdom or conventional
    interpretation, and it is not to be ignored, but also considered. But,
    in the
    final analysis, unless there are sufficient facts, almost everything
    is, one
    could argue, personal preference and personal opinion. However, I do
    not mean
    to suggest that either the majority or minority point of view is
    whimsy! Not
    at all; I should instead say that the majority point of view is a
    hard, true,
    honest attempt to interpret the rules. I only use the term "opinion"
    so that
    my minority opinion will not be mis-understood as either gospel or as
    an attempt
    to suggest to others that they must adopt my point of view.

    While I'm writing this article, which is an exploration, my point of
    view may
    change back and forth, or I may have no point of view. That is because
    this is
    the hardest issue yet I have ever faced when looking at a Diplomacy
    board
    scenario.

    But, when the day is over, and I say that for Scenario 1, that the
    French took
    Venezia, that's how you'll know that I hold the minority opinion. But,
    if at
    the end of the day I say that no units moved, then you know that I hold
    the
    majority opinion.

    Regardless of which opinion one ends up holding, it is very hard, for
    me at
    least, not to find this gem or Diplomacy scenario ripe for exploration
    and fun.

    ******
    Part 1
    ******

    [With respect to DATC Test Case 6.E.15]

    Your approach is to see things as a set of "head-to-head battles",
    resolve these, and then look at what is left. But how do you decide
    which head-to-head battles to look at first? On what basis would you
    start with the Kiel-Berlin battle first? Why not look at the Kiel-Pru
    battle first, with a different result?

    Nick
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nick makes a good point. Assuming that I make up rules for an
    adjudication
    algorithm, how do I know with certainty that my rules are appropriate
    when they
    decide in which order which provinces or battles will be adjudicated
    first
    during the adjudication process?

    Basically, the answer is I don't know. What would happen is that if
    the
    adjudication worked for all known cases, then it would be accepted that
    if you
    follow its rules and regulations during the adjudication, the desired
    result
    is almost always found. But, in this case, my current algorithm for
    adjudication clearly comes up with an adjudicated result held only by a
    small
    minority. Since there is no proof, nothing can be said. Clearly my
    algorithm
    will not be used as a perfect adjudicator (although, I might add that
    it might
    be found to be used as a general guideline, if it is found that it
    works
    most of the time; the beauty of the algorithm is that, in my opinion,
    it is
    fairly easy for a human to implement it in the human's head, but again,
    it
    would never be considered a perfect adjudicator for all positions,
    because
    Scenario 1 above proves that it holds a minority view).

    The DATC will propose an adjudicator using the concept of simultaneous
    equations; so, we will drop this discussion of algorithms for the
    moment
    and await what the DATC adds to this discussion.

    ******
    Part 2
    ******

    It is evidently hard to program simultaneity, but simultaneity is
    crucial to
    correct adjudication.

    David E. Cohen
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the key issue for programming, I agree. The movement really
    IS simultaneous. That is almost unique among games of complexity
    greater than "rock/paper/scissors".

    Jim-Bob
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Above are two responses, which I appreciate receiving, from two
    distinguished
    members of the Diplomacy community.

    As a novice at Diplomacy, I respectfully raise the following topic.

    This is, somewhat, I guess, "philosophical," but I am not introducing
    it simply
    to suggest that the universe can't be understood because there is a
    black hole
    somewhere in outer space. But, here goes: if that movement really is
    simultaneous, then how is it that a unit can be given attack orders, be
    bounced
    back because this movement or attack failed, then have this unit
    changed to
    hold? In short, how can a unit attack and hold simultaneously? If a
    unit
    was allowed to attack and hold simultaneously, then why could not other
    units
    follow valid orders to support this attacking army to its attacked
    location
    AND support this attacking army in its original location in case it got
    bounced
    back?

    Again, the above may be overly "philosophical," or perhaps down-right
    silly when
    read by an experienced Diplomacy player; but, as the thoughts did
    enter
    my head, I thought I'd write them down; perhaps I will find them silly
    when
    I read them the next day, or the next month: afterall, novices do
    change
    their minds as they gain more experience.

    A very valid respond to my "silly" philosophy, is this, and its an
    argument
    that I personally would have no hesitation in using in other scenarios:
    please
    don't bother me with descriptive text of how the army made dinner, told
    jokes,
    held, and so forth; if you want to discuss rules, fine, but don't add
    details
    which are not part of the game.

    Another way of saying the above "silly" philosophy is this: I'm pretty
    sure
    that somewhere on the internet I have read that the game creator
    considers the
    movement simultaneous in the sense that each movement unfolds in six
    months.
    This would, indeed, allow a unit to attack, be bounced back, change to
    a hold,
    and then repulse an attack that had been launched against it.

    However, I am not suggesting that we can only adopt this belief if the
    game
    creator suggested it; even if the game creator did not suggest this
    idea, we
    can, if we so choose, consider it for adoption (assuming that "we" is
    those
    members holding the minority view point).

    This does allow, then, perhaps, the majority view and the minority view
    both
    to offer some validity for their views.

    Majority view: the movement is purely simultaneous.

    Minority view: the movement is a representation of simultaneous
    movement over
    a six month period, thus it could be called "fuzzy simultaneity,"
    giving the
    minority view a new chance at validity. This gives the minority view
    more
    validity, because the minority can say: within a six month period, the
    following happened: The Austrian army fought on the eastern front and
    was
    bounced back to its original location in Venezia; after the Austrian
    army
    bounced back to Venezia, they created a defensive formation, but were
    unable
    to hold their position and were thus dislodged by the advancing French
    army
    from Piemonte. It is interesting to note that the minority view allows
    for
    a "perfect algorithm" to simulate this "fuzzy simultaneity. But, as
    mentioned
    above, the DATC may propose an algorithm that will work for the
    majority view
    of perfect, pure simultaneous movement.

    ******
    Part 3
    ******
    [With respect to DATC Test Case 6.E.15]

    Each such movement is opposed by a superior force. By erroneously
    converting
    the superior force movements to "Hold," you've lost their effect of
    opposing
    equally or less supported attempts to enter the same province.

    ....

    That's just wrong. How can a once-supported English army move into Kiel
    when the twice-supported German army fails? It can't.

    Randy Hudson
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Randy's comments are very persuasive. In almost any other scenario, I
    would
    readily agree with him, as would most people. That is why DATC Test
    Case
    6.E.15 is so fascinating! It merges common, intuitive concepts into
    one
    complex of fuzzy ambiguity, resulting in a split of opinion among
    rational
    people wherein the majority view takes one stance and the minority view
    takes
    another.

    By the way, this article will use Scenario 1 given above, and not DATC
    Test Case
    6.E.15, though the two scenarios are functionally identical.

    ******
    Part 4
    ******

    As I write this article, and as I think ahead of examples and
    exploratory paths,
    I must be honest, I guess, and state that at this time my personal
    opinion is
    now that of the minority. By stating this now, I don't given the false
    impression that I am undecided, and exploring with no opinion
    whatsoever.
    However, even though I can think ahead and believe I know what my
    opinion will
    be, nevertheless, it is always possible that I will stumble upon some
    scenario
    which will change my mind. So, although I have an opinion, or a
    working
    hypothesis, I hope that I also have an open mind.

    I think that I can phrase the situation which splits the majority and
    the
    minority camps: I think it is this in a nut-shell: does the game
    dynamic
    or the movement dynamcis change based upon the presence of an army
    within a
    contested region, or based upon the orders given to an army present
    within the
    contested region?

    In Scenario 1, I think that captures what splits the two parties: the
    majority
    view and the minority view.

    Exploration 1:
    Create Scenario 1 on your Diplomacy board.
    Remove the Austrian army from Venezia and pretend it is not part of the
    game.
    What happens in Venezia?

    It is clear, right? We all agree: the Italians with a force of 3 move
    into
    Venezia from Trieste overcoming the French ambitions in that province
    which
    only had a strength of 2.

    Exploration 2:
    Create Scenario 1 on your Diplomacy board.
    Change the Austrian army in Venezia to this order: hold.
    What happens in Venezia?

    Well, again it's clear. The Austrian army in Venezia is dislodged, and
    using
    the same logic as given just above, the Italians move in to Venezia
    from
    Trieste.

    So far, the Austrian army in Venezia, or lack thereof, has not changed
    the
    outcome of our two explorations so far in that the Italians moved from
    Trieste into Venezia.

    Exploration 3:
    Create Scenario 1 on your Diplomacy board.
    Remove the French armies from the game and pretend they do not exist.
    What happens in Venezia?

    Again, we all agree. The Austrain army fails to move to Trieste and is
    bounced
    back to Venezia. In particular, the Italian army in Trieste, this time
    failed
    to move into Venezia.

    Okay, enough exploratory examples; as far as I can tell, they cannot
    be used
    to demonstrate any type of proof. But, I hope the exploratory
    examples, and
    others that you can make up yourself, do show that the presence or
    absence of
    the Austrian army in Venezia, as well as the particular orders this
    army is
    given, has a profound effect upon what happens in Venezia.

    If we know that the presence or absence of the Austrian army in
    Venezia, as
    well as the orders this army is given, have a profound effect on what
    happens
    in Venezia, can this state be leveraged to help either the majority
    view or
    the minority view?

    I don't think so. All we can do is say that the majority view and the
    minority
    view differ as to EXACTLY WHICH EFFECT the Austrian army in Venezia
    has, given
    its orders, in Scenario 1 given above.

    In particular, the minority view might argue this: The Austrian army
    engaged
    the Italian army at the border of Venezia and Trieste; the Austrian
    army
    bounced back to Venezia, held, and then was overcome by the French army
    attacking with a force of 2 from Piemonte. But, this is not really an
    argument, it is simply defining "EXACTLY WHICH EFFECT" the minority
    view thinks
    the Austrian army in Venezia had upon the final outcome. It is only an
    opinion,
    and a minority opinion at that!

    That's all. To me, in my personal opinion, I like the minority view;
    but, as I gain more experience, I, like any novice, may change my
    opinion.

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

    If in a head to head battle, the unit is not dislodged,
    then it can still prevent another unit to go to the
    place it attacked.

    See diagram 14 in the rules. This situation explains the
    opposite, but from this explanation one might conclude
    that when the unit is not dislodged, such prevention is
    possible.

    So, it is incorrect to resolve the head to head battle
    and then say that this battle is over and that the units
    used their power. They are still there, have still power
    and can prevent other units to go the place. This is not
    disputed in the Diplomacy community.

    So, the army in Kiel (not dislodged), prevents that the
    army in Prussia goes to Berlin.

    The rules do not have a 'sequence'. Introducing such in
    an algorithm is very cumbersome. The modern adjudicators
    use decision based algorithms and as far as I know that
    are the only implementations that are fully correct (although
    you might dispute some interpretations of the rules, of
    course). I do not know of any sequence based algorithm that
    is fully correct.

    So, your hot spot indicator and to do list, is an attempt
    which any programmer that starts with Diplomacy would do
    (or something similar), but it is not the way to go, to
    my opinion. It creates similar bugs as in the DPTG.

    The rules are more a set of equations. In the next update
    of the DATC, I will make this more clear. In the current
    version the algorithm and the mathematical description are
    not fully separated.

    The second DPTG bug is in the DATC. It is one of the cases
    after 6.E.7, but I don't which one exactly.

    Regards,

    Lucas

    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> schreef in bericht news:1106492718.560731.310450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Lucas B. Kruijswijk's DATC
    > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk
    >
    > Hi Lucas,
    >
    > Your DATC is a great document. I find enjoyment in looking through
    > it and reading the different and creative test cases you have come up
    > with.
    >
    > First Topic
    > -----------
    >
    > In one post, you said:
    > QUOTE
    > In the DATC. The first bug is in test case 6.E.7. This is a bug in the
    > DPTG, that has been known for a long time. The second bug is rather
    > similar. It is the same case but combined with a circular movement.
    > If you correct the DPTG for the first bug, the same situation will
    > still go wrong when it is combined with a circular movement.
    >
    > The third bug is really different. The DPTG fails on test case 6.E.15.
    > In this case the DPTG is not deterministic. It depends on which orders
    > you start, so that is clearly wrong.
    > UNQUOTE
    >
    > So, I take it that the second bug as described above does not yet
    > have an official DATC test case.
    >
    > Second Topic
    > ------------
    >
    > I believe that I disagree with your results for test case 6.E.15.
    > Please be patient if I have missed something obvious; obviously,
    > if I have made a beginner's mistake, then please consider this a
    > learning experience for me.
    >
    > In the following scenario, the DATC asserts that the head to head
    > battle between Kiel and Berline prevents that either unit involved
    > in this head to head battle is dislodged. I, though I am a beginner,
    > find that I do not agree with this interpretation.
    >
    > Scenario: Test Case 6.E.15:
    > England:
    > F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
    > A Ruhr - Kiel
    >
    > France:
    > A Kiel - Berlin
    > A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    >
    > Germany:
    > A Berlin - Kiel
    > F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    >
    > Russia:
    > F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
    > A Prussia - Berlin
    >
    > Written, human-being based adjudication procedure (though the same
    > results would
    > be obtained using the "Perfect Adjudication Engine (once it has been
    > perfected!) and using the tools called the Hot Spot indicator and the
    > stacked,
    > ordered to-do list):
    > The first hot spots to
    > consider are Kiel and Berlin. Both the French and the Germans are in a
    > head-to-head battle each having equal strength of three. Therefore,
    > the
    > movement of the French from Kiel to Berlin fails and the French army in
    > Kiel now holds in Kiel, similarly, the German army attempting to move
    > from Berlin to Kiel, bounces, and thus is now holding in Berlin.
    >
    > This resolves the hot spots in Kiel and Berlin with respect to the
    > head-to-head
    > battle between the French and the Germans.
    >
    > However, during the adjudication process, the next hot spots to light
    > up are
    > again Kiel and Berlin but for different reasons (those different
    > reasons being
    > that now the French army in Kiel is holding and now the German army in
    > Berlin
    > is holding). Because the British attack
    > into Kiel is supported, the French in Kiel are dislodged and the
    > British move
    > in; similarly, because the Russian attack into Berlin is supported,
    > the Germans
    > in Berlin are dislodged and the Russians move in.
    >
    > Final adjudicated result: The French army in Kiel is dislodged; the
    > German
    > army in Berlin is dislodged; The British army in Ruhr moves to Kiel;
    > the
    > Russian army in Prussia moves to Berlin. No other units move.
    >
    > The above adjudicated results vary significantly from what the DATC
    > says are
    > the adjudicated results (assuming that I have read and interpreted the
    > DATC
    > correctly), for the DATC says that the results are:
    > "None of the moves succeeds."
    >
    > Explanation: The British attack into Kiel is not an example of a
    > "traffic jam."
    > It would be a "traffic jam" if the British were not supported. If the
    > British
    > were not supported into Kiel their movement to Kiel would fail. But
    > since
    > the British are indeed supported, the attack by the British succeeds.
    > Thanks
    >
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    It is evidently hard to program simultaneity, but simultaneity is crucial to
    correct adjudication.


    "Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
    news:41f3ef51$0$279$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
    > If in a head to head battle, the unit is not dislodged,
    > then it can still prevent another unit to go to the
    > place it attacked.
    >
    > See diagram 14 in the rules. This situation explains the
    > opposite, but from this explanation one might conclude
    > that when the unit is not dislodged, such prevention is
    > possible.
    >
    > So, it is incorrect to resolve the head to head battle
    > and then say that this battle is over and that the units
    > used their power. They are still there, have still power
    > and can prevent other units to go the place. This is not
    > disputed in the Diplomacy community.
    >
    > So, the army in Kiel (not dislodged), prevents that the
    > army in Prussia goes to Berlin.
    >
    > The rules do not have a 'sequence'. Introducing such in
    > an algorithm is very cumbersome. The modern adjudicators
    > use decision based algorithms and as far as I know that
    > are the only implementations that are fully correct (although
    > you might dispute some interpretations of the rules, of
    > course). I do not know of any sequence based algorithm that
    > is fully correct.
    >
    > So, your hot spot indicator and to do list, is an attempt
    > which any programmer that starts with Diplomacy would do
    > (or something similar), but it is not the way to go, to
    > my opinion. It creates similar bugs as in the DPTG.
    >
    > The rules are more a set of equations. In the next update
    > of the DATC, I will make this more clear. In the current
    > version the algorithm and the mathematical description are
    > not fully separated.
    >
    > The second DPTG bug is in the DATC. It is one of the cases
    > after 6.E.7, but I don't which one exactly.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Lucas
    >
    > "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> schreef in bericht
    news:1106492718.560731.310450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Lucas B. Kruijswijk's DATC
    > > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk
    > >
    > > Hi Lucas,
    > >
    > > Your DATC is a great document. I find enjoyment in looking through
    > > it and reading the different and creative test cases you have come up
    > > with.
    > >
    > > First Topic
    > > -----------
    > >
    > > In one post, you said:
    > > QUOTE
    > > In the DATC. The first bug is in test case 6.E.7. This is a bug in the
    > > DPTG, that has been known for a long time. The second bug is rather
    > > similar. It is the same case but combined with a circular movement.
    > > If you correct the DPTG for the first bug, the same situation will
    > > still go wrong when it is combined with a circular movement.
    > >
    > > The third bug is really different. The DPTG fails on test case 6.E.15.
    > > In this case the DPTG is not deterministic. It depends on which orders
    > > you start, so that is clearly wrong.
    > > UNQUOTE
    > >
    > > So, I take it that the second bug as described above does not yet
    > > have an official DATC test case.
    > >
    > > Second Topic
    > > ------------
    > >
    > > I believe that I disagree with your results for test case 6.E.15.
    > > Please be patient if I have missed something obvious; obviously,
    > > if I have made a beginner's mistake, then please consider this a
    > > learning experience for me.
    > >
    > > In the following scenario, the DATC asserts that the head to head
    > > battle between Kiel and Berline prevents that either unit involved
    > > in this head to head battle is dislodged. I, though I am a beginner,
    > > find that I do not agree with this interpretation.
    > >
    > > Scenario: Test Case 6.E.15:
    > > England:
    > > F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
    > > A Ruhr - Kiel
    > >
    > > France:
    > > A Kiel - Berlin
    > > A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > > A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > >
    > > Germany:
    > > A Berlin - Kiel
    > > F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > > F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > >
    > > Russia:
    > > F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
    > > A Prussia - Berlin
    > >
    > > Written, human-being based adjudication procedure (though the same
    > > results would
    > > be obtained using the "Perfect Adjudication Engine (once it has been
    > > perfected!) and using the tools called the Hot Spot indicator and the
    > > stacked,
    > > ordered to-do list):
    > > The first hot spots to
    > > consider are Kiel and Berlin. Both the French and the Germans are in a
    > > head-to-head battle each having equal strength of three. Therefore,
    > > the
    > > movement of the French from Kiel to Berlin fails and the French army in
    > > Kiel now holds in Kiel, similarly, the German army attempting to move
    > > from Berlin to Kiel, bounces, and thus is now holding in Berlin.
    > >
    > > This resolves the hot spots in Kiel and Berlin with respect to the
    > > head-to-head
    > > battle between the French and the Germans.
    > >
    > > However, during the adjudication process, the next hot spots to light
    > > up are
    > > again Kiel and Berlin but for different reasons (those different
    > > reasons being
    > > that now the French army in Kiel is holding and now the German army in
    > > Berlin
    > > is holding). Because the British attack
    > > into Kiel is supported, the French in Kiel are dislodged and the
    > > British move
    > > in; similarly, because the Russian attack into Berlin is supported,
    > > the Germans
    > > in Berlin are dislodged and the Russians move in.
    > >
    > > Final adjudicated result: The French army in Kiel is dislodged; the
    > > German
    > > army in Berlin is dislodged; The British army in Ruhr moves to Kiel;
    > > the
    > > Russian army in Prussia moves to Berlin. No other units move.
    > >
    > > The above adjudicated results vary significantly from what the DATC
    > > says are
    > > the adjudicated results (assuming that I have read and interpreted the
    > > DATC
    > > correctly), for the DATC says that the results are:
    > > "None of the moves succeeds."
    > >
    > > Explanation: The British attack into Kiel is not an example of a
    > > "traffic jam."
    > > It would be a "traffic jam" if the British were not supported. If the
    > > British
    > > were not supported into Kiel their movement to Kiel would fail. But
    > > since
    > > the British are indeed supported, the attack by the British succeeds.
    > > Thanks
    > >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In article <1106492718.560731.310450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

    > Scenario: Test Case 6.E.15:
    > England:
    > F Holland Supports A Ruhr - Kiel
    > A Ruhr - Kiel
    >
    > France:
    > A Kiel - Berlin
    > A Munich Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    > A Silesia Supports A Kiel - Berlin
    >
    > Germany:
    > A Berlin - Kiel
    > F Denmark Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    > F Helgoland Bight Supports A Berlin - Kiel
    >
    > Russia:
    > F Baltic Sea Supports A Prussia - Berlin
    > A Prussia - Berlin
    >
    > However, during the adjudication process, the next hot spots to light up
    > are again Kiel and Berlin but for different reasons (those different
    > reasons being that now the French army in Kiel is holding and now the
    > German army in Berlin is holding).

    No, they're not holding, at least not as that term is used in the rules.

    > Because the British attack into Kiel is supported, the French in Kiel are
    > dislodged and the British move in; similarly, because the Russian attack
    > into Berlin is supported, the Germans in Berlin are dislodged and the
    > Russians move in.

    Each such movement is opposed by a superior force. By erroneously converting
    the superior force movements to "Hold," you've lost their effect of opposing
    equally or less supported attempts to enter the same province.

    > Final adjudicated result: The French army in Kiel is dislodged; the
    > German army in Berlin is dislodged; The British army in Ruhr moves to
    > Kiel; the Russian army in Prussia moves to Berlin. No other units move.

    That's just wrong. How can a once-supported English army move into Kiel
    when the twice-supported German army fails? It can't.

    > the DATC says that the results are: "None of the moves succeeds."

    That's a correct adjudication.

    --
    Randy Hudson
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In message <1106510259.992601.203330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes
    >
    >Lucas B. Kruijswijk wrote:
    >> If in a head to head battle, the unit is not dislodged,
    >> then it can still prevent another unit to go to the
    >> place it attacked.
    >>
    >> See diagram 14 in the rules. This situation explains the
    >> opposite, but from this explanation one might conclude
    >> that when the unit is not dislodged, such prevention is
    >> possible.
    >
    >Hi Lucas. Thanks for your responses so far. The above
    >states a double negative, which is harder to understand.
    >If you can restate it, then I can more accurately understand
    >your position.
    >
    >>
    >> So, it is incorrect to resolve the head to head battle
    >> and then say that this battle is over and that the units
    >> used their power. They are still there, have still power
    >> and can prevent other units to go the place. This is not
    >> disputed in the Diplomacy community.
    >>
    >> So, the army in Kiel (not dislodged), prevents that the
    >> army in Prussia goes to Berlin.
    >
    >NOW I SEE! Thanks for presenting your concept here!
    >I would never have seen this. It is very subtle. You are
    >saying that somewhere in the adjudication process, the
    >army in Kiel moving to Berlin (with a strength of 3)
    >also stopped the movement of the army from Prussia
    >to Berlin which had a strength of 2.

    I don't see this as subtle. If one unit is trying to go somewhere with
    a force of three, and another unit is trying to go there with a force of
    two, then no way is the latter ever going to succeed.

    Your approach is to see things as a set of "head-to-head battles",
    resolve these, and then look at what is left. But how do you decide
    which head-to-head battles to look at first? On what basis would you
    start with the Kiel-Berlin battle first? Why not look at the Kiel-Pru
    battle first, with a different result?

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

    Heated discussions concerning rules ambiguities (whether real or perceived)
    in Diplomacy? Not a chance. ROTFL!


    P.S. I think you might find interesting the message archives of the
    yahoogroup I was involved in, which was formed to "fix" the DPTG, and create
    a "Rulebook Companion" to fix all of the contradictions, omissions and
    ambiguities in the rules. Sadly, we got most of the way through things, and
    it crashed over the issue of paradoxes.


    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote in message
    news:1106524451.804512.193560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Randy Hudson wrote
    > QUOTE
    > That's just wrong. How can a once-supported English army move into Kiel
    > when the twice-supported German army fails? It can't.
    > UNQUOTE
    >
    > Hello Randy and everyone,
    >
    > It is unfortunate that perhaps, as it will depend on my future study
    > and
    > analysis of this position, it appears that I might end up in the
    > minority
    > opinion. That is, I hope that the discussion won't get overly heated.
    >
    > Please, everyone, keeping in mind that I will have to go over the
    > manual, go over the examples, and again read over everyone's inputs,
    > please do not assume that I have made up my mind one way or
    > the other, or that I have simply refused to consider your majority
    > opinion.
    >
    > I am about to begin my analysis (or instead, I may go watch the
    > football game, I haven't decided yet).
    >
    > But, here is a preliminary thought which came into my head in
    > response to Randy Hudson's comment above; a thought which
    > did not initially occur to me when I was being influenced and
    > almost persuaded by his argument.
    >
    > It is this: I have not set up my map yet, so I forget where
    > all the units are, but basically, you have two military
    > units, each supported twice, MOVING into EACH OTHER'S
    > territory.
    >
    > So, it is important to recognize, at least as part of a
    > preliminary analysis, that when I said the English
    > moved in with a strength of 2 and dislodged whoever
    > was there, keep in mind that whoever was there
    > had no defensive supports! The army that
    > the English dislodged had offensive supports into,
    > what, Berlin was it.
    >
    > So, I think there is something here to be considered
    > in my initial idea.
    >
    > At the same time,
    > I can see how Randy's idea makes sense also!
    > How can the British with a force of only 2 dislodge
    > whoever was there when the German army with
    > a force of 3 bounced. This also rings true to me.
    >
    > But then I see the Germans with a force of three
    > bouncing off another force of three, and that
    > other attacking force
    > have "their backs to the attacking" British. So, in
    > this context, a force of 2 by the British may be
    > sufficient to dislodge. That is, the British never
    > engaged the Germans--this rings true to me,
    > because the Germans never left Berlin.
    >
    > This whole thing sort of reminds me of a figure of a box, and when
    > you look at it, you can visualize whichever end of
    > the three dimensional box you consider closest to you.
    > And, as you look at it, sometimes which side is
    > considered closest to you changes.
    >
    > That is sort of how I feel at this moment. Sometimes
    > my initial analysis makes sense, sometimes the majority
    > opinion makes sense. So, I'm definitely undecided at
    > this time.
    >
    > Maybe I will watch that football game!
    >
    > Any way, I will have to analyze this and think about it.
    >
    > I appreciate your opinions, and will have to think about
    > this very, very interesting situation that the DATC
    > has created: one among very many creative scenarios.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    I have one small addition to make to my article. I'm not sure
    what form of logical "argumenation" label would be associated
    with it. I'm not even sure that it would convince me in a real
    world where things were provable; but, in a game world where
    things are not so easily provable, it might very well sway me.

    As some of you know, my so-called "Perfect Adjudication Engine"
    is in an in complete state: for instance, I have not yet considered
    how it would handle "broadly general" orders. So, let's assume
    that everyone plays diplomacy using strict convoy orders.

    Now, come some big assumptions, for I have hardly had the time
    to go through every scenario in the DATC. But, let's just make a
    fun assumption: Assume that my "Perfect Adjudication Engine"
    performed perfectly and gave the exact answers that the DATC
    wanted for 99 out of 100 cases,but only failed on the DATC issue
    that this article touches upon.

    Who might be swayed by this, and why? Again, in a real world
    where everything is presumably provable, it would be stated
    that the model or algorithm is not yet mature and complete.
    But in a game world, it could result in some, and I might very
    well be one of these people, concluding that maybe I was
    looking at this DATC issue "incorrectly;" because, the algorithm
    uses a constant way of adjudicating everything it sees,
    therefore, in this 1 out of a 100 case, maybe it is looking at it
    correctly, and I as a human am not.

    Just a thought or concept. Again, I'm not trying to convince.
    I just thought it was a neat idea that sometimes a computer
    algorithm can inform its creator of something the creator
    had not considered. For instance, have you ever been
    beaten by a three-dimensional tic-tac-toe playing computer?
    And in being beaten, didn't the computer find scenarios and
    positions you had never seen before, or tactics you hadn't
    considered. It is along these lines that I speak about this idea.
    Thanks
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

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

    >It is evidently hard to program simultaneity, but simultaneity is crucial to
    >correct adjudication.

    This is the key issue for programming, I agree. The movement really
    IS simultaneous. That is almost unique among games of complexity
    greater than "rock/paper/scissors". So stated intending to troll....
    I'm curious what people might think the most popular complex
    simultaneous movement game is, if not Diplomacy.

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

    Randy Hudson wrote:
    > In article <1106534993.050317.206220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Here is the new scenario. I have changed the scenario so that
    there is an
    > > option for a convoy which may, perhaps, stimulate my thinking
    process.
    >
    > I don't see any unit ordered to convoy here. Did you mean Adr to be
    ordered
    > to convoy? As ordered here, the result is the same as before; 3-on-3
    > bounces between Ven and Tri, and bounces for Pie and Ser due to
    superior
    > force.

    Hi Randy, The fleet is not convoying, it is holding, and thus has no
    effect on
    the particular scenario at hand; what I mean is that the fleet is
    there so that
    if we play "what if" games with the scenario, and want to introduce a
    convoy,
    the fleet is there to have its orders changed.

    >
    > If Adr were ordered to convoy Tri-Ven (or vice-versa), then the
    Tri-Ven and
    > Ven-Tri orders wuld both succeed, and Ser and Pie would still both
    fail.
    >
    > If Adr were ordered to support Tri-Ven, then that move succeeds,
    4-on-3;
    > Ven-Tri is defeated by superior force, fails, and Ven is dislodged;
    Ser-Tri
    > succeeds (as Ven is dislodged by a unit coming from Tri, its move
    does not
    > have any effect on Tri, so Ser is moving 2-on-0). Pie-Ven fails,
    2-on-4.
    >
    > > Scenario 1:
    > > France:
    > > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > > Italy:
    > > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > > Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    > > Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    > > Austria:
    > > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > Turkey:
    > > Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > > Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > >
    > > We should keep in mind that we are all reasonable people; thus, if
    we
    > > actually had hard facts in front of us, then presumably we would
    agree
    > > with each other completely. But, instead of hard facts, we have a
    rule
    > > book (or even rule books); and, apparently, since there exists a
    minority
    > > opinion (presumably even if I personally held the majority
    opinion), the
    > > rule book would then not be considered completely unambiguous,
    because the
    > > rule book left open the possibility that a small minority might
    interpret
    > > it differently.
    >
    > I'm not aware of any minority opinion on this one. Nor, apparently,
    is
    > Lucas; his DATC documents cases where there is divergence of opinion.
    In
    > this case, though the DPTG generates a different outcome, that's not
    noted
    > as a controversy but as an error.
    >
    > > As long as there are no hard facts about, then my statements in
    this
    > > article can only be opinion. Let it be known that my opinion may
    > > represent a very small minority; let it also be known that it is
    not my
    > > intention to attempt to persuade anyone to accept my opinion.
    >
    > If you think the commonly accepted adjudication is wrong, this is a
    good
    > place to argue that. Just stating your opinion without evidence
    won't have
    > much effect, however. If you accept the principle that the rules
    should be
    > deterministic, and there is exactly one correct adjudication for a
    set of
    > orders, then we should all try to make sure we agree on what that
    > adjudication should be in this case. I believe I know what that is,
    but I'm
    > able to change my mind if there's a good reason.

    I'm exploring this topic; though, it is true that I have my own
    opinion. One
    aspect of this topic that we can explore, and that I'd like to explore
    is
    this: what rules are governing this particular scenario.

    Keep in mind, please, that I'm not presenting my view point as a
    gospel.

    The first exciting aspect of this is why there are two opinions.
    Exactly
    which rule or rules are we looking at differently. This would be a
    good
    place to start, but I'm not sure, reallly, which rule or rules we are
    looking
    at differently. What I think is exciting is that we would probably
    agree
    with each other 99% of the time concerning other scenarios or
    positions, but when we get to this position, the
    rules we have been using all along, don't unamimously convince us
    anymore.

    >
    > > I am essentially exploring this topic. It is like arguing about
    how many
    > > angels can dance on a head of a pin! Who can say, because we don't
    know
    > > how big an angel is: that is, we have no hard facts.
    >
    > Which is why the discussion of that matter at the Diet of Worms was
    > important: not the literal answer to the number of angels, but the
    analysis
    > of what facts were known about angels, and how those facts should be
    > interpreted.
    >
    > > But, when the day is over, and I say that for Scenario 1, that the
    French
    > > took Venezia, that's how you'll know that I hold the minority
    opinion.
    > > But, if at the end of the day I say that no units moved, then you
    know
    > > that I hold the majority opinion.
    >
    > Or perhaps you'll share with us the evidence that convinced you that
    the
    > French take Venezia, and convince us, and we'll all hold the majority
    > opinion.

    I am not writing to gospelize. Though you are correct. Do I know
    which
    rule or rules pretain to the scenario under discussion and which rule
    or rules bear upon this scenario and convince me one way or
    another? I'm not sure I do. Do you know which rule or
    rules convince you; if so, please state them, because they are a valid
    and very important part of the discussion. Similarly, your opinion as
    to
    which rule or rules I'm ignoring in this particular scenario, is also
    very important.

    >
    > But, at end of day, this is just a game, and it plays best if we all
    agree
    > on the rules, and their interpretation. So, even if you feel that
    it's
    > unrealistic for a bouncing unit to still be able to repel a force
    invading
    > the same territory, once you decide that the other players in your
    game (or
    > the master, if you have one) take that as correct, you would be
    reckless to
    > not play as though that would be the adjudication.
    >
    > > how is it that a unit can be given attack orders, be bounced back
    because
    > > this movement or attack failed, then have this unit changed to
    hold?
    >
    > It isn't changed to hold. A unit which bounces, remains in place
    unless t
    > is dislodged, but it does not hold. It cannot be supported in place,
    for
    > example, while units not ordered to move can be.
    >
    > > In short, how can a unit attack and hold simultaneously? If a unit
    was
    > > allowed to attack and hold simultaneously, then why could not other
    units
    > > follow valid orders to support this attacking army to its attacked
    > > location AND support this attacking army in its original location
    in case
    > > it got bounced back?
    >
    > Units often have multiple effects within the same turn. A unit can
    cut a
    > support yet bounce an attempted move from elsewhere. Or, it can cut
    a
    > support, be dislodged, and move during the retreat phase. A fleet
    can
    > convoy an army while also standing off an attack.

    I agree with you. My comments were related to "philosophy" of pure,
    simultaneous movement. It's not that I don't personally understand
    the mechanics of movement.

    >
    > But in the position above, the weakly supported move Pie-Ven is
    bounced, not
    > by the unit which remains in Venice, but by the superior force of the
    attack
    > on Venice from Trieste. The rules are explicit that the effect of
    such a
    > move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified *if the
    unit is
    > dislodged by a move from that space*. Thus, it is not nullified by a
    bounce
    > at that space. That seems to clearly cover the situation. Arguing
    that it
    > isn't the way real armies work isn't convincing; this is a game, and
    there
    > are many unrealistic features.

    Okay, what you say in the paragraph just above is very important. As
    it
    uses a game rule to decide. "The rules are explicit that the effect of
    such a move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified
    *if the unit is dislodged by a move from that space*."
    Then you say, also equally important, "Thus, it is not nullified by a
    bounce at that space."

    So, let's take Figure 13 or 14 in the year 2000, fourth edition rule
    book.
    What if that power wasn't dislodged? The reason that the army furthest
    north would not move south is that it would be in a traffic jam with
    the army already in its location.

    I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am making my first suggestion
    that the arguments over Figures 13 and 14 may not be correctly
    extrapolated. I am not saying that I know this with any kind of
    certainty.
    I would like to explore these figures further, and the logic that you
    all are extrapolating from what does not occur in these figures.

    In other words, we know that the many members of the Diplomacy
    community are highly intelligent and logical. Let me take the
    role of "student" here. And, please walk me through the steps,
    so that I completely understand how Figures 13 and 14 bear
    on the scenario at hand.

    >
    > > does the game dynamic or the movement dynamcis change based upon
    the
    > > presence of an army within a contested region, or based upon the
    orders
    > > given to an army present within the contested region?
    >
    > It depends on the orders given to all the units. But you're still
    > misunderstanding the bounce, I think.
    >

    I have not yet had a chance to re-read your comments, get the board
    out,
    set this up, and go through it. Thank you very much for your ideas and
    your kind, level headed writing! I will look at the following comments
    shortly.

    Thanks!

    > Let's make a few small changes to your scenario 1).
    >
    > First, take away Rome. Now, if we left things there, Venice would
    succeed
    > in its force-three attack on Trieste, though it is opposed by both
    the
    > force-two attack from Trieste and by the force-two attack on Trieste
    from
    > Serbia. The forces don't combine, however unrealistic that may be.
    In the
    > wake of the move, Piedmont would succeed in moving into Venice, of
    course.
    >
    > Next, have Adriatic support Serbia's move: Adr s Ser-Tri. Now, the
    Ven-Tri
    > move bounces, because it is opposed by an equally supported attack on
    > Trieste, coming from Serbia. The bounce has nothing to do with
    Trieste's
    > own orders; it is the opposing forces which bounce each other. So,
    what
    > about Pie-Ven? Well, Tri-Ven isn't cancelled just because the move
    fails;
    > and Tri wasn't dislodged by the move from Ven, so its effect on Ven
    is
    > unaltered: it bounces the move from Pie.
    >
    > Finally, take away Apulia. Ser and Ven, each twice-supported, still
    bounce
    > over Trieste without dislodging it, though it doesn't have any
    support
    > itself. But now, there is not enough support for Trieste's move to
    Venice
    > to bounce Piedmont's supported move to Venice. Venice, bounced in
    its
    > attempt to move to Trieste by the equally-supported Ser-Tri, is
    dislodged by
    > the once-supported Pie-Ven.
    >
    > Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do with Venice's
    support for
    > its move, but rather was due to Trieste's opposing move to Venice
    with
    > superior force.
    >
    > --
    > Randy Hudson
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In article <1106534993.050317.206220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

    > Here is the new scenario. I have changed the scenario so that there is an
    > option for a convoy which may, perhaps, stimulate my thinking process.

    I don't see any unit ordered to convoy here. Did you mean Adr to be ordered
    to convoy? As ordered here, the result is the same as before; 3-on-3
    bounces between Ven and Tri, and bounces for Pie and Ser due to superior
    force.

    If Adr were ordered to convoy Tri-Ven (or vice-versa), then the Tri-Ven and
    Ven-Tri orders wuld both succeed, and Ser and Pie would still both fail.

    If Adr were ordered to support Tri-Ven, then that move succeeds, 4-on-3;
    Ven-Tri is defeated by superior force, fails, and Ven is dislodged; Ser-Tri
    succeeds (as Ven is dislodged by a unit coming from Tri, its move does not
    have any effect on Tri, so Ser is moving 2-on-0). Pie-Ven fails, 2-on-4.

    > Scenario 1:
    > France:
    > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Italy:
    > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    > Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    > Austria:
    > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Turkey:
    > Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    >
    > We should keep in mind that we are all reasonable people; thus, if we
    > actually had hard facts in front of us, then presumably we would agree
    > with each other completely. But, instead of hard facts, we have a rule
    > book (or even rule books); and, apparently, since there exists a minority
    > opinion (presumably even if I personally held the majority opinion), the
    > rule book would then not be considered completely unambiguous, because the
    > rule book left open the possibility that a small minority might interpret
    > it differently.

    I'm not aware of any minority opinion on this one. Nor, apparently, is
    Lucas; his DATC documents cases where there is divergence of opinion. In
    this case, though the DPTG generates a different outcome, that's not noted
    as a controversy but as an error.

    > As long as there are no hard facts about, then my statements in this
    > article can only be opinion. Let it be known that my opinion may
    > represent a very small minority; let it also be known that it is not my
    > intention to attempt to persuade anyone to accept my opinion.

    If you think the commonly accepted adjudication is wrong, this is a good
    place to argue that. Just stating your opinion without evidence won't have
    much effect, however. If you accept the principle that the rules should be
    deterministic, and there is exactly one correct adjudication for a set of
    orders, then we should all try to make sure we agree on what that
    adjudication should be in this case. I believe I know what that is, but I'm
    able to change my mind if there's a good reason.

    > I am essentially exploring this topic. It is like arguing about how many
    > angels can dance on a head of a pin! Who can say, because we don't know
    > how big an angel is: that is, we have no hard facts.

    Which is why the discussion of that matter at the Diet of Worms was
    important: not the literal answer to the number of angels, but the analysis
    of what facts were known about angels, and how those facts should be
    interpreted.

    > But, when the day is over, and I say that for Scenario 1, that the French
    > took Venezia, that's how you'll know that I hold the minority opinion.
    > But, if at the end of the day I say that no units moved, then you know
    > that I hold the majority opinion.

    Or perhaps you'll share with us the evidence that convinced you that the
    French take Venezia, and convince us, and we'll all hold the majority
    opinion.

    But, at end of day, this is just a game, and it plays best if we all agree
    on the rules, and their interpretation. So, even if you feel that it's
    unrealistic for a bouncing unit to still be able to repel a force invading
    the same territory, once you decide that the other players in your game (or
    the master, if you have one) take that as correct, you would be reckless to
    not play as though that would be the adjudication.

    > how is it that a unit can be given attack orders, be bounced back because
    > this movement or attack failed, then have this unit changed to hold?

    It isn't changed to hold. A unit which bounces, remains in place unless t
    is dislodged, but it does not hold. It cannot be supported in place, for
    example, while units not ordered to move can be.

    > In short, how can a unit attack and hold simultaneously? If a unit was
    > allowed to attack and hold simultaneously, then why could not other units
    > follow valid orders to support this attacking army to its attacked
    > location AND support this attacking army in its original location in case
    > it got bounced back?

    Units often have multiple effects within the same turn. A unit can cut a
    support yet bounce an attempted move from elsewhere. Or, it can cut a
    support, be dislodged, and move during the retreat phase. A fleet can
    convoy an army while also standing off an attack.

    But in the position above, the weakly supported move Pie-Ven is bounced, not
    by the unit which remains in Venice, but by the superior force of the attack
    on Venice from Trieste. The rules are explicit that the effect of such a
    move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified *if the unit is
    dislodged by a move from that space*. Thus, it is not nullified by a bounce
    at that space. That seems to clearly cover the situation. Arguing that it
    isn't the way real armies work isn't convincing; this is a game, and there
    are many unrealistic features.

    > does the game dynamic or the movement dynamcis change based upon the
    > presence of an army within a contested region, or based upon the orders
    > given to an army present within the contested region?

    It depends on the orders given to all the units. But you're still
    misunderstanding the bounce, I think.

    Let's make a few small changes to your scenario 1).

    First, take away Rome. Now, if we left things there, Venice would succeed
    in its force-three attack on Trieste, though it is opposed by both the
    force-two attack from Trieste and by the force-two attack on Trieste from
    Serbia. The forces don't combine, however unrealistic that may be. In the
    wake of the move, Piedmont would succeed in moving into Venice, of course.

    Next, have Adriatic support Serbia's move: Adr s Ser-Tri. Now, the Ven-Tri
    move bounces, because it is opposed by an equally supported attack on
    Trieste, coming from Serbia. The bounce has nothing to do with Trieste's
    own orders; it is the opposing forces which bounce each other. So, what
    about Pie-Ven? Well, Tri-Ven isn't cancelled just because the move fails;
    and Tri wasn't dislodged by the move from Ven, so its effect on Ven is
    unaltered: it bounces the move from Pie.

    Finally, take away Apulia. Ser and Ven, each twice-supported, still bounce
    over Trieste without dislodging it, though it doesn't have any support
    itself. But now, there is not enough support for Trieste's move to Venice
    to bounce Piedmont's supported move to Venice. Venice, bounced in its
    attempt to move to Trieste by the equally-supported Ser-Tri, is dislodged by
    the once-supported Pie-Ven.

    Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do with Venice's support for
    its move, but rather was due to Trieste's opposing move to Venice with
    superior force.

    --
    Randy Hudson
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    NewsGroupUser wrote:
    > Randy Hudson wrote:
    > > In article <1106534993.050317.206220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > > NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Here is the new scenario. I have changed the scenario so that
    > there is an
    > > > option for a convoy which may, perhaps, stimulate my thinking
    > process.
    > >
    > > I don't see any unit ordered to convoy here. Did you mean Adr to
    be
    > ordered
    > > to convoy? As ordered here, the result is the same as before;
    3-on-3
    > > bounces between Ven and Tri, and bounces for Pie and Ser due to
    > superior
    > > force.
    >
    > Hi Randy, The fleet is not convoying, it is holding, and thus has no
    > effect on
    > the particular scenario at hand; what I mean is that the fleet is
    > there so that
    > if we play "what if" games with the scenario, and want to introduce a
    > convoy,
    > the fleet is there to have its orders changed.
    >
    > >
    > > If Adr were ordered to convoy Tri-Ven (or vice-versa), then the
    > Tri-Ven and
    > > Ven-Tri orders wuld both succeed, and Ser and Pie would still both
    > fail.
    > >
    > > If Adr were ordered to support Tri-Ven, then that move succeeds,
    > 4-on-3;
    > > Ven-Tri is defeated by superior force, fails, and Ven is dislodged;
    > Ser-Tri
    > > succeeds (as Ven is dislodged by a unit coming from Tri, its move
    > does not
    > > have any effect on Tri, so Ser is moving 2-on-0). Pie-Ven fails,
    > 2-on-4.
    > >
    > > > Scenario 1:
    > > > France:
    > > > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > > > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > > > Italy:
    > > > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > > > Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > > > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    > > > Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    > > > Austria:
    > > > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > > > Turkey:
    > > > Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > > > Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > > >
    > > > We should keep in mind that we are all reasonable people; thus,
    if
    > we
    > > > actually had hard facts in front of us, then presumably we would
    > agree
    > > > with each other completely. But, instead of hard facts, we have
    a
    > rule
    > > > book (or even rule books); and, apparently, since there exists a
    > minority
    > > > opinion (presumably even if I personally held the majority
    > opinion), the
    > > > rule book would then not be considered completely unambiguous,
    > because the
    > > > rule book left open the possibility that a small minority might
    > interpret
    > > > it differently.
    > >
    > > I'm not aware of any minority opinion on this one. Nor,
    apparently,
    > is
    > > Lucas; his DATC documents cases where there is divergence of
    opinion.
    > In
    > > this case, though the DPTG generates a different outcome, that's
    not
    > noted
    > > as a controversy but as an error.
    > >
    > > > As long as there are no hard facts about, then my statements in
    > this
    > > > article can only be opinion. Let it be known that my opinion may
    > > > represent a very small minority; let it also be known that it is
    > not my
    > > > intention to attempt to persuade anyone to accept my opinion.
    > >
    > > If you think the commonly accepted adjudication is wrong, this is a
    > good
    > > place to argue that. Just stating your opinion without evidence
    > won't have
    > > much effect, however. If you accept the principle that the rules
    > should be
    > > deterministic, and there is exactly one correct adjudication for a
    > set of
    > > orders, then we should all try to make sure we agree on what that
    > > adjudication should be in this case. I believe I know what that
    is,
    > but I'm
    > > able to change my mind if there's a good reason.
    >
    > I'm exploring this topic; though, it is true that I have my own
    > opinion. One
    > aspect of this topic that we can explore, and that I'd like to
    explore
    > is
    > this: what rules are governing this particular scenario.
    >
    > Keep in mind, please, that I'm not presenting my view point as a
    > gospel.
    >
    > The first exciting aspect of this is why there are two opinions.
    > Exactly
    > which rule or rules are we looking at differently. This would be a
    > good
    > place to start, but I'm not sure, reallly, which rule or rules we are
    > looking
    > at differently. What I think is exciting is that we would probably
    > agree
    > with each other 99% of the time concerning other scenarios or
    > positions, but when we get to this position, the
    > rules we have been using all along, don't unamimously convince us
    > anymore.
    >
    > >
    > > > I am essentially exploring this topic. It is like arguing about
    > how many
    > > > angels can dance on a head of a pin! Who can say, because we
    don't
    > know
    > > > how big an angel is: that is, we have no hard facts.
    > >
    > > Which is why the discussion of that matter at the Diet of Worms was
    > > important: not the literal answer to the number of angels, but the
    > analysis
    > > of what facts were known about angels, and how those facts should
    be
    > > interpreted.
    > >
    > > > But, when the day is over, and I say that for Scenario 1, that
    the
    > French
    > > > took Venezia, that's how you'll know that I hold the minority
    > opinion.
    > > > But, if at the end of the day I say that no units moved, then you
    > know
    > > > that I hold the majority opinion.
    > >
    > > Or perhaps you'll share with us the evidence that convinced you
    that
    > the
    > > French take Venezia, and convince us, and we'll all hold the
    majority
    > > opinion.
    >
    > I am not writing to gospelize. Though you are correct. Do I know
    > which
    > rule or rules pretain to the scenario under discussion and which rule
    > or rules bear upon this scenario and convince me one way or
    > another? I'm not sure I do. Do you know which rule or
    > rules convince you; if so, please state them, because they are a
    valid
    > and very important part of the discussion. Similarly, your opinion
    as
    > to
    > which rule or rules I'm ignoring in this particular scenario, is also
    > very important.
    >
    > >
    > > But, at end of day, this is just a game, and it plays best if we
    all
    > agree
    > > on the rules, and their interpretation. So, even if you feel that
    > it's
    > > unrealistic for a bouncing unit to still be able to repel a force
    > invading
    > > the same territory, once you decide that the other players in your
    > game (or
    > > the master, if you have one) take that as correct, you would be
    > reckless to
    > > not play as though that would be the adjudication.
    > >
    > > > how is it that a unit can be given attack orders, be bounced back
    > because
    > > > this movement or attack failed, then have this unit changed to
    > hold?
    > >
    > > It isn't changed to hold. A unit which bounces, remains in place
    > unless t
    > > is dislodged, but it does not hold. It cannot be supported in
    place,
    > for
    > > example, while units not ordered to move can be.
    > >
    > > > In short, how can a unit attack and hold simultaneously? If a
    unit
    > was
    > > > allowed to attack and hold simultaneously, then why could not
    other
    > units
    > > > follow valid orders to support this attacking army to its
    attacked
    > > > location AND support this attacking army in its original location
    > in case
    > > > it got bounced back?
    > >
    > > Units often have multiple effects within the same turn. A unit can
    > cut a
    > > support yet bounce an attempted move from elsewhere. Or, it can
    cut
    > a
    > > support, be dislodged, and move during the retreat phase. A fleet
    > can
    > > convoy an army while also standing off an attack.
    >
    > I agree with you. My comments were related to "philosophy" of pure,
    > simultaneous movement. It's not that I don't personally understand
    > the mechanics of movement.
    >
    > >
    > > But in the position above, the weakly supported move Pie-Ven is
    > bounced, not
    > > by the unit which remains in Venice, but by the superior force of
    the
    > attack
    > > on Venice from Trieste. The rules are explicit that the effect of
    > such a
    > > move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified *if the
    > unit is
    > > dislodged by a move from that space*. Thus, it is not nullified by
    a
    > bounce
    > > at that space. That seems to clearly cover the situation. Arguing
    > that it
    > > isn't the way real armies work isn't convincing; this is a game,
    and
    > there
    > > are many unrealistic features.
    >
    > Okay, what you say in the paragraph just above is very important. As
    > it
    > uses a game rule to decide. "The rules are explicit that the effect
    of
    > such a move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified
    > *if the unit is dislodged by a move from that space*."
    > Then you say, also equally important, "Thus, it is not nullified by a
    > bounce at that space."
    >
    > So, let's take Figure 13 or 14 in the year 2000, fourth edition rule
    > book.
    > What if that power wasn't dislodged? The reason that the army
    furthest
    > north would not move south is that it would be in a traffic jam with
    > the army already in its location.
    >
    > I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am making my first suggestion
    > that the arguments over Figures 13 and 14 may not be correctly
    > extrapolated. I am not saying that I know this with any kind of
    > certainty.
    > I would like to explore these figures further, and the logic that you
    > all are extrapolating from what does not occur in these figures.
    >
    > In other words, we know that the many members of the Diplomacy
    > community are highly intelligent and logical. Let me take the
    > role of "student" here. And, please walk me through the steps,
    > so that I completely understand how Figures 13 and 14 bear
    > on the scenario at hand.
    >
    > >
    > > > does the game dynamic or the movement dynamcis change based upon
    > the
    > > > presence of an army within a contested region, or based upon the
    > orders
    > > > given to an army present within the contested region?
    > >
    > > It depends on the orders given to all the units. But you're still
    > > misunderstanding the bounce, I think.
    > >
    >
    > I have not yet had a chance to re-read your comments, get the board
    > out,
    > set this up, and go through it. Thank you very much for your ideas
    and
    > your kind, level headed writing! I will look at the following
    comments
    > shortly.
    >
    > Thanks!
    >

    Okay, I've now set up my Diplomacy board and will review the next
    section of this article.

    > > Let's make a few small changes to your scenario 1).
    > >
    > > First, take away Rome. Now, if we left things there, Venice would
    > succeed
    > > in its force-three attack on Trieste, though it is opposed by both
    > the
    > > force-two attack from Trieste and by the force-two attack on
    Trieste
    > from
    > > Serbia. The forces don't combine, however unrealistic that may be.
    > In the
    > > wake of the move, Piedmont would succeed in moving into Venice, of
    > course.

    I agree. But, I can't say with certainty that I agree with the
    mechanics
    or our reasoning of what happened. It is always possible that two
    people
    have different adjudication mechanics which result in an adjudication
    which is identical except for that 1 out of 100th scenario. Note that
    in
    your new "what if" scenario here, it DOES NOT matter with respect to
    the final result that your adjudication reasoning and mine our
    different:
    to be consistent, let us assume that my adjudication reasoning is:
    the Army in Venezia moves into Triest with a force of 3 to 2; the
    Austrain army now in Venezia is not dislodged because this attack
    is supported with a total strength of 3 against the Italian 2; in a
    certain sense, the Italians in Trieste are not overly relevant since
    they only have a power of 2 for attack into Venezia, and only a
    holding power of 1 in Trieste. Once the Italians are out of the
    picture (yes, I know that this adjudication process is not purely
    simultaneous, of course), the Austrians from Venezia are still
    "entering" Trieste being challanged by the attacking Turks who
    also are attempting to enter into Trieste. The Austrian attack
    into Trieste is stronger by 3 to 2, thus the Austrians from
    Venezia enter Trieste.

    Note that our adjudication reasoning differs, but our results
    our the same. In the above 'what if' scenario you presented,
    I often reason about it "purely simultaneously" just like you
    do, because sometimes
    it is faster, and often (almost always?) these two ways of
    adjucational reasoning yield identical results.

    > >
    > > Next, have Adriatic support Serbia's move: Adr s Ser-Tri.

    I take it Roma is still out of the picture and there is no army there.
    Le't also say that the fleet in the Adriatic is Turkish.

    > Now, the
    > Ven-Tri
    > > move bounces, because it is opposed by an equally supported attack
    on
    > > Trieste, coming from Serbia.

    I agree.

    > > The bounce has nothing to do with
    > Trieste's
    > > own orders; it is the opposing forces which bounce each other.

    In this scenario, Triestes orders are not very relevant and are
    inconsequential due to the over-powering forces in the neighborhood.

    > > So,
    > what
    > > about Pie-Ven? Well, Tri-Ven isn't cancelled just because the move
    > fails;
    > > and Tri wasn't dislodged by the move from Ven, so its effect on Ven
    > is
    > > unaltered: it bounces the move from Pie.

    Okay, to make sure we are on the same example, here is the "what if"
    scenario that the above text refers to:
    What if:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Turkey:
    Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.

    And, the same question holds: what happens in Venezia.

    I like the richness of your "what if" scenario I have detailed
    above. I can see in my head everything unfolding
    in pure simultaneity and, of course, under this form of
    adjudicational reasoning, no unit would move. And,
    to see your point, under this form of reasoning, the minority
    view should particularly note that the Italian army in Trieste
    did have an influence in Venezia in keeping the French
    out of Venezia.

    I might speculate, that if the minority view were to be consistent,
    it would say that the French did dislodge the Austrian's from
    Venezia. In effect, the minority view might say that the Italians
    in Trieste never had any real effect in Venezia because they
    could not "get past" the fast, hard, brick wall of a force of
    three that was counter-attacking them. Any while its true
    that the Austrians attacking from Venezia did not fail in their
    attack due to Italians, their attack certainly failed due to the
    Turks; so, Austrians can only muster a defensive holding
    strength of 1 and are dislodged by the French attack.

    So, let's modify you what if scenario slightly, and see if the
    minority view runs into a contradiction.

    Next What If:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia holds.
    Army in Vienna supports holds.
    Army in Budapest supports holds.
    Turkey:
    Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.

    the only change with respect to the previous what if scenario is that
    the Austrian army in Venezia is holding, and the other two Austrian
    units are out to lunch, holding, and not really related to this
    scenario.

    The minority view NOW would say that the Italians and the French
    met in Venezia and bounced each other away, resulting in the
    Austrian army in Venezia NOT being dislodged.

    Also, given for completeness, the Italians in Trieste would be
    dislodged
    by the Turkish attacking force of 3.

    In summary, the minority view is not saying much beside this:
    the influence that a particular unit has on a province does
    depend upon whether there exists another unit in that
    province and what that unit's orders are. This is not a proof,
    of course, but a mind set, or more particularly, a very
    minority opinion.

    Now, and this will have to be discussed in another thread,
    it will be noted that I have been trying to "explain" the
    "reasoning" of the minority view. But, really, this
    "explanation" is attempting to come to terms with
    the "fuzzy simultaneity" result that a sequence
    based adjudication algorithm reaches. The question
    is this, perhaps, can we find an example where the
    "explaining" I have given and the "fuzzy simultaneity"
    result of a sequenced based adjudication algorithm
    breach! Such as DATC test cases 6.E.4 and
    6.E.5. In these examples, the "fuzzy simultaneity"
    algorithm matches the DATC results, but does the
    "explanation" I have given of the minority viewpoint
    breach from the underling algorithm? That would need
    to be investigated.

    > >
    > > Finally, take away Apulia.

    Okay, so at this stage in this "what if" scenario, there is no unit
    in Roma and no unit in Apulia.

    > > Ser and Ven, each twice-supported, still
    > bounce
    > > over Trieste without dislodging it, though it doesn't have any
    > support
    > > itself.

    Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the "what if" scenario is
    here any more, as my assumption of the "what if" scenario
    under consideration does not seem to match your text
    given just above.

    For instance, the Austrian movement from Venezia moves
    into Trieste with a force of 3, not 2, right?

    Therefore, unfortunately, I believe that I don't have your
    given 'what if' scenario set up on my Diplomacy board
    correctly.

    So that your text makes sense, let's also remove the unit in
    Vienna. Okay, let's assume that the "what if" scenario you
    are presenting is this: it is Scenario 1 with the following
    units removed from the board: Roma, Apulia, Vienna,
    and the Adriatic Sea.

    Now indeed, the lone, Italian army in Trieste, even though
    ordered to Venezia, is inconsequential. Whether the
    adjudicator's mind uses a purely simultaneous algorithm
    or a hot-spot-based fuzzy simultaneity algorithm, there
    is no question that the Italians in Trieste have little
    impact on the adjudication result. The real issue in
    Trieste is the attacking Austrians with a force of 2
    verse the attacking Turks with a force of 2.

    > >But now, there is not enough support for Trieste's move to
    > Venice
    > > to bounce Piedmont's supported move to Venice. Venice, bounced in
    > its
    > > attempt to move to Trieste by the equally-supported Ser-Tri, is
    > dislodged by
    > > the once-supported Pie-Ven.

    I agree. The Austrians failed to successfully take Trieste, and this
    same army is over-run by the attacking French; the French attack
    Venezia with a force of 2 and the Austrian army in Venezia is
    dislodged as its holding strength was only 1.

    > >
    > > Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do with Venice's
    > support for
    > > its move, but rather was due to Trieste's opposing move to Venice
    > with
    > > superior force.

    I'm not sure what bounce I object to; keep in mind that this is very
    tricky because in 99 out of 100 adjudications, you and I will agree!
    That is what is so interesting about this Scenario 1. When you
    simplify Scenario 1, you and I agree 100 percent. Can we determine
    what
    aspects contribute to this break of opinion for this one particular
    Scenario 1?

    Now I will attempt to understand your conclusion. If I reason
    incorrectly
    about your conclusion, then please clarify. Obviously I want to be
    exposed to your reasoning and make sure I am processing it correctly.

    Now I have set up Scenario 1 again on my board. Now I read your
    conclusion: "Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do
    with Venice's support for its move, but rather was due to Trieste's
    opposing move to Venice with superior force."

    Unfortunately, I don't fully understand how to process your conclusion.
    Please clarify, since I obviously would be missing something if I
    don't at least understand your argument. I think part of the confusion
    may be I'm not sure what the different phrases in the conclusion
    are referring to, such as which scenario or "what if" scenario.
    I suspect that your logic can be abstracted like this: in some "what
    if"
    scenario we see dynamic X at work, but in the Scenario 1 which
    encompasses dynamic X, you argue that I am inconsistent in that
    I then ignore dynamic X.

    This is an important vein of argument and a good approach.
    Unfortunately, I did not fully understand which dynamic X
    I was allowing in the "what if" scenario and then disallowing
    in the Scenario 1.

    So, let me think a minute and see if I can figure it out myself.
    Okay, let's set up Scenario 1 again on the playing board.
    I think I understand your argument and will now attempt to
    express it: The minority view is faulty in that it is inconsistent
    in its evaluation of the effect of the Italian army moving into
    Venezia from Trieste. The majority view holds that this is a
    constant force of 3 ALWAYS. Yet, the minority view holds that
    there do exist at least one example formation, such as Scenario 1,
    where the strength and total effect of the Italian attack is
    moderated by the orders given to and the counter-attacking
    strength currently resident in Venezia. This results in what
    the majority consider a very peculiar adjucation, wherein the
    French with only a strength of 2 end up marching into
    Venezia.
    Thanks for your comments, Randy.

    > >
    > > --
    > > Randy Hudson
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    In another article, I made a preliminary modification to
    my adjudication algorithm. I will now apply it to this
    scenario to see if it flushes out or to see if it the
    algorithmic fix creates even more problems.

    The minority view point has two parts:
    1. The adjudication algorithm is a black box, there is
    nothing which says that the black box inner workings
    need to actually be pure, formal,simultaneous movement,
    only that the result of the black box adjudication
    represent seemingly simultaneous movement.
    2. Can the minority view point be supported by
    my repaired algorithm for this scenario?

    Scenario 1:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Turkey:
    Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.

    Using the new, repaired algorithm of mine, which
    has been repaired to come up with a minority
    opinion adjudication here are its processes.

    The first and only hot spot to consider in adjudication
    begins is Venezia and Trieste, where two armies
    are attacking into each other, with equal strength
    of 3; so, they bounce.

    The Austrian army in Venezia is now "holding".
    The Italian army in Trieste is now "holding".

    The "holding" labels above allow two more hot
    spots to now light up: again Venezia and Trieste,
    but this time due to the attacking French and
    the attacking Turks, respectively.

    Bearing upon the outcome in Venezia is the
    following: the Austrian army placing force
    there of a hold of strength 1; the attacking
    French with a strength of 2, and the attacking
    Italians with a strength of 3.

    We now ask what these attacking armies encountered
    en route to their attacked destinations. The French
    encountered no resistence, just the common "hold".
    But, the Italians encountered a stiff counter-attack
    by the Austrians of 3, and thus the Italians are
    not considered to have influenced Venezia
    significantly for this scenario (though, of course,
    if Venezia had been given a support order, that
    order would have been cut).

    So, the French take Venezia, and the Austrians are
    dislodged from Venezia.

    It appears that the algorithmic fix did hold "true"
    in representing the minority opinion for this
    given scenario. Though, the reader should
    be aware that the majority consider this rendition
    either a minority opinion or just a plane, incorrect
    adjudication result.

    Note that I did not bother adjudicating the eastern
    sector of this example, since it is symmetrical, and
    similar reasoning could be used.

    The next thing I'll need to do is check to see if
    my new, enhanced algorithm directly contradicts
    any adjudication results as given in the year 2000,
    fourth edition rule book; for if there are any
    direct contradictions as to the adjudication
    results, then the minority view may find itself
    on very shaky ground indeed.

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

    Hi Everyone,

    Thank you all for thinking and offering your ideas.

    Let me please remind new readers that my opinions
    are definitely way-out, minority opinions and that
    the majority would categorize them as just plane
    incorrect.

    I appreciate everyone responding to my off-beat
    ideas and helping me, in the final analysis, until
    I find something that contradicts my ideas, now
    believe more strongly in my minority opinion
    concept: that the adjudication algorithm is a black
    box with no restrictions on how it does its job,
    with no restrictions that it must think and
    adjudicate in pure, simultaneous movement;
    only that it produce results which are seemingly
    simultaneous.

    Thanks again!
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Jim Burgess wrote:

    > ...,
    > you are misrepresenting what I (not speaking for anyone else)
    > am trying to say. ...

    Hi Jim,

    I apologize. It is unclear in what phrase or paragraph or set of
    paragraphs I wrote that misrepresented you. But, it is not my
    intention to misrepresent you or anyone else.

    You also say that you are of the "minority opinion" if I read
    your post correctly. That's good! No one likes to be totally
    alone. Since you seem far smarter than me, I suspect that
    I can learn a lot from you.

    > The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    > the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    > algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    > order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    > equation.

    I would be interested in understanding this a little more. But, I
    may need a little help. First, I am interested in understanding it
    because I would like to see what the "purest" adjudication
    algorithm would produce.

    I may be a little slow, so please be patient. I need to first
    understand
    where the number 34 came from. The number of provinces on the
    Diplomacy map is greater than 34. The number of provinces that are
    starred could be 34 (it is hard to count them without losing my place,
    but since it takes 18 of this starred provinces to win, then 17 is
    probably the half-way point, and that would be 34 total starred
    provinces).
    Okay, I'll try to count the starred provinces again: 32 (but I may
    have
    missed a couple).

    So, let's assume there are 34 starred provinces, but that wouldn't
    enter into the equations, I suspect, that is, it would not dictate--
    oh, I take that back, because the number of starred provinces
    is how many military units in total can exist on the board!

    Okay, finally, I have finally counted 34 provinces. At most, there
    can be 34 military units on the field. But, fortunately for us,
    there can be two, or three, or some small number so that we can
    explore your ideas further and perhaps more easily than if we
    had 34 simultaneous equations, and I can learn from your ideas.

    Now, we have to be careful, however. Part of your post was saying
    that in actuality, the instantiation of the adjudication engine might
    use short-cuts, so as not to actually perform the solutions to all
    the equations.

    With your cooperation, I would like to explore a very simple scenario,
    set up the simultaneous equations, and give it a run through.

    Once I get the hang of it, presumably I could manufacture more
    complicated scenarios and then figure things out without your
    help. But, at this stage, I have no idea particularly how to begin.

    Here is the first simple scenario:
    Scenario 1:
    French Army in Marseilles to Piemonte.

    That's it, and presumably that is "one equation." At this stage,
    you may say, "okay 'stupid,' I didn't literally mean equations."
    So, by making an example, I can find out what you really meant,
    and if there really is an equation per say, and if so, what that
    equation might look like.

    Here is the second scenario:
    Scenario 2:
    French Army in Marseilles to Piemonte.
    French Army in Spain to Marseilles.

    This could be a rather complicated equation, as it would seem
    to involve 'spatial relationships.' That is, the army in Spain
    needs to know that it can only move to Marseilles if Marseilles
    ultimately is left empty by the army originally there.

    I think these two simple examples are enough for me to learn
    about. I'm beginning to think that how this would be done is
    not purely by equations, but would be, I don't know, perhaps
    more in the world of computer simulation? I'm not sure.
    But, I'm also not sure that it can be expressed in pure equations
    (but then again, I'm no physicist either).

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

    > Jim Burgess wrote:
    > > The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    > > the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    > > algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    > > order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    > > equation.

    Hi Jim,

    I think I have a related question. Let us assume that the
    purest adjudication algorithm has not yet been implemented.
    Can you adjudicate Scenario 1 in this thread the way the
    purest adjudication algorithm would? Or would this not be
    possible without first constructing the purest adjudication
    algorithm?

    This in turn brings up another, perhaps more philosophically
    related question. Assuming that you cannot adjudicate
    Scenario 1 until the purest adjudication algorithm has been
    built,
    [and there is no need to answer this question if this
    assumption is not true]
    does this means that there are instantiations of this
    purest of algorithms that are less perfect than others? And,
    as these instantiations become more and more perfect in their
    implementation, that they approach one pure adjudication
    result.

    Finally, assuming that you cannot adjudicate Scenario 1 until
    the purest adjudication algorithm has been built, [and, again,
    there is no need to answer this question if the assumption is
    fasle]
    how would
    you guess the adjudication would go?

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

    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:

    As a member of the "minority view" (and be careful, of the
    thousands of Dip players the number expressing their views
    here are a small and probably not representative sample),
    you are misrepresenting what I (not speaking for anyone else)
    am trying to say. The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    equation.

    e.g. you have 2x + 5 = y and 2y + x = 20, two equations and
    we can solve simultaneously..... let me skip a few lines for
    those who want to figure it out for themselves....


    y = 9, x = 2. Now you might find a shortcut solution method
    that gives you this answer, and as long as it gives you the
    answer, let's say you convert them to y = mx + b form,
    y = -1/2x +10 and y = 2x + 5 and you graph them and note
    where they intersect. Or you might solve them directly
    as simultaneous equations, but you might have a criterion
    that ease of solution counts for something. Thus, the
    inner workings don't matter. You actually are not (I
    don't think) solving a system of 34 simultaneous equations
    in 34 unknowns anyway. The only question is whcih shortcuts
    you take.

    Jim-Bob

    >Hi,

    >In another article, I made a preliminary modification to
    >my adjudication algorithm. I will now apply it to this
    >scenario to see if it flushes out or to see if it the
    >algorithmic fix creates even more problems.

    >The minority view point has two parts:
    >1. The adjudication algorithm is a black box, there is
    >nothing which says that the black box inner workings
    >need to actually be pure, formal,simultaneous movement,
    >only that the result of the black box adjudication
    >represent seemingly simultaneous movement.
    >2. Can the minority view point be supported by
    >my repaired algorithm for this scenario?

    >Scenario 1:
    >France:
    >Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    >Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    >Italy:
    >Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    >Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    >Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
    >Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
    >Austria:
    >Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >Turkey:
    >Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    >Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.

    >Using the new, repaired algorithm of mine, which
    >has been repaired to come up with a minority
    >opinion adjudication here are its processes.

    >The first and only hot spot to consider in adjudication
    >begins is Venezia and Trieste, where two armies
    >are attacking into each other, with equal strength
    >of 3; so, they bounce.

    >The Austrian army in Venezia is now "holding".
    >The Italian army in Trieste is now "holding".

    >The "holding" labels above allow two more hot
    >spots to now light up: again Venezia and Trieste,
    >but this time due to the attacking French and
    >the attacking Turks, respectively.

    >Bearing upon the outcome in Venezia is the
    >following: the Austrian army placing force
    >there of a hold of strength 1; the attacking
    >French with a strength of 2, and the attacking
    >Italians with a strength of 3.

    >We now ask what these attacking armies encountered
    >en route to their attacked destinations. The French
    >encountered no resistence, just the common "hold".
    >But, the Italians encountered a stiff counter-attack
    >by the Austrians of 3, and thus the Italians are
    >not considered to have influenced Venezia
    >significantly for this scenario (though, of course,
    >if Venezia had been given a support order, that
    >order would have been cut).

    >So, the French take Venezia, and the Austrians are
    >dislodged from Venezia.

    >It appears that the algorithmic fix did hold "true"
    >in representing the minority opinion for this
    >given scenario. Though, the reader should
    >be aware that the majority consider this rendition
    >either a minority opinion or just a plane, incorrect
    >adjudication result.

    >Note that I did not bother adjudicating the eastern
    >sector of this example, since it is symmetrical, and
    >similar reasoning could be used.

    >The next thing I'll need to do is check to see if
    >my new, enhanced algorithm directly contradicts
    >any adjudication results as given in the year 2000,
    >fourth edition rule book; for if there are any
    >direct contradictions as to the adjudication
    >results, then the minority view may find itself
    >on very shaky ground indeed.

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

    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:

    >Hi Everyone,

    >Thank you all for thinking and offering your ideas.

    >Let me please remind new readers that my opinions
    >are definitely way-out, minority opinions and that
    >the majority would categorize them as just plane
    >incorrect.

    >I appreciate everyone responding to my off-beat
    >ideas and helping me, in the final analysis, until
    >I find something that contradicts my ideas, now
    >believe more strongly in my minority opinion
    >concept: that the adjudication algorithm is a black
    >box with no restrictions on how it does its job,
    >with no restrictions that it must think and
    >adjudicate in pure, simultaneous movement;
    >only that it produce results which are seemingly
    >simultaneous.

    >Thanks again!

    Some may be far out, others might not. That's my point.

    No one solves a truly pure simultaneous algorithm.

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

    Hi Randy,

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I apologize if I gave the impression
    of dismissing your arguments.

    At one point in your message, you suggest that either the main
    Scenario 1 or one of the "what if" scenarios is a direct violation
    of the rule book. I would like to focus on any direct and obvious
    violations on the rule book, as not only are these easier to
    understand, but if my adjudicated result is in direct violation of
    a clear and obvious rule, then that is something I need to
    know about unambiguously and be totally aware of.

    I will get out the Diplomacy board (though not necessarily
    right at this very instance), all the rule books (as I have copies
    of almost every rule book), and review your posting with
    an eye for finding any clear and obvious violations of the
    rule book that my adjudication resulted in.

    If I am "blind" and unable to find any, or lack the experience
    to interpret your statements correctly, then I will request your
    help in isolating them.

    Thanks very much.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi Randy and Everyone,

    As far as I am aware, no one person has stated
    explicitly and directly that they consider my
    adjudication of Scenario 1 to be one valid
    adjudication of many, given that it is assumed
    that everyone may interpret the rules in different,
    though valid ways.

    To say this another way, if it be assumed that
    there exists any one that believes the rules
    could potentially be interpreted in different,
    valid ways, no one has specifically and clearly
    said, to my knowledge, that my adjudication of
    Scenario 1 is one such valid adjudication
    result.

    So, let's assume that my adjudication of
    Scenario 1 is simply wrong because it clearly
    and directly violates a rule, and that this rule
    can be found and spoken of. [This paragraph
    is not meant to be flippant; it appears to
    be a valid assumption until some person,
    other than me,
    explicitly says that my interpretation is at
    least potentially valid given the rules or
    given how the rules might be interpreted.]

    I am using the year 2000, fourth edition
    rule book, as it is freely available on the
    internet and because it has diagram's showing
    maps and units, and arrows showing how they
    moved, and so forth, so I can read it and
    reason about a diagram without setting up
    a scenario on the Diplomacy map on my
    desk.

    Let's consider now Scenario 2:
    Scenario 2:
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia (supported in its move by two other units
    not shown).
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste (supported in its move by two other units
    not shown).
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia (supported in its move by one other unit
    not shown).

    Because Scenario 2 does not involve the cutting of supports,
    we need not detail every unit, nor make the scenario
    symmetrical.

    The issue is not difficult to understand. The
    statement of the majority view is, for this
    given scenario, that the Italian army's action
    of attacking Venezia bounces the French
    attack on Venezia, with the result that the
    Austrian army in Venezia is not dislodged.

    Let us further assume that this is not just
    a majority view, but that it is the only correct
    way to adjudicate the position using the
    rule book.

    So, we now need to find what rules in the
    rule book bear upon this situation.

    The rule book, I might add, does not seem
    to have a lot of the "weird" positions, such as
    Scenario 2, in it. This is very unfortunate,
    because these weirder positions are often
    revealing about how many of the rules work
    together.

    The closest diagram in the rule book that I
    can find is Diagram 25 on page 14 of the
    year 2000, fourth edition rule book. Note
    carefully some of the descriptive text:
    "In most cases, this supported attack from
    Silesia into Munich would beat the unsupported
    attack from Ruhr."

    Note also that it does not state the following:
    In most cases, this supported attack from
    Silesia into Munich would beat the unsupported
    attack from Ruhr AND THE UNSUPPORTED
    ATTACK FROM TYROLIA.

    [The ALL CAPS letters are the words I added to
    the sentence]

    Can one now extrapolate from this example and
    say the following: The attack from Tyrolia into
    Munich was canceled because it was met by
    an equally apposing attack from Munich into
    Tyrolia? For if the attack from Tyrolia to
    Munich had any merit worth mentioning, why
    wasn't it mentioned in the descriptive text?

    I'm not saying what we should or should not do.
    I'm just pointing this out because I noticed it
    while I was reading through the manual.

    In Scenario 2 above, it will be noted that for the
    most part, we are not dealing with unit dislodgement.

    So, I will now read through the year 2000, fourth
    edition rule book beginning on page 6, and note
    what I can find that might have some bearing on
    Scenario 2 above.

    Note that in Scenario 2, we have unequal forces
    pressing into Venezia from both sides: the
    Italians with a strength of 3, and the French
    with a strength of 2. Note that the discussion
    of standoffs on page 6 would appear not to
    be relevant with respect to the Italians and
    the French in our scenario.

    Diagram 6, on page 6, is a diagram which is
    similar to the dynamic between Austria
    leaving Venezia and Italy leaving Trieste:
    that is, two units in neighboring provinces
    attacking into each other. The rule clearly
    says that neither unit moves. And, we can
    safely extrapolate, that if the units attacking
    into each other were equally supported, again
    neither would move.

    So far in our adjudication of Scenario 2, we
    can very safely say that the Austrians will
    not move from Venezia to Trieste, nor will
    the Italians move from Trieste to Venezia.
    Both sides agree on this point.

    Now we come to page 14 and it deals only
    with the topic "Dislodgment in Standoff,"
    and includes three digrams: 12, 13, and 14.

    As this page is often quoted, even though
    our Scenario 2 doesn't involve dislodgement
    using the majority viewpoint, let's read it
    over carefully and see if we can find anything
    that bears upon our Scenario 2.

    Before reading page 14, let's first decide
    which military unit even has a chance of
    being dislodged. Certainly the Italians
    in Trieste have no chance of being
    dislodged from Trieste. Certainly the
    French in Piemonte have no chance
    of being dislodged from Piemonte.
    The majority view says that the Austrians
    in Venezia will not be dislodged. The
    minority view says that the Austrians in
    Venezia will be dislodged. So, the only
    real question about dislodgement bears
    on the Austrians being or not being
    dislodged from Venezia.

    As far as I can tell, none of the diagrams
    on page 9, Diagrams 12, 13, and 14,
    address our Scenario 2 directly and
    unambiguously.

    So, we will now go over page 9 carefully.
    Of course, I may not, being a beginner,
    go over it carefully enough, so further
    comment will be welcome.

    I don't see how Diagram 12 relates to
    our discussion.

    Concerning the last paragraph in the
    left column of page 9, it discusses the
    dislodgement of the Turkish army
    in Bulgaria. This does not directly
    and unambiguously relate to our
    Scenario 2 above, because in Scenario 2,
    the Italian forces in Trieste were not
    dislodged.

    Diagram 13 does not directly and
    unambiguously relate to our
    Scenario 2 above, because the
    attacking forces coming from
    Sevastopol and Bulgaria are of equal
    strength of 1, and because the
    unit "in the center province", that
    being Rumania, did not even stay
    there, but instead dislodged the
    unit directly to its south.

    So, there are many aspects of Diagram
    13 which do not have any relationship
    at all with what actual is happening in
    our Scenario 2.

    Diagram 14 simply is a repeat of Diagram 13,
    but in Diagram 14, they add supporting
    units.

    Tthe last paragraph in the right-hand column
    of page 9, it says: "There was no standoff".
    But this is under the scenario where the
    Russian army was NOT ordered to
    attack Rumania from Sevastopol. So, this
    is clearly not relevant to our discussion,
    for if two armies are not ordered to attack
    the same province, obviously there is
    no stand-off.

    In the last paragraph in the left column
    on page 9, it says, "That Turkish Army,
    and the Russian Army in Sevastopol are both
    ordered to Rumania, which would normally
    cause a standoff."

    This quote is flawed in that it does not give
    a complete description of the new scenario
    being discussed. In this new scenario, is
    the Russian army in Rumania holding?
    In this new scenario, is the Russian army in
    Rumania attacking Bulgaria with no support
    or with support of 1, 2, or 3? None of these
    details which would bear upon our Scenario 2
    are mentioned. So, "normally cause a standoff"
    can be seen as a very generic type of statement.
    Yes, normally, if you don't talk about any other
    units, such as in Diagram 4 on page 6, a
    stand-off occurs. The text does not address
    any specific scenario in detail, but is simply making
    a broad, general statement.

    And, the same quoted text above continues,
    "However, because Rumania dislodged the
    Army in Bulgaria, it has no effect on Rumania
    at all."

    We can re-write this, if we want: "However,
    because the Russians attacking from Rumania
    dislodged the Turkish Army in Bulgaria, the
    Turkish army in Bulgaria was not involved in
    a stand-off with the Russian army invading
    into Rumania from Sevastopol." And, we could
    continue, just for clarity: "Unlike Diagram 12
    where the German army attacking
    from Munich to Silesia WAS involved in a
    stand-off even though it was dislodged, that is
    not the case in Diagrams 13 and 14, because
    in these later diagrams, the attacking and
    dislodged military unit was dislodged by
    the very unit it was attacking."

    Note, by the way, that that added clarity is
    all that this quoted phrase means: that is,
    this phrase: "which would normally cause
    a stand-off" is referring to a totally different
    case as found in Diagram 12 or Diagram 4
    on page 6.

    After all, the point of the discussion is
    "Dislodgment in Standoffs." To take the
    phrase, "it has no effect on Rumania at all"
    and blow it out to mean far more than it
    meant to mean is not justified in the text.

    In fact, the "at all" tacked on to the phrase,
    "it has no effect on Rumania at all" is nothing
    more than simple emphasis; it is an attempt
    to emphasize the differences between the
    scenarios presented in Diagram 12 verse the
    scenarios presented in Diagrams 13 and 14.

    My reading of the document now suggests to
    me more clearly, now that Randy has encouraged
    me to investigate, and I appreciate it, that this
    is one, badly written rule book! Could they not
    have one "advanced" example to tie together
    a few threads? What a mess!

    I'd say, and everybody can have their own opinion,
    that the year 2000, fourth edition rule book does
    not clearly and unambiguously preclude my
    interpretation: namely, that in scenario 2 given
    above, the French dislodge the Austrians from
    Venezia.

    Now, did I actually think about this before I came
    up with my minority opinion? No. But, now that
    Randy has invited me to study this issue, I have
    to admit that I am quite surprised that there is,
    in my opinion, still breathing room for the
    minority view.

    Please remember that the above are my interpretations
    and opinions. And, Randy, I do appreciate your good,
    sound writing, which has forced me to re-examine
    the rule book, and, I have enjoyed doing so.

    I welcome hearing responses to my analysis.
    Thanks all, and thanks Randy
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Randy Hudson wrote:
    > In article <1106681654.914057.99750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    > NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
    >
    > > At one point in your message, you suggest that either the main
    > > Scenario 1 or one of the "what if" scenarios is a direct violation
    > > of the rule book.
    >
    > Under _Conflicts_, VIII of the old (1976) rulebook, it is stated "If
    two or
    > more units are ordered to the same space, none of them may move."
    Later,
    > under _Effect of Support_, IX.2, that is modified: "Unless [a unit
    supported
    > in its move] is opposed by a unit equally or better supported, it may
    make
    > its move, the rule under CONFLICTS notwithstanding."
    >
    > Your adjudication of scenario 1 involves Piedmont entering Venice,
    though it
    > is opposed by a better-supported move (Tri-Ven). This happens
    because the
    > algorithm you use converts that opposing move into a Hold, causing it
    to be
    > ignored.
    >
    > > I will get out the Diplomacy board (though not necessarily
    > > right at this very instance), all the rule books (as I have copies
    > > of almost every rule book), and review your posting with
    > > an eye for finding any clear and obvious violations of the
    > > rule book that my adjudication resulted in.
    >
    > Hasbro had all the rule books online a few years ago, and probably
    still
    > does. The rules I'm referring to have been unchanged back to 1960,
    though
    > it's possible the 2000 rewrite obscured them.
    >
    > By the way, it's not that difficult for a "simultaneous" adjudication
    to be
    > performed by a sequential algorithm. Simultaneous equations are
    generally
    > solved by sequential algorithms, after all.
    >
    > --
    > Randy Hudson

    Hi Randy,

    I posted my next long message prior to reading your message
    here. The year 2000, fourth edition year book is easy to
    get a hold of here:
    http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf

    Since you clearly have a command of the rule book version
    you are currently using, it makes perfect sense for you
    to determine whether or not the year 2000, fourth
    edition rule book has in any way watered down or made
    ambiguous the issues that effect this issue.

    I don't have 1976, but do have all the others, the closest
    most probably being 1971. I'm assuming that 1971 and
    1976 are identical; also, I think 1976 was a deluxe
    edition of the game, with the 1971 rule book perhaps
    recopyrighted to 1976.

    In the interrum, I'll glance through the 1971 year book now
    with your posts in front of me. Though, I have to admit
    that these older rule books, which seem to attempt to
    put mathematical equations into English, are very hard
    to read. I'd prefer a rule like this, though some would argue
    it is the hardest of all to read: If Army A is ordered into
    Province P, and Army B is ordered into the same Province P,
    then neither unit is able to move into Province P, though these
    same units may still be dislodged by other units on the board.

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

    Hi Randy,

    Actually, I'll investigate the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
    concerning this quote from the 1971/1976 rule book
    QUOTE
    Unless [a unit supported
    in its move] is opposed by a unit equally or better supported, it may
    make
    its move, the rule under CONFLICTS notwithstanding."
    UNQUOTE

    For I don't recall seeing any quote like this in the year 2000,
    fourth edition rule book. If the above quote is removed,
    then it could very well be that the rules change. If the
    above quote is restated, that is what I'll look for.

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

    Hi Randy and Everyone,

    Okay, I found an important piece of text Randy
    pointed out to me from his rule book. In the year
    2000, fourth edition rule book, under "Overview"
    in the left column of page 7, it reads:
    QUOTE
    A unit moves with its own strength combined with
    all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a
    unit that is equally or beter supported, it can complete
    its move. One unit supporting another provides
    a combined strength of two and so will defeat an
    opponent's unit that is unsupported. Likewise,
    a unit with two supporting units (strength of 3)
    will defeat an opponent's unit with only one support
    (strength of 2).
    UNQUOTE

    For our discussion, we will disregard the later
    part of the quote:
    One unit supporting another provides
    a combined strength of two and so will defeat an
    opponent's unit that is unsupported. Likewise,
    a unit with two supporting units (strength of 3)
    will defeat an opponent's unit with only one support
    (strength of 2).

    because these sentences use the word "defeat."
    In Scenario 2, the only issue of "defeat," from the
    minority point of view is whether or not the
    French attacking with a strength of 2 from
    Piemonte into Venezia will defeat the Austrians
    with a holding strength of 1.

    And, this is not the crux of the issue.

    So, the crux of the issue may be swayed by this lone
    quote:
    Unless it is opposed by a
    unit that is equally or beter supported, it can complete
    its move.

    As usual, this is a broad, general description which does
    not go into any details. And, the examples the rule book
    eventually gives do not touch upon our Scenario 2.

    So, now for the quote:
    Unless it is opposed by a
    unit that is equally or beter supported, it can complete
    its move.

    we need to focus on what "opposed" means in the context
    of Scenario 2.

    Do the Italians moving from Trieste "oppose" the French
    moving in from Piemonte?

    Does Diagram 25 on page 14, as well as the accompaning
    text suggest a viewpoint or is it sloppy writing? That is,
    the accompaning text does not mention the attack from
    Tyrolia which is faced with an equal counterattack from
    Munich.

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

    In article <1106585596.996524.185410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:


    >> First, take away Rome. Now, if we left things there, Venice would
    >> succeed in its force-three attack on Trieste, though it is opposed by
    >> both the force-two attack from Trieste and by the force-two attack on
    >> Trieste from Serbia. The forces don't combine, however unrealistic that
    >> may be. In the wake of the move, Piedmont would succeed in moving into
    >> Venice, of course.
    >
    > to be consistent, let us assume that my adjudication reasoning is:
    > the Army in Venezia moves into Triest with a force of 3 to 2; the
    > Austrain army now in Venezia is not dislodged because this attack
    > is supported with a total strength of 3 against the Italian 2; in a
    > certain sense, the Italians in Trieste are not overly relevant since
    > they only have a power of 2 for attack into Venezia, and only a
    > holding power of 1 in Trieste. Once the Italians are out of the
    > picture (yes, I know that this adjudication process is not purely
    > simultaneous, of course), the Austrians from Venezia are still
    > "entering" Trieste being challanged by the attacking Turks who
    > also are attempting to enter into Trieste. The Austrian attack
    > into Trieste is stronger by 3 to 2, thus the Austrians from
    > Venezia enter Trieste.

    I don't like this reasoning because it ignores the rulebook entry which is
    directed at exactly this scenario: rule IX.7 in my 1976 rulebook:

    | [...] where two or more equally well supported units are ordered to the
    | same space, neither may move, even though one of them has been
    | dislodged by a supported attack [...] However, if two units are ordered
    | to the same space, and one of them is dislodged by a unit coming *from*
    | that space, the other unit may move.

    This is the rule that seems to be subsumed by your "Once the Italians are
    out of the picture" generalization. The point is, the rule is quite
    specific as to when it applies (overriding the rule VIII general case that a
    unit ordered to the same space as another unit does not move unless has more
    support for its move than does the other unit). Your generalization is not
    so specific, and thus can be applied in cases where the rule explicitly does
    not apply.

    >> Next, have Adriatic support Serbia's move: Adr s Ser-Tri.
    >
    > I take it Roma is still out of the picture and there is no army there.
    >
    >> Now, the Ven-Tri move bounces, because it is opposed by an equally
    >> supported attack on Trieste, coming from Serbia.
    >
    > I agree.
    >
    >> The bounce has nothing to do with Trieste's own orders; it is the
    >> opposing forces which bounce each other.
    >
    > In this scenario, Triestes orders are not very relevant and are
    > inconsequential due to the over-powering forces in the neighborhood.

    Trieste is technically a "beleaguered garrison." While its orders don't
    affect the post-move status of Trieste, they have full effect on the
    space to which it moves, or attempts to move. Only if Trieste were
    dislodged by an attack coming from the space to which it is attempting to
    move, would its orders be inconsequential. In fact, that's the point of my
    next paragraph:

    >> So, what about Pie-Ven? Well, Tri-Ven isn't cancelled just because the
    >> move fails; and Tri wasn't dislodged by the move from Ven, so its effect
    >> on Ven is unaltered: it bounces the move from Pie.
    >
    > Okay, to make sure we are on the same example, here is the "what if"
    > scenario that the above text refers to:
    > What if:
    > France:
    > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Italy:
    > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Austria:
    > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Turkey:
    > Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    > Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
    >
    > And, the same question holds: what happens in Venezia.
    >
    > I like the richness of your "what if" scenario I have detailed above. I
    > can see in my head everything unfolding in pure simultaneity and, of
    > course, under this form of adjudicational reasoning, no unit would move.
    > And, to see your point, under this form of reasoning, the minority view
    > should particularly note that the Italian army in Trieste did have an
    > influence in Venezia in keeping the French out of Venezia.

    Yes. Despite the force-3 attack on Trieste from Venice, the force-2 attack
    in the opposite direction was still sufficient to bounce the force-2 attack
    on Venice from Piedmont.

    > I might speculate, that if the minority view were to be consistent,
    > it would say that the French did dislodge the Austrian's from
    > Venezia. In effect, the minority view might say that the Italians
    > in Trieste never had any real effect in Venezia because they
    > could not "get past" the fast, hard, brick wall of a force of
    > three that was counter-attacking them. Any while its true
    > that the Austrians attacking from Venezia did not fail in their
    > attack due to Italians, their attack certainly failed due to the
    > Turks; so, Austrians can only muster a defensive holding
    > strength of 1 and are dislodged by the French attack.

    Yes.

    > In summary, the minority view is not saying much beside this:
    > the influence that a particular unit has on a province does
    > depend upon whether there exists another unit in that
    > province and what that unit's orders are. This is not a proof,
    > of course, but a mind set, or more particularly, a very
    > minority opinion.

    To my mind, the error is introduced when you find that a unit ordered to
    move is unable to move, and immediately then "convert it to Hold", thereby
    ignoring some effects its attempt to move has on its destination province.
    While that may be computationally convenient, it's not correct; it was an
    agreed known bug in the DPTG algorithm, which your algorithm also
    reproduces. My above examples give other cases where a "convert to Hold"
    improperly ignores an attempted move's effects on its destination space.
    I've done this because when my first comment in this thread stated that such
    a "convert to Hold" wasn't right, you dismissed the comment asthough it were
    merely a semantic difficulty. It's not. A unit's attempted move can have
    multiple effects, and an adjudication algorithm, simultaneous or sequential,
    that does not consider all effects will have scenarios where it produces
    wrong results.

    >> Finally, take away Apulia.
    >
    > Okay, so at this stage in this "what if" scenario, there is no unit
    > in Roma and no unit in Apulia.
    >
    >> Ser and Ven, each twice-supported, still bounce over Trieste without
    >> dislodging it, though it doesn't have any support itself.
    >
    > Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the "what if" scenario is
    > here any more, as my assumption of the "what if" scenario
    > under consideration does not seem to match your text
    > given just above.
    >
    > For instance, the Austrian movement from Venezia moves
    > into Trieste with a force of 3, not 2, right?

    Yes; a twice-supported unit moves with its own strength plus that of its two
    supports, a total of three. I'm sorry I shifted terminology, as it appears
    to have misled your analysis of this case. My point was only to show that
    it was Apulia's support of Tri-Ven that was causing Pie (supported in its
    move by Tuscany) to be bounced from Venice. Earlier discussion suggested
    you thought that, in the original scenario, the support of Venice's own move
    was in some way related to the bounce in Venice; I was showing that it
    wasn't.

    > So, let me think a minute and see if I can figure it out myself.
    > Okay, let's set up Scenario 1 again on the playing board.
    > I think I understand your argument and will now attempt to
    > express it: The minority view is faulty in that it is inconsistent
    > in its evaluation of the effect of the Italian army moving into
    > Venezia from Trieste. The majority view holds that this is a
    > constant force of 3 ALWAYS.

    Except when dislodged by a force coming from Venizia, yes, at which point
    the move "may be said to have no effect on" its intended destination
    province. (Quote from the last example under rule IX.7.)

    > Yet, the minority view holds that there do exist at least one example
    > formation, such as Scenario 1, where the strength and total effect of the
    > Italian attack is moderated by the orders given to and the
    > counter-attacking strength currently resident in Venezia. This results in
    > what the majority consider a very peculiar adjucation, wherein the French
    > with only a strength of 2 end up marching into Venezia.

    The DPTG, and apparently your algorithm, sometimes treat an attempted move
    as a hold, and thus give it no effect on its destination province, in cases
    where IX.7 does still allow it to have effect. In the case of the DPTG, it
    is generally considered a flaw in the algorithm, not a controversy over the
    correct adjudication.

    --
    Randy Hudson
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In article <1106681654.914057.99750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

    > At one point in your message, you suggest that either the main
    > Scenario 1 or one of the "what if" scenarios is a direct violation
    > of the rule book.

    Under _Conflicts_, VIII of the old (1976) rulebook, it is stated "If two or
    more units are ordered to the same space, none of them may move." Later,
    under _Effect of Support_, IX.2, that is modified: "Unless [a unit supported
    in its move] is opposed by a unit equally or better supported, it may make
    its move, the rule under CONFLICTS notwithstanding."

    Your adjudication of scenario 1 involves Piedmont entering Venice, though it
    is opposed by a better-supported move (Tri-Ven). This happens because the
    algorithm you use converts that opposing move into a Hold, causing it to be
    ignored.

    > I will get out the Diplomacy board (though not necessarily
    > right at this very instance), all the rule books (as I have copies
    > of almost every rule book), and review your posting with
    > an eye for finding any clear and obvious violations of the
    > rule book that my adjudication resulted in.

    Hasbro had all the rule books online a few years ago, and probably still
    does. The rules I'm referring to have been unchanged back to 1960, though
    it's possible the 2000 rewrite obscured them.

    By the way, it's not that difficult for a "simultaneous" adjudication to be
    performed by a sequential algorithm. Simultaneous equations are generally
    solved by sequential algorithms, after all.

    --
    Randy Hudson
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Jim Burgess wrote:
    > "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:
    >
    >
    > >> Jim Burgess wrote:
    > >> > The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    > >> > the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    > >> > algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    > >> > order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    > >> > equation.
    >
    > >Hi Jim,
    >
    > >I think I have a related question. Let us assume that the
    > >purest adjudication algorithm has not yet been implemented.
    > >Can you adjudicate Scenario 1 in this thread the way the
    > >purest adjudication algorithm would? Or would this not be
    > >possible without first constructing the purest adjudication
    > >algorithm?
    >
    > I'm not sure you understand the use of the word algorithm,
    > in this case it is the same as an adjudication for a unit.
    > And I can't because you don't have the whole board in your
    > example.
    >
    > Jim-Bob

    Hi Jim,

    Here is Scenario 3, it is given a different name to differentiate
    it from Scenarios 1 and 2 which have been discussed in this
    thread (even though Scenario 3 may seem identical or very similar
    to Scenarios 1 and 2).

    Scenario 3:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    That is the core scenario consisting of 8 units. That leaves
    34 - 8 or 26 units that are not in the scenario. Assume
    that for whatever reasons, the major powers decided not
    to build these units when they had the opportunity in the
    past to do so. So, only these 8 units are on the board.
    However, if your algorithm will not work unless all 34 units
    are on the field, assume the remaining 26 units are French
    where they all have hold orders and 19 of them are fleets
    in water provinces, and the remaining 26 - 19 or 7 French
    units are holding as Fleets in Constantinople, Ankara,
    Armenia, Smyrna, Syria, Tunisia, and North Africa.

    Assume it is either a Spring or Fall turn, but if it matters to
    the algorithm which it is, assume it is a Spring turn.

    Jim, please adjudicate this position as your purest algorithm
    (as described previously) would, and let us know the results.

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

    Hi Randy and Everyone,

    Concerning Scenarios 1 and 2, Randy has been very helpful in pointing
    to obvious rules in the rule book which he believes, and perhaps
    the vast majority of Diplomacy players believe, weigh upon the
    adjudication of the following, scenario 4:

    Scenario 4:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    In scenario 4 above, no other units are on the playing board.
    Assume that it is the Spring turn.

    I specifically asked Randy to find an obvious rule that
    my adjudication was violating; and, Randy has done so.

    This message reviews, hopefully accurately, what Randy
    has found out.

    Randy used the 1976 rule book; I will assume that the
    1971 rule book (which I have) is identical to his 1976
    rule book.

    We will refer to Randy's view as the majority view, and
    my view as the minority view.

    The majority view is that Scenario 4 is adjudicated such
    that no units move. The minority view is that Scenario 4
    is adjudicated such that the French Army in Piemonte moves
    to Venezia and such that the Austrian Army in Venezia is
    dislodged. Also implied in the minority view is that the
    majority view allows "very weird and unusual" situations to
    arise, such as in Scenario 4, where the Italians are allowed
    to influence Venezia even though they met an equally
    strong counter-attack from the Austrians on the eastern
    front of Venezia. Such "weird and unusual" situations
    abound within the DATC, the minority opinion believes.

    Here is where all the rule books can be found in PDF format:
    http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm

    Here is an interesting, short history of the rules:
    http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/postal/1971_rulebook.htm

    Of note in this short history is that the Beleagured Garrison concept
    was adopted in 1971 (though this may or may not relate to our topic
    at hand).

    So, this means that I have the 1976 rules since I have
    all the rule books from the diplomacy archive, but I
    must not have printed out the 1976 version because
    the 1971 version is often referred to on the web or
    because I learned that there was no difference between
    the 1971 version and the 1976 version.

    I will go through the rule books, admittedly, very quickly, and see
    what I see related to the issues of the above scenario. This
    historical journey is being taken out of curiosity. We should always
    keep
    in mind, that if you are playing Diplomacy at home, and all your
    friends agree, you can play by any rules you want.

    What we are exploring is what the rule book says. If we keep
    in mind that you can literally do anything you want at home,
    then hopefully no one will consider this a life and death issue.

    If anything, this whole issue brings up how seemingly difficult
    it can be to create a certain and unambiguous rule book.

    *****
    1958
    *****
    This is the first draft of the rules.

    * Hence, if two units are ordered to the same province, neither moves.

    The concept of a stand-off is introduced at the bottom of PDF page 3:
    * The French army and the German Second may be said to be "stood off".

    That is, with equal strength, two apposing armies ordered to move into
    an unoccupied province P, will stand-off and neither will move. The
    example
    does not show any military unit already in province P, but we know that
    this
    would have its own rule as to what would become of it since we know
    that
    the Beleagured Garrison concept was not introduced until 1971.

    Presumably, then, if there had been a foreign military unit in province
    P,
    and province P and been attacked but two other foreign powers each with
    a
    strength of 2, these two other foreign powers would not move into
    province P,
    AND the initial military unit having been in province P would be
    dislodged.
    I gather that is how it was done, as my initial guess.

    On PDF page 4, we see an example which is somewhat similar to Scenario
    4
    as relates to Scenario 4's situation between the Austrian army in
    Venezia and
    the Italian army in Trieste.

    On PDF page 4, it says,
    * If two units are ordered against each other from
    adjacent provinces, neither moves. Thus, generally, a unit "met head
    on"
    loses its move.

    Wow! This seems to strongly suggest that like the minority view, in
    Scenario 4,
    that attacking unit from Trieste would not stop the French from
    invading
    Venezia! At least, that is how I read it.

    Now at the top page 6 of the PDF document, we come to a scenario very
    similar
    in its dynamics, though not identical to our Scenario 4 above.
    Furthermore,
    the rule book gives a picture and an explanation. Unfortunately, now
    that I
    have looked at it again, I find that it does not directly relate to our
    discussion. But, here is what it says:

    * Where an attack in superior force and a "stand-off" occur in the
    same
    action, as below [in the diagram], both have effect.

    Okay, so if we take this diagram in the rule book and change it so that
    the French 1 army starts in Serbia, could we not also assume that when
    there is a mutual attack (between Triest to Serbia and Serbia to
    Triest) of
    equal strength, that none of these units move, the "lose their turn"
    AND
    the attack from the rear by still a third power on Triest still weights
    in
    on the issue, dislodging army 3 from Trieste.

    **************
    1959 Rule Book
    **************

    Page 4:
    * Conflicts. If two units are ordered to the same sapce, neither may
    move.
    If a unit is not ordered to move, or is preventd from moving, and
    another unit
    is ordered to its space, that unit may not move. If two units are
    ordered each
    to the space the other occupies, neither may move.
    * The three situations above are called "stand-offs". Like the other
    rules
    governing conflicts, ..., which are essentially equal in power, ...

    So, the above text relates to equal strength, that is, a stand-off is a

    situation wherein equal strength is involved.

    Page 4:
    * A unit moves with the strength of itself and all its supports.
    Unless it is
    opposed by a single unit equally well or better supported, it may make
    its move,
    the rules under "Conflicts" above notwithstanding. ... A unit which
    otherwise
    would have remained in the province thus occupied is dislodged and must
    "retreat".

    In general, we have a "legalization" of the rule book of 1958, and what
    is
    happening, is that the clarity that presumably existed in the 1958 rule
    book is being obscured. Or so this is one potential interpretation of
    these
    documents.

    Note also that we have our first use of the word "apposed". In our
    scenario 4, if I may interpret the 1958 rule book and the 1959 rule
    book,
    the French army in Piemonte is not "apposed" to the Italian army in
    Trieste, for the simple reason that there is a stand-off between the
    two
    mutually attacking armies on the eastern front of Venezia, namely
    between
    the attacking Austrians to Trieste and the attacking Italians to
    Venezia.
    These two mutually attacking armies, presumably, one may assume, cancel
    each other out and "neither moves". Thus, the French assault would
    indeed
    dislodge the Austrians from Venezia.

    Note that this interpretation of the minority view will drastically, I
    think,
    change the dynamics of the game. How could this issue not have been
    addressed? Well, I suspect that nobody back then ever really conceived
    of
    all the creative positions that the DATC had come up; I further guess
    that
    they would have said, "hey, wait a minute, that attacking Italian army
    from
    Treiste in Scenario 4 is blocked, and esentially loses its turn, so it
    does not stop the French from successfully invading Venezia."

    In effect, I'm saying that the writers of the rule book, well, I'm
    guessing
    that the writers of these early rule books would have held it "obvious"
    that in our scenario 4 the attacking Italians from Trieste would "lose
    their
    turn" and have no effect what so ever in stopping the invading French
    into
    Venezia. And some how, over time, as the rule book as "tightened up,"
    they
    didn't consider how their wording was effecting our Scenario 4, either
    because
    they assumed that their wording didn't relate to Scenario 4, or they
    just
    assumed that Scneario 4 was obvious.

    To say it another way, the word "apposed" had a certain meaning to
    those in 1958
    and 1959, and I suggest that the current, popular, majority opinion's
    interpretation of this one, litte word, is now drastically different.
    Not that
    it is any one faults, mind you. It is just how things came to be, in
    my
    opinion.

    **************
    1961 Rule Book
    **************

    Page 3:
    * Conflicts. If two units are ordered to the same space, neither may
    move. If
    a unit is not ordered to move, or is prevented from moving, and another
    unit
    is ordered to its space, that unit may not move. If two units are
    ordered each
    to the space the other occupies, neither may move.
    * The three situations above are called "stand-offs." Like the other
    rules
    governing conflicts, these rules apply whether the units involved are
    armies or
    fleets, which are essentially equal in power, and different only in the
    places
    to which they may move.

    Page 4:
    * The Support Order. A unit may give up its move in order to support
    another
    unit trying to hold or enter a space. This space must be one to which
    the
    supporting unit could have made a move if not opposed by other units;
    that is,
    the space must be adjacent to that in which the supporting unit is
    located,
    and must be suitable for an army or fleet, whichever the supporting
    unit may
    be.

    The above paragraph seems poorly written. Especially the phrase, "This
    space
    must be one to which the supporting unit could have made a move if not
    opposed
    by other units;" which it then clarifies, but the clarification seems
    to me
    to make the initial phrase non-sensical. That is, support given by
    unit S
    is never invalidated due to being "opposed by other units" (unless one
    takes
    this to mean that the unit S given support has its support cut, a term
    we all
    understand, or unless unit S was dislodged under certain
    circumstances), but
    I don't really see how it could be seen in this light: that is, it is
    just
    very bad writing in my opinion.

    Page 4:
    * A unit moves with the strength of itself and all its supports.
    Unless it
    is opposed by a single unit equally well or better supported, it may
    make its
    move, the rules under "Conflicts" above notwithstanding. Equally well
    supported
    units which conflict in the situations described under "Conflicts"
    above,
    follow those rules. A unit which otherwise would have remained in the
    province
    thus occupied is dislodged and must "retreat".

    Wow! I now "feel" that I understand how all these rules are
    inter-related, and
    it came to me in a flash, which is why I say I "feel" I do.

    Here is how. In our scenario 4, the Italians attacking Venezia from
    Treiste and
    the Austrians attacking Trieste from Venezia, constitue a "conflict"
    because
    they are attacking each other directly and they are of equal strength
    of 3.
    Thus, neither may move! Now, concerning the French attacking Venezia
    with a
    strength of 2 against the holding Austrains in Venezia, this is not a
    "conflict"
    per say, that is, not under the rules converning "Conflicts", but
    instead
    is simply under the movement rule: "A unit moves with the strength of
    itself
    and all its supports. Unless it is opposed by a single unit equally
    well or
    better supported, it may make its move, the rules under "Conflicts"
    above
    notwithstanding." So, there is nothing stopping the French from moving
    to Venezia. Admittedly, I don't like the wording, "the rules under
    "Conflicts"
    above notwithstanding." But, I think it is very safe to say that this
    sort
    of means, there would be an exception if there was a "Conflict" of
    equal
    strength, or there was some other related aspect under the "Conflict"
    situation,
    such as one power attacking its own unit.

    So, "A unit which otherwise would have remained in the province thus
    occupied
    is dislodged and must "retreat""; this applies to the Austrians in
    Venezia,
    they would have stayed in Venezia but for the attacking strength of 2
    brought in by the French from Piemonte.

    ----------

    I won't continue with the other rule books. Hopefully this exploration
    of the older rule books, and my comments, have been helpful.

    What are your opinions and interpretations? Have they been influenced
    by looking through those older rule books?

    Thanks, and Thanks Randy
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi Randy and Everyone,

    The following scenario will be under consideration, this Scenario 4 was
    introduced in my previous posting where I ended up going into the
    historical
    aspects of the rules:

    Scenario 4:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    In scenario 4 above, no other units are on the playing board. Assume
    that it is
    the Spring turn (though the adjudication of which units move and which
    are
    dislodged should not depend on whether it is the Spring turn or the
    Fall turn
    as we will not be discussing "retreat" movement rules nor "build"
    rules).

    Randy has been most helpful as I explore this topic; so, I have now
    printed
    out the 1976 rules which Randy has at home, and will attempt to analyze
    them.
    Note, of course, that Randy has already pointed me in the right
    direction so I
    already know, in advance, what to investigate, though I will apply my
    own
    interpretation. Also, one should note that I am aware of "my
    interpretation"
    of the history of the rules as relates to this topic (though many will
    argue
    validly that one cannot bring up "History" when interpreting the rules
    which
    exist in the "here and now").

    Thanks again to Randy for being patient and assisting me in this very
    interesting journey.

    The views that follow are my own. They represent a minority opinion.

    Other interesting resources:
    * My previous post on the History of the rules in this thread.
    * The year 2000, fourth edition rule book from the publisher:
    http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf
    * Here is where all the rule books can be found in PDF format:
    http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/diplomacy_rules.htm
    * Here is an interesting, short history of the rules:
    http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/postal/1971_rulebook.htm

    The majority view is that Scenario 4 is adjudicated such that no units
    move.
    The minority view is that Scenario 4 is adjudicated such that the
    French Army in
    Piemonte moves to Venezia and such that the Austrian Army in Venezia is
    dislodged. Also implied in the minority view is that the majority view
    allows
    "very weird and unusual" situations to arise, such as in Scenario 4,
    where the
    Italians are allowed to influence Venezia even though they met an
    equally
    strong counter-attack from the Austrians on the eastern front of
    Venezia. The
    minority opinion believes that such "weird and unusual" interpretation
    and
    situations aboud within the DATC as of the date early in the year 2005.

    Page 4:
    * VIII. Conflicts. If two or more units are ordered to the same
    space, none
    of them may move. If a unit is not ordered to move, or is prevented
    from
    moving, and other units are ordered to its space, those other units may
    not
    move. If two units are ordered, each to the space the other occupies,
    neither
    may move. These three situations are called "stand-offs." Like the
    other
    rules governing conflicts, these rules apply whether the units involves
    are
    armies or fleets, which are essentially equal in power and different
    only in the
    spaces to which they move. These rules also apply (with two minor
    exceptions
    noted in IX.3 and the note to IX.6), whether the units involved belong
    to the
    same or different Great Powers.

    So, the above paragraph defines a "stand-off". A stand-off can occur
    between
    two units, each of which is not supported, or it can occur between
    units of
    equal strength (when their supports are counted).

    In our Scenario 4, the action between
    1. The Italians moving from Trieste to Venezia with a strength of 3,
    and
    2. The Austrians moving from Venezia to Trieste with a strength of 3,

    is, by definition, a stand-off, and clearly, in my opinion, neither
    unit will
    move. [Everyone agrees, of course, that neither unit in the final
    adjudication
    will move, but note that I'm saying, neither unit moves, period, during
    the
    adjudication process, for each of these units tried to move, and
    failed, and
    therefore does not move.]

    Note that this section, VIII. Conflicts, only addresses units of equal
    strength.
    Thus, in our Scenario 4, the action between
    1. The Austrians holding in Venezia with a strength of 1, and
    2. The French moving from Piemonte to Venezia with a strength of 2,
    is not encompassed in the above VIII Conflicts section.

    Page 4:
    IX. The Support Order. IX.2. Effect of Support. A unit moves with
    the
    strength of itself and all its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by
    a unit
    equally well or better supported, it may make its move, the rules under
    VIII Conflicts above notwithstanding. Equally supported units which
    conflict
    in the situations described in Section VIII Conflicts, follow those
    rules. A
    unit which otherwise would have remained in the space attacked by a
    better
    supported unit is dislodged and must retreat or be disbanded.

    So, when considering the mutually attacking Austrians to Trieste and
    the
    Italians to Venezia, clearly this is a conflict under Section VIII
    Conflicts,
    and neither moves.

    We then apply rule IX.2, and find that the French with a strength of 2
    in
    their attack on Venezia are not "opposed" by the Italians attacking
    from
    Treiste, but are only "opposed" by the Austrians now holding with a
    total
    strength of 1 in Venezia.

    Are the rules poorly written? No doubt. The "notwithstanding" clause,
    may be
    saying this, if we may spell it out: the attacking Italians from
    Treiste are
    already subsumed or encompassed by the VIII Conflicts rule and it has
    been
    determined that they will not move; therefore, the French oppose only
    the
    Austrians who also didn't move and who are now holding in Venezia.

    That's my take on it. I'll now go over all of Randy's previous posts
    and let
    them weight in on my mind and my thinking.

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

    Hi Nick,

    Thanks for writing.

    I have explored the previous rule books, including the 1958 draft.
    It is possible that some might think that they may tell us something
    about what the original writers think. In particular, I found it very
    interesting that in the 1958 rules, two units involved in a stand-off
    were found not to move (assuming I read and understood it
    correctly).

    I, obviously, don't know the original intent of the authors. I think
    it
    would be marvelous if they would be reading this group and tell us.
    Or, if someone "in the know" speaks up, that would be great also.

    Scenario 4 is one instance where the minority view and the majority
    view differ. I think it is a fine scenario from which to start our
    studies.
    For instance, Randy was kind to point me to the rules which he thought
    bore upon this issue. In doing my studies, I have touched upon all
    known rules I know of bearing upon this issue within the year 2000,
    fourth edition rule book, and have looked at the main points of the
    year 1971/1976 rule book.

    In general, Scenario 4 is, I believe, the simplest case where you
    will see a different adjudicational result depending on whether you
    hold he majority or the minority viewpoint. For instance, if you
    change Scenario 4 so that the French atttack is unsupported,
    then this attack does not succeed to Venezia, and both sides,
    the minority and the majority get identical adjucation results.

    Concerning the Yorkshire Pudding scenario, I have not come across
    it discussed on the internet. So, if it is tricky in some respect, I
    don't
    know what this trick is. As far as I can see, each individual order
    is valid and legal. You have three units moving into York each
    with identical strengths of 1. This is called a "stand-off", and when
    units "stand-off" no unit involved in the "stand-off" moves.

    I look forward to your future comments, questions, ideas, and
    scenarios.

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

    Hi Nick,

    Sometimes I may say, "I believe," but I usually like to use the term
    minority view
    and majority view.

    The minority view holds as you have written, that:
    that in Scenario 4 the
    French army moving with a strength of two gets in to Venezia, while the

    Italian army moving with a strength of three fails to get in to
    Venezia.

    That is the minority view. In my previous articles in this thread,
    thanks to
    Randy offering kind suggestions (although Randy does not agree with the
    minority view), I have attempted to address what rule or rules bear on
    this topic and how one specific rule may be misinterpreted.

    So, I will give my thinking, but not repeat all the gory details that I
    have
    already written about today and yesterday:

    The Italians attacking from Trieste into Venezia meet or stand-off
    with the Austrians attacking from Venezia into Trieste. This is a
    stand-off and no units move that are involved in this stand-off.
    This is a rule.

    Now, this rule can be inacted on the eastern sector of the board,
    while another rule can be active on the western sector of the board
    as concerns the French invasion of Venezia. The French are not
    in a stand-off, they function under the different rule wherein the
    French
    attack from Piemonte to Venezia with a strength of 2 and overwhelm
    and dislodge the Austrians who attempted to hold in Venezia only
    with a strength of 1.

    I have attempted in my previous posts to explain how this type of
    reasoning could be seen to exist within the rules. Though, it is
    more accurate to say that I went on an exploration, and now that
    I have gone on this exploration, I still hold the minority viewpoint.

    But, your remarks and discussion on this point are more than
    welcome. The more views and discussion, the better, I would
    think.

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

    On PDF page 4 of the 1958 rule book draft, it says,
    * If two units are ordered against each other from
    adjacent provinces, neither moves. Thus, generally, a unit "met head
    on"
    loses its move.

    So, this head-on is a special form of stand-off. A head-on
    battle is between Venezia and Trieste, where armies in
    two neighboring provinces are attacking each other with
    equal strength.

    My previous article discusses this in more depth. For instance,
    later in the 1958 edition, I think it was that edition, it says how
    this head-on stuff, or more generally a stand-off in one sector
    can be adjudicated while a rear attack from another sector
    can dislodge one of the units in the stand-off, but the scenario
    did not exactly match our Scenario 4.

    I'll stop talking now, because I will keep repeating myself. Please
    see the articles I wrote just recently above.

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

    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:


    >Jim Burgess wrote:

    >> ...,
    >> you are misrepresenting what I (not speaking for anyone else)
    >> am trying to say. ...

    >Hi Jim,

    >I apologize. It is unclear in what phrase or paragraph or set of
    >paragraphs I wrote that misrepresented you. But, it is not my
    >intention to misrepresent you or anyone else.

    No problem, don't worry about it.

    >You also say that you are of the "minority opinion" if I read
    >your post correctly. That's good! No one likes to be totally
    >alone. Since you seem far smarter than me, I suspect that
    >I can learn a lot from you.

    Possibly, possibly not, let's not worry about that either.

    >> The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    >> the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    >> algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    >> order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    >> equation.

    >I would be interested in understanding this a little more. But, I
    >may need a little help. First, I am interested in understanding it
    >because I would like to see what the "purest" adjudication
    >algorithm would produce.

    Basically in everything below we're talking about 34 UNITS. An
    adjudication for any particular turn is the outcome of resolving
    34 (at most) separate orders. Thus each unit can be (in mathematical
    terms) an equation. Solving them simultaneously means that each
    of the 34 units ahas a simultaneous outcome. You do NOT want to actually
    think about it this way.... but you can.

    Jim-Bob

    >I may be a little slow, so please be patient. I need to first
    >understand
    >where the number 34 came from. The number of provinces on the
    >Diplomacy map is greater than 34. The number of provinces that are
    >starred could be 34 (it is hard to count them without losing my place,
    >but since it takes 18 of this starred provinces to win, then 17 is
    >probably the half-way point, and that would be 34 total starred
    >provinces).
    >Okay, I'll try to count the starred provinces again: 32 (but I may
    >have
    >missed a couple).

    >So, let's assume there are 34 starred provinces, but that wouldn't
    >enter into the equations, I suspect, that is, it would not dictate--
    >oh, I take that back, because the number of starred provinces
    >is how many military units in total can exist on the board!

    >Okay, finally, I have finally counted 34 provinces. At most, there
    >can be 34 military units on the field. But, fortunately for us,
    >there can be two, or three, or some small number so that we can
    >explore your ideas further and perhaps more easily than if we
    >had 34 simultaneous equations, and I can learn from your ideas.

    >Now, we have to be careful, however. Part of your post was saying
    >that in actuality, the instantiation of the adjudication engine might
    >use short-cuts, so as not to actually perform the solutions to all
    >the equations.

    >With your cooperation, I would like to explore a very simple scenario,
    >set up the simultaneous equations, and give it a run through.

    >Once I get the hang of it, presumably I could manufacture more
    >complicated scenarios and then figure things out without your
    >help. But, at this stage, I have no idea particularly how to begin.

    >Here is the first simple scenario:
    >Scenario 1:
    >French Army in Marseilles to Piemonte.

    >That's it, and presumably that is "one equation." At this stage,
    >you may say, "okay 'stupid,' I didn't literally mean equations."
    >So, by making an example, I can find out what you really meant,
    >and if there really is an equation per say, and if so, what that
    >equation might look like.

    >Here is the second scenario:
    >Scenario 2:
    >French Army in Marseilles to Piemonte.
    >French Army in Spain to Marseilles.

    >This could be a rather complicated equation, as it would seem
    >to involve 'spatial relationships.' That is, the army in Spain
    >needs to know that it can only move to Marseilles if Marseilles
    >ultimately is left empty by the army originally there.

    >I think these two simple examples are enough for me to learn
    >about. I'm beginning to think that how this would be done is
    >not purely by equations, but would be, I don't know, perhaps
    >more in the world of computer simulation? I'm not sure.
    >But, I'm also not sure that it can be expressed in pure equations
    >(but then again, I'm no physicist either).

    >Thanks Jim.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:


    >> Jim Burgess wrote:
    >> > The game is simultaneous movement, therefore
    >> > the PUREST adjudication algorithm would have 34 simultaneous
    >> > algorithms for determining how each unit moves, given its
    >> > order and all the other orders, solved as a simultaneous
    >> > equation.

    >Hi Jim,

    >I think I have a related question. Let us assume that the
    >purest adjudication algorithm has not yet been implemented.
    >Can you adjudicate Scenario 1 in this thread the way the
    >purest adjudication algorithm would? Or would this not be
    >possible without first constructing the purest adjudication
    >algorithm?

    I'm not sure you understand the use of the word algorithm,
    in this case it is the same as an adjudication for a unit.
    And I can't because you don't have the whole board in your
    example.

    Jim-Bob

    >This in turn brings up another, perhaps more philosophically
    >related question. Assuming that you cannot adjudicate
    >Scenario 1 until the purest adjudication algorithm has been
    >built,
    >[and there is no need to answer this question if this
    >assumption is not true]
    >does this means that there are instantiations of this
    >purest of algorithms that are less perfect than others? And,
    >as these instantiations become more and more perfect in their
    >implementation, that they approach one pure adjudication
    >result.

    >Finally, assuming that you cannot adjudicate Scenario 1 until
    >the purest adjudication algorithm has been built, [and, again,
    >there is no need to answer this question if the assumption is
    >fasle]
    >how would
    >you guess the adjudication would go?

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

    Hi,

    I've just thought of two concepts to help clarify the minority
    position.
    A head-to-head concept and a stand-off concept. The head-to-head
    concept was gradually dropped from usage in the rule book, and
    gradually became part of what is called a stand-off; perhaps the terms
    were considered too similar.

    But, there are important differences. Based upon the 1958 rule book
    rough draft, two units involved in a head-to-head battle mutually
    attacking each other with equal strength don't move, nor do they
    influence their attacked regions.

    While in a stand-off, that unit which attempted to enter into the
    province, does influence it! Thus, if a military unit with a strength
    of 3 stands-off and is unable to enter a province P, another military
    unit of strength 2, not involved in the said stand-off, could not enter
    into province P.

    The exception is if the military unit of strength 3 was attacked from
    within its target province with equal strength, in which case both
    units are not in a head-to-head situation and none move; then this
    allows another unit with sufficient strength to dislodge the unit that
    originally was in province P.

    I've read your comments, Lucas, sorry they weren't persuasive
    for you personally. I'm still interested in hearing from others to
    see how they weigh in on this issue, or if I remain a "minority"
    of one.

    Thanks again for everyone letting me explore this issue, and
    thanks for offering comments, ideas, and suggestions.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    I was reading through the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
    to see if the term "head-to-head" had been dropped from usage
    and been replaced by "stand-off", and in doing this I came upon
    Diagram 25 on page 14.

    Here is how the text explaining Diagram 25 begins:

    "In Diagram 25, the German Army in Munich is in a standoff with
    the Austrian Army in Tyrolia, so neither unit moves."

    And, this is what I've been saying. This matches our
    Scenario 4 in which the head-to-head, mutual attack
    between units in neighboring provinces attacking each
    other with equal strength don't move, period, and they
    don't influence the province they are trying to attack.

    Then, the rule book continues,
    "German Armies in Ruhr and Sliesia tried to create a standoff with each
    other in Munich. However, the Austrian Army in Bohemia sneakily
    gave support to the German unit from Silesia into Munich."

    And now the important continuation, which I have written about
    before:
    "In most cases, this supported attack from Silesia into Munich
    would beat the unsupported attack from Ruhr."

    And, this is my point about a head-to-head battle of equal strength
    not letting any unit in this head-to-head battle move at all nor
    influence the area their attacking. For the sentence absolutely
    does not say this:

    In most cases, this supported attack from Silesia into Munich
    would beat the unsupported attack from Ruhr AND THE
    UNSUPPORTED ATTACK FROM TYROLIA.

    Note that it doesn't mention the additional text which I have
    added in all caps, because the unit attacking from Tyrolia
    was in an equal strength head-to-head battle and thus
    did not move and had no influence on the region.

    Okay, I do apologize for talking too much. The rule book
    is at fault for not making this clearer, for one could say
    that they get to this section of the book and could say,
    "hey, rule book author, where is the section which
    explicitly and clearly and unambiguously said that
    units of equal strength in a head-to-head battle don't
    move, period?"

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

    Hi Nick,

    I just wrote an article in this thread that addresses your very concern
    it deals with the year 2000, fourth edition rule book, Diagram 25 on
    page 14; read it, and report back here. The issue that the minority
    view is saying is this:
    two units of equal strength mutually attacking themselves from
    neighboring provinces have no effect what so ever, they lose
    their move if you all, on the province they are attacking.

    It is this concept, which the minority view thinks the majority
    view is "not seeing."


    Concerning your comments Nick:
    You may see this if you consider the following:

    Scenario 4, but with the Italian units removed. France walks in to
    Venezia, she didn't even need the support.

    Scenario 4, but with the Austrian units removed. France fails to get in

    to Venezia, the Italian gets there instead.

    Your comments are true but they don't address the rule that
    is not "being seen" my the majority opinion which I just spoke
    of above, that is, your modified scenarios don't have the
    key issue in them which is under discussion.
    Thanks, and please let me know your further comments and ideas.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In message <1106765348.694204.113840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes
    >Hi Randy and Everyone,
    >
    >The following scenario will be under consideration, this Scenario 4 was
    >introduced in my previous posting where I ended up going into the
    >historical
    >aspects of the rules:
    >
    >Scenario 4:
    >France:
    >Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    >Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    >Italy:
    >Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    >Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    >Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    >Austria:
    >Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    >The majority view is that Scenario 4 is adjudicated such that no units
    >move.
    >The minority view is that Scenario 4 is adjudicated such that the
    >French Army in
    >Piemonte moves to Venezia and such that the Austrian Army in Venezia is
    >dislodged.

    You believe that the printed rules (various editions) support what you
    call "the minority view". I would like to understand your view more
    clearly, by asking some questions.

    Do you believe that this interpretation was intended by their writers?

    Do you believe that Scenario 4 is the simplest case in which your view
    differs from the majority? If not, what is the simplest such case?

    How would you adjudicate the "Yorkshire Pudding" scenario:
    English Fleet London -> Yorkshire
    English Fleet Edinburgh -> Yorkshire
    English Army Liverpool -> Yorkshire

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

    In message <1106770286.746004.155710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes
    >Hi Nick,
    >
    >Thanks for writing.
    >
    >I have explored the previous rule books, including the 1958 draft.
    >It is possible that some might think that they may tell us something
    >about what the original writers think. In particular, I found it very
    >interesting that in the 1958 rules, two units involved in a stand-off
    >were found not to move (assuming I read and understood it
    >correctly).
    >
    >I, obviously, don't know the original intent of the authors. I think
    >it
    >would be marvelous if they would be reading this group and tell us.
    >Or, if someone "in the know" speaks up, that would be great also.
    >
    >Scenario 4 is one instance where the minority view and the majority
    >view differ. I think it is a fine scenario from which to start our
    >studies.
    >For instance, Randy was kind to point me to the rules which he thought
    >bore upon this issue. In doing my studies, I have touched upon all
    >known rules I know of bearing upon this issue within the year 2000,
    >fourth edition rule book, and have looked at the main points of the
    >year 1971/1976 rule book.
    >
    >In general, Scenario 4 is, I believe, the simplest case where you
    >will see a different adjudicational result depending on whether you
    >hold he majority or the minority viewpoint. For instance, if you
    >change Scenario 4 so that the French atttack is unsupported,
    >then this attack does not succeed to Venezia, and both sides,
    >the minority and the majority get identical adjucation results.
    >
    >Concerning the Yorkshire Pudding scenario, I have not come across
    >it discussed on the internet. So, if it is tricky in some respect, I
    >don't
    >know what this trick is. As far as I can see, each individual order
    >is valid and legal. You have three units moving into York each
    >with identical strengths of 1. This is called a "stand-off", and when
    >units "stand-off" no unit involved in the "stand-off" moves.

    There is no trick in the "Yorkshire Pudding" scenario (but then, I don't
    see any trick in your "Scenario 4" - it looks to me like a clear case of
    all units don't move). I asked you about the Yorkshire Pudding in the
    hope of understanding the logic which you are using. I thought maybe
    you would say "the two fleets stand each other off, so we will regard
    them as holding. Now Yorkshire is left empty and the army can move in".

    You believe, if I have understood you correctly, that in Scenario 4 the
    French army moving with a strength of two gets in to Venezia, while the
    Italian army moving with a strength of three fails to get in to Venezia.

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

    If you take the decisions in chapter 5 of the DATC,
    you can define your rules by modifying the 'PREVENT STRENGTH'.

    According to your reasoning the PREVENT STRENGTH is 1 plus the
    number of supports, but 0 in case of a head to head battle with
    an oponent with equal or higher DEFEND STRENGTH. Or should I
    substract the DEFEND STRENGTH?

    At least it shows the power of decision based defining of the
    rules, because you can adapt to your rules, with just minor
    modification.

    Anyway, I do not consider this a 'minority' view, because there
    is nobody (except you), that considers this according to the
    rules. So, it is just wrong. Of course, you are free to make
    your own rules.

    Regards,

    Lucas


    "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> schreef in bericht news:1106773825.004420.271240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi Nick,
    >
    > Sometimes I may say, "I believe," but I usually like to use the term
    > minority view
    > and majority view.
    >
    > The minority view holds as you have written, that:
    > that in Scenario 4 the
    > French army moving with a strength of two gets in to Venezia, while the
    >
    > Italian army moving with a strength of three fails to get in to
    > Venezia.
    >
    > That is the minority view. In my previous articles in this thread,
    > thanks to
    > Randy offering kind suggestions (although Randy does not agree with the
    > minority view), I have attempted to address what rule or rules bear on
    > this topic and how one specific rule may be misinterpreted.
    >
    > So, I will give my thinking, but not repeat all the gory details that I
    > have
    > already written about today and yesterday:
    >
    > The Italians attacking from Trieste into Venezia meet or stand-off
    > with the Austrians attacking from Venezia into Trieste. This is a
    > stand-off and no units move that are involved in this stand-off.
    > This is a rule.
    >
    > Now, this rule can be inacted on the eastern sector of the board,
    > while another rule can be active on the western sector of the board
    > as concerns the French invasion of Venezia. The French are not
    > in a stand-off, they function under the different rule wherein the
    > French
    > attack from Piemonte to Venezia with a strength of 2 and overwhelm
    > and dislodge the Austrians who attempted to hold in Venezia only
    > with a strength of 1.
    >
    > I have attempted in my previous posts to explain how this type of
    > reasoning could be seen to exist within the rules. Though, it is
    > more accurate to say that I went on an exploration, and now that
    > I have gone on this exploration, I still hold the minority viewpoint.
    >
    > But, your remarks and discussion on this point are more than
    > welcome. The more views and discussion, the better, I would
    > think.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    In message <1106773825.004420.271240@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes

    >The Italians attacking from Trieste into Venezia meet or stand-off
    >with the Austrians attacking from Venezia into Trieste. This is a
    >stand-off and no units move that are involved in this stand-off.
    >This is a rule.
    >
    >Now, this rule can be inacted on the eastern sector of the board,
    >while another rule can be active on the western sector of the board
    >as concerns the French invasion of Venezia. The French are not
    >in a stand-off, they function under the different rule wherein the
    >French
    >attack from Piemonte to Venezia with a strength of 2 and overwhelm
    >and dislodge the Austrians who attempted to hold in Venezia only
    >with a strength of 1.

    The Austrians in Venezia are not attempting to hold. This seems to be
    the root of the disagreement.

    The problem the French have in getting in to Venezia is not the
    Austrians, who are trying to get out but failing. What prevents the
    French from getting in to Venezia is, in my view, the Italians, who are
    attacking it with a force superior to that of the French.

    You may see this if you consider the following:

    Scenario 4, but with the Italian units removed. France walks in to
    Venezia, she didn't even need the support.

    Scenario 4, but with the Austrian units removed. France fails to get in
    to Venezia, the Italian gets there instead.

    >I have attempted in my previous posts to explain how this type of
    >reasoning could be seen to exist within the rules. Though, it is
    >more accurate to say that I went on an exploration, and now that
    >I have gone on this exploration, I still hold the minority viewpoint.
    >
    >But, your remarks and discussion on this point are more than
    >welcome. The more views and discussion, the better, I would
    >think.

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

    In article <1106765348.694204.113840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

    > Scenario 4:
    > France:
    > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    > Italy:
    > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    > Austria:
    > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    >
    > So, the above paragraph defines a "stand-off". A stand-off can occur
    > between two units, each of which is not supported, or it can occur between
    > units of equal strength (when their supports are counted).

    The paragraph doesn't mention support. Instead, it establishes the default
    condition. The Support paragraph will provide explicit exceptions to the
    default.

    > Note that this section, VIII. Conflicts, only addresses units of equal
    > strength.

    Strength is not mentioned in the Conflicts situation; that paragraph
    addresses all conflicting moves.

    > Thus, in our Scenario 4, the action between

    > 1. The Austrians holding in Venezia with a strength of 1, and

    The Austrians are *not* holding in Venezia. They are attempting to move.

    > 2. The French moving from Piemonte to Venezia with a strength of 2,
    > is not encompassed in the above VIII Conflicts section.

    On the contrary, it is covered, but will be overruled by the Effect of
    Support paragraph. This may seem pedantic, but it's important to recognize
    that Tri-Ven and Pie-Ven are conflicting moves, and neither will be allowed
    unless there is a specific clause in the Supports section that allows the
    move.

    > We then apply rule IX.2, and find that the French with a strength of 2 in
    > their attack on Venezia are not "opposed" by the Italians attacking from
    > Treiste,

    Why are they not opposed? Are they not both ordered to the same space?

    > the attacking Italians from Treiste are already subsumed or encompassed by
    > the VIII Conflicts rule and it has been determined that they will not
    > move; therefore, the French oppose only the Austrians who also didn't move
    > and who are now holding in Venezia.

    Just because they will fail to move doesn't mean they don't oppose another
    move to the same space.

    And, as added evidence, contrast this with the situation had the Trieste
    army been dislodged by the Venice army: then, and only then, is there a
    specific rule that would allow Pie to follow into Venice. That rule (a
    dislodged unit has no effect on the space from which its attacker came)
    would have been superfluous were the correct interpretation of the earlier
    paragraphs as you suggest.

    --
    Randy Hudson
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

    Hi,

    The following scenario will be under
    consideration, Scenario 5:

    Scenario 5:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    As Randy has been the one most willing to look over my posts in detail
    and
    comment on them, though, of course, I appreciate everyone's comments, I
    will
    today use the 1976 rule book and review it again; I will review this
    particular
    version because it is the rule book Randy is most familiar with.

    I've also looked up "notwithstanding," although I take it most of you
    are
    brighter than me, I'll define it here.

    notwithstanding: in spite of

    where
    in spite of
    means
    not stopped by
    or
    regardless of

    Sample sentences either given or modified by me:

    They kept going in spite of their fears.
    They kept going, their fears notwithstanding.
    They kept going, even though their fears were not without
    standing (or even though their fears were not without substance).

    In the 1976 rule book, "notwithstanding" is used to relate one section
    of the
    rule book to another. As I didn't know for sure what "notwithstanding"
    meant,
    I included the definition here. Also, one will note that I stumbled
    over this
    word yesterday, and had to "feel my way" around in relating the two
    sections
    that were bound by this one word: notwithstanding. Since I now have
    that word
    defined as "in spite of," hopefully the 1976 rules will be clearer
    during this
    second reading.

    The following paragraph describes also the minority view:
    We are trying to determine if the rule book allows for any merit to the
    belief that two armies in adjacent provinces attacking one another with
    equal
    strength results in neither of these armies moving as well as not
    allowing
    either army to influence the province it was attacking in any way
    whatsoever.
    The 1958 rule book rough draft explicitly states this. But, subsequent
    versions
    make this less explicitly clear due to the legalization of the language
    used.
    Also, I believe that once someone has a particular mind set, such as
    believing
    that the minority view is not or never has been true, it makes it even
    harder
    to entertain the idea that the minority view might be true in later
    rule book
    versions.

    It should be noted that a stand-off (but not a face-to-face battle),
    where two equal forces are attacking
    a given province, and these two forces are not located within that
    province,
    allows these two attacking forces to influence the said attacked
    province;
    for instance, another, third unit of lesser strength could not
    willy-nilly
    enter into this said province.

    It is obvious to most people what the stakes are here: assuming the
    above
    definitions are inacted into rule, then a force involved in a
    face-to-face
    battle with another unit of equal strength, exerts no influence on the
    province it was attacking, which makes these units "weaker" on the
    battle
    field, and, of course, in a stand-off, both units do indeed exert their
    influence upon the province they are attacking, even if they end up not
    moving into that province, for in a stand-off of equal strength, no
    unit of
    lesser strength can move in.

    Let's first begin with theory: consistency theory, to be exact. In
    Scenario 5 above, if we use the majority viewpoint, it is as if the
    Italians
    attacking from Trieste into Venezia, are doing the Austrains in Venezia
    a
    favor, because the Italians, in effect, are keeping the French from
    invading
    Venezia from the rear.

    However, compare this to a slightly modified scenario, Scenario 6:
    Scenario 6:
    France:
    Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
    Italy:
    Army in Albania to Venezia.
    Army in Serbia supports Army in Albania to Venezia.
    Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Albania to Venezia.
    Austria:
    Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
    Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

    Instead of having a face-to-face battle of equal strength, now we have
    a
    stand-off (of equal strength) in Trieste. Note that the Italians
    certainly
    do not protect the Austrians' rear in Venezia, and that the French do
    indeed
    attack and conquer Venezia in scenario 6.

    For a purely theoretical point of view, now go back to Scenario 5. Why
    all of
    a sudden, using the majority opinion, are we letting the Italians
    essentially
    guard the Austrians' rear, and why are we letting the Italians
    essentially
    protect the Austrians' from the attacking French.

    But, if you look at Scenario 5 and apply the minority view, neither the
    armies in Venezia nor Trieste move, and niether has any influence
    whatsoever on
    the province it was attacking, which with respect to the rear attack of
    the
    French upon Venezia, does not stop the French attack from dislodging
    the
    Austrians from Venezia. With the minority view, Scenario 5 and
    Scenario 6 are
    now consistent in this regard.

    Also stated before, is that when the minority view is applied, you
    don't end up
    with quite a few positions, such as in the DATC, wherein units are
    fighting
    behind enemy lines. So, if you ignore the minority view in Scenario 6,
    you
    essentially allow the Italians to fight behind the lines of the
    Austrians in
    Venezia and bounce the French from their attack into Venezia.

    Okay, enough theory or the theory of consistency. Someone might think
    what
    consistency of their own is lost when introducing the minority opinion,
    and this
    is fine, please state it, for it is always good to see what consistency
    in the
    game is lost, and what gained, when applying or not applying the
    minority view.
    I can't be expected to notice which specific prized 'consistency' that
    any rule
    modification might effect.

    So, let's dig into this 1976 rule book. Let it be noted that Randy has
    been
    looking over my articles and commenting on them. I have read Randy's
    comments.
    But, you will note that I don't explicity copy and paste his comments
    into this
    document. This is because Randy's command of the rule book far exceeds
    my own.
    I am still a beginning student. And, one should expect me to have to
    slog
    through this rule book one, two, three, or even four times, before I
    even begin
    to approach Randy's level, if this is even possible.

    ****************
    VIII. Conflicts
    ****************

    * If two or more units are ordered to the same space, none of them may
    move.
    [If two or more units are ordered to the same space having equal
    strength given
    their support for their move, none of them may move.]

    * If a unit is not ordered to move, or is prevented from moving, and
    other
    units are ordered to its space, those other units may not move.
    [If a unit is not ordered to move, and other units are ordered to its
    space
    having a supported strength equal to that of the said unit not moving,
    those
    other units may not move.]

    * If two units are ordered, each to the space the other occupies,
    neither may
    move.

    Note that the third item is what I call a "face-to-face" battle. Keep
    in mind
    that we are looking to see if the rule book by dropping the
    "face-to-face"
    word, still allows us to say that in a face-to-face battle of equal
    strength,
    the units do not move and the units do not influence the square they
    were
    attacking in any way whatsoever (see the 1958 rule book rough draft
    where this
    is, for instance, explicitly stated sort of like this: "it is as if
    the
    attacking unit lost its turn," which is about as close as you can come
    to saying
    that the unit did not move and had no effect whatsoever on the province
    it was
    attacking).

    We can safely expand on the above concepts, which the rule book calls
    "stand-offs." I have expanded upon them using brackets []. Keep in
    mind,
    however, when we later see the term "notwithstanding" you need to
    realize that
    what I have written in brackets is not to be considered, otherwise we
    may
    misinterpret the rule book.

    I personally would have liked the rule book to be more specific, but
    sometimes
    being more specific causes other problems later on. So, this could be
    the
    reasoning behind why the third rule was not written like this:

    * If two units are ordered, each to the space the other occupies,
    neither may
    move and neither has any influence whatsoever on the space it is
    attacking; it
    is as if each unit lost its turn to move.

    Perhaps the above wording, I speculate at this time, would have added
    more
    confusion. Think about it, and see if you, unlike me, can think of an
    example
    where the above clarity would really have resulted in more confusion.

    The rule book, as written, essentially says that in a "stand-off" or in
    a
    "face-to-face" battle of equal strength, none of the units move. And,
    in an
    "attack" (where one unit is moving into a square where another unit had
    not
    been ordered to move from, or is prevented from moving from) where the
    attacker
    has the same strength as the defender, neither unit moves.

    So, we basically have three concepts (assume, please, that I have
    defined them):
    "attack" (against a unit which was not
    ordered to move or which could not move), "stand-off", and
    "face-to-face".
    A "stand-off" always assumes that the two units standing each other off
    are of
    equal strength. An "attack" and a "face-to-face" battle need not be of
    equal
    strength, but if they are of equal strength, then the attack fails, or
    the
    face-to-face battle results in neither unit moving.

    We also explicitly note that the rule-book calls all of these
    situations
    stand-offs, and does not break them down into three concepts, though I
    think
    that having these three concepts may, perhaps, make it easier to write
    the
    rules, but the publisher may have thought it made the rule
    book harder to read, understand, or made the rule book too long. After
    all,
    the clearer and more precise you become, the longer your rule book will
    become.

    In short, this section deals with EQUAL conflicts ONLY, and furthermore
    states
    that no units move when involved in an EQUAL conflict. That may be
    important
    to remember when we look at the next section of the rule book and see
    how its
    use of the word "notwithstanding" fits in.

    We further note, perhaps due to economy of writing, that all three
    concepts
    I have called attack, stand-off, and face-to-face, the published groups
    under
    one all encompassing term: stand-off. When "stand-off" is used to
    represent
    the three categories I have defined, I will call it a "generic
    stand-off".

    It is the minority opinion that this economy of writing, and
    specifically
    only using a generic stand-off concept may have lead to a faulty rule
    book;
    but, we will see, as we read further.

    Referring to Scenario 5 at this time, using only the rules that have
    been
    defined so far, we find that the rules prohibit the unit in Trieste
    from
    moving and prohibit the unit in Venezia from moving; the French unit
    attacking
    Venezia from Piemonte would not be prohibited from moving.

    **********************
    IX. The Support Order
    **********************

    IX.1 * Ordering Support. A unit may give up its move in order to
    support
    another unit trying to hold or enter a space. This space must be one
    to which
    the supporting unit could have moved if not opposed by other units; ...

    I find that last phrase very weird and unclear, "if not opposed by
    other units,"
    for if a unit is adjacent to the square to which it is giving support,
    this
    cannot possibly relate to how this unit giving support is or is not
    opposed by
    other units. Maybe someone else understands what this phrase is
    saying, but to
    me it is completely confused and awfully written, though I don't think
    it will
    bear upon the issues we are discussing, thank goodness. Could this
    phrase be
    used as an example of the rule book losing credibility because it is
    illogical in using that phrase noted above?

    IX.2 * Effect of Support. A unit moves with the strength of itself
    and all its
    valid supports. Unless it is opposed by a unit equally well or better
    supported, it may make its move, inspite of the rules under CONFLICTS
    above.
    Equally supported units which conflict in the situations described in
    Section
    VIII CONFLICTS, follow those rules. A unit which otherwise would have
    remained
    in the space attacked by a better supported unit is dislodged and must
    retreat
    or be disbanded.

    Whew! Okay, now we need to analyze section IX.2. Note that I have
    changed the
    phrase, "the rules under CONFLICTS above notwithstanding" to a less
    formal, but
    perhaps a more precise term for young readers thus: "inspite of the
    rules under
    CONFLICTS above."

    Is section IX.2 well written; I don't think so. It attempts an
    economy of
    speech (perhaps to save paper?), and in so doing may lose clarity and
    precision.

    The following sentence is perfectly clear:

    * Equally supported units which conflict in the situations described
    in Section
    VIII CONFLICTS, follow those rules.

    Therefore, in our Scenario 5, clearly the units located in Venezia and
    Piemonte
    do not move. Note that I don't need to say that they do not move,
    period. Note
    that I don't need to say, they do not move, period, and they do not
    influence
    the area they are attacking. Because that is exactly what "do not
    move" means,
    although, admittedly, the rule book did not start off by stating all
    the
    implications that "not moving" held, it is a very safe bet, in the
    minority
    opinion, that that is indeed what "not moving" means.

    For instance, if I said "does not influence the province it is
    attacking,"
    this is lose terminology, for in a face-to-face battle, certainly it
    influences the province it is attacking because the unit in that
    province will
    not move. So, really, I don't want to tack on the phrase, "does not
    influence the province it is attacking" when I say a unit does not
    move, to
    avoid this possible point of confusion.

    I believe, at least so far in this long thread, that the majority
    opinion thinks
    that "does not move" means that the unit does not move but that it
    influences
    the region it wished to move to in other ways above and beyond the fact
    of the
    obvious influence that related units in a stand-off don't move. The
    minority
    opinion is that this is an incorrect definition of "does not move."

    So, this is really cool! We are, at least for me, starting to reduce
    down to
    exact words and phrases what the minority opinion and the majority
    opinion
    either agree on or disagree on. And, the definition of "does not move"
    could
    be a very important phrase.

    While the above sentence was easy to analyze, this sentence from the
    section
    under consideration is more complicated:

    * Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit equally well or better
    supported, it may
    make its move, the rules under CONFLICTS above nowithstanding."

    Let's rephrase this identically:

    A unit makes its move when it is opposed by a unit less well supported,
    the
    rules under CONFLICTS above notwithstanding.

    Let's now substitute for "notwithstanding" thus:

    A unit makes its move when it is opposed by a unit less well supported,
    in spite
    of the rules under CONFLICTS above.

    Now that we have rephrased this, we wonder why the phrase even
    mentions,
    "in spite of the rules under CONFLICTS above," because those above
    rules deal
    only with EQUAL forces, and our main clause is talking about unequal
    forces!

    So, we now know that that last "notwithstanding" clause is telling is
    something
    about equal forces, it is telling us something about equal forces that
    is
    true in spite of whate the CONFLICTS section said.

    Okay, back to the original wording, otherwise, the "notwithstanding"
    clause
    lacks sense:

    * Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit equally well or better
    supported, it may
    make its move, the rules under CONFLICTS above nowithstanding."

    Let's now break this into two separate sentences:

    1* Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit better supported, it may make
    its move."

    2* Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit equally well supported, it may
    make its
    move, in spite of the rules under CONFLICTS above.

    OR

    2* Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit equally well supported, it may
    make its
    move, the rules under CONFLICTS above notwithstanding.

    We all understand sentence 1*, which we can rephrase:

    1* A unit may make its move when it is opposed by a unit less
    supported.

    Can anyone out there understand sentence 2*? I'm not sure I can parse
    it to
    make any sense. Here is sentence 2* again:

    2* Unless [a unit] is opposed by a unit equally well supported, it may
    make its
    move, in spite of the rules under CONFLICTS above.

    I guess we can rephrase it like this:

    2* If a unit U is opposed by a unit equally well supported, the said
    unit U may
    not make its move, in spite of the rules under CONFLICTS above.

    I'm not sure why we need that last phrase, "in spite of the rules under
    CONFLICTS above." Does anyone have any ideas?

    It seems that it would be sufficient, at least until I see otherwise,
    to
    simply rewrite 2* like this:

    2* If a unit U is opposed by a unit equally well supported, the said
    unit U may
    not make its move.

    Now we can combine sentences 1* and 2* and AND them together:

    1* A unit may make its move when it is opposed by a unit less
    supported.

    AND

    2* If a unit U is opposed by a unit equally well supported, the said
    unit U may
    not make its move.

    What I find particularly bizarre here, is that now sentence 2* is
    saying nothing
    that has not already been said under CONFLICTS above! The sentence was
    even
    more bizarre when it tacked on "notwithstanding" or "in spite of".
    It's almost
    like it is saying "inspite of itself." And that is confusing.

    Any way, maybe this sentence is only trying to introduce the concept
    that
    some units will be more supported than others, and only those units
    which are
    more supported than others wil move. But, the writing is terrible in
    my
    opinion.

    Okay, so assuming that I have rephrased the sentence in a correct and
    logical
    fashion, let's now revisit our Scenario 5. Again, we know that the
    units in
    Venezia and Trieste do not move. We now want to know about the French
    attack
    with a strength of 2 into Venezia. The minority view is that since the
    units
    in Venezia and Trieste do not move, then they literally do not move.
    The
    French army moves into Piemonte because the French strength of 2 is
    greater
    than the Austrian strength there of 1. This dislodgement of the
    Austrians
    from Venezia by the French is consistent with the last sentence in the
    rule book section we are discussing:

    * A unit which otherwise would have remained in the space attacked by
    a
    better supported unit is dislodged and must retreat or be disbanded.

    So, the Austrians due to their face-to-face battle with the Italians,
    certainly
    do not move, and cetainly are "a unit which otherwise would have
    remained in
    the space" but for the French attack.

    It is the minority reading of the rules so far that the Italians do not
    and
    cannot effect the French, because the Italians, by the rules, have been
    deemed
    not to move.

    Note also that you can indeed adjudicate Scenario 5 "simultaneously:"

    1. Austrians in Venezia attack Trieste with strength 3.
    2. Italians in Trieste attack Venezia with strength 3.
    3. French in Piemonte attack Venezia with strength 2.

    1. Austrians in Venezia do not and can not move.
    2. Italians in Trieste do not and can not move.
    3. French in Piemonte can move with a strength of 2 against a holding
    strength
    of only 1.

    Note that this article focuses only on Sections VIII and IX of the 1976
    rule book. I have not yet gone through the examples, but will stop
    here
    for now, since just trying to understand the core statements of these
    rules
    seems to have been a major undertaking, either because I am a slow
    learning
    or because the rules are badly written, or both.

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

    Hi,

    Okay, now I can parse that 2* sentence:

    2* If a unit U is opposed by a unit equally well supported, the said
    unit U may
    not make its move, in spite of the rules under CONFLICTS above.

    This is simply saying that for our Scenario 5, the units in Venezia and
    Trieste
    which are equally well supported in a generic stand-off, both will not
    move,

    and now for the over-statement, but perhaps it was deemed necessary for
    clarity:

    inspite of the rules which already said that if the units in Venezia
    and
    Trieste were both totally unsupported and involved in a generic
    stand-off
    that both these units would not move.

    Which still rings like a silly sentence to me; the big word,
    "notwithstanding"
    adds little to the meaning and intent that the sentence already
    imparted
    without this final phrase.

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

    Hi,

    It looks in the above two postings I forgot to state a conclusion.

    For instance, I have said what happens in Scenario 5 above. But what
    happens if we modify Scenario 5 such that
    1. Italy has one additional support making its attack strength of 4 as
    it
    attempts to move from Trieste to Venezia, and
    2. A new national power is introduced also attacking into Venezia with
    a
    strength of 4.

    Are there ambiguities in the rules?

    Well, in the above modified scenario, we can say again, that this new
    national power "does not move." And, we can say again that the
    Italians
    "do not move."

    But, do the French sneak in? The rule book is ambiguous! Because it
    did not
    use three distinct terms, "attack," "stand-off," and "face-to-face",
    any
    reasonable person could interpret this in two ways:
    1. The French do sneak in, after all, neither the Italians nor that
    new
    great power moved.
    2. The French do not sneak in because while it is true that that new
    great
    power does not move with respect to the Italians, it is also true that
    the French with respect to this new great power clearly have less
    support and
    thus are not allowed to move in. That is, when you say a unit does not
    move,
    it has to be with respect to every other unit under consideration.

    So, the later ruling is the most usual.

    But now the majority view rightly says, "Hey, so why aren't you looking
    independently at the interaction between the Italians and the French in
    our Scenario 5?"

    They would also say, if the minority view did this, they would also
    conclude
    that there is no way the French could take Venezia under scenario 5.

    And they are absolutely right!

    The rule book either intended the majority view, or the rule book in
    condensing
    its language, inadvertently opened the door to allow the majority view
    to
    rightly claim itself legitimate.

    My conclusions at this time, based only on the text we have examined in
    this
    and the previous two articles, is that the rule book blows it big time,
    and
    is ambiguous.

    My next article will look at the sample scenarios the rule book offers
    to see
    what they add to the discussion. But, there is no doubt in my mind
    that the
    primary text defining the rules, allows ambiguity and different
    interpretation.

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

    In message <1106781554.184616.172380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes
    >Hi Nick,
    >
    >I just wrote an article in this thread that addresses your very concern
    >it deals with the year 2000, fourth edition rule book, Diagram 25 on
    >page 14; read it, and report back here. The issue that the minority
    >view is saying is this:
    >two units of equal strength mutually attacking themselves from
    >neighboring provinces have no effect what so ever, they lose
    >their move if you all, on the province they are attacking.

    I understand that you believe the above three lines. I do not accept
    them myself. For one thing, I do not believe that units can attack
    "themselves", or other units; what units do is attempt to move to
    provinces.

    >It is this concept, which the minority view thinks the majority
    >view is "not seeing."

    I see it ok; I just think that it is not supported by any rulebook.

    Nick
    --
    Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
Ask a new question

Read More

Cases Bug Video Games