Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DATC and DATC Test Case 6.E.15. - Page 2

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:43:06 PM

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

Sorry, the Italian orders should be

Army in Albania to Trieste (and not to Venezia).

The complete scenario 6 is now given again.

SCENARIO 6 CORRECTED.

Scenario 6:
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Albania to Trieste.
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.

Nick, if you have any questions about the true
scenario 6 which I have just set up, please let
me know.

Thanks for the correction.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:55:14 PM

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

SCENARIO 6 CORRECTED A SECOND TIME

Scenario 6:
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Albania to Trieste.
Army in Serbia supports Army in Albania to Trieste.
Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Albania to Trieste.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:08:03 PM

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

Hi,

Concerning the sample scenarios given in the year 1976 rule
book. I've looked them over with not much to report.

The famous section, IX.7 Dislodgment of a Piece
Participating in a Standoff, I have already discussed
with respect to the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
and concluded there, and agree still, that this section
neither adds nor subtracts from any substantive
issues as relates to both the minority and the majority
view.

Now that I see the ambiguity within the Year 1976
rule book, I'll again revisit the year 2000, fourth
edition rule book and see if it as badly written with
respect to any substantive issues.

Keep in mind that there are two ways to see this;
that is, if we agree that the rules do allow under
Scenario 5 for the Italians to keep the French out
of Venezia, then it is because of one or both of the
following:
1. This was intended by the rule makers.
2. This was not intended by the rule makers, but
by removing the three concepts as I defined them,
attack, stand-off, and head-to-head, and replacing
this term with a generic stand-off, any rational
person might suppose that the Italians could stop
the French; furthermore, an insufficient number of
examples were given to clarify the basic rules of
movement and support.

There is no reason for me to speculate which of the
above is true, as that leads to me having to guess
too much, I think.

There is an article on the web, referred to above that
does discuss the rule changes in 1971, and the issue
now addressed was not one of the rule changes, which
makes me think that the 1958 rule book rough draft
is the intent then and now. But, the rule book sure
isn't helping the minority view justify its position, that's
for sure.

Thanks
Related resources
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:40:58 PM

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

Hi,

Sorry for the confusion, but these conclusions are wrong.
Apparently it is easy to get confused with all this stuff!
My corrections are now given.

NewsGroupUser wrote:
> 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."

Wrong! Sorry folks. What we would say is that the Italians overcome
the Austrians with a strength of 4 verse 3. Now it is a stand-off
between
the Italians and the new, major power, each attacking Venezia with a
strength of 4. So, it is a stand-off, and the French definitely don't
move
in. The standard rules work fine here, there is no ambiguity. Sorry
for
the correction.

The following reasoning is mistaken, see the paragraph I just wrote
above:
>
> 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.
Wrong.

> 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.
The later ruling is the only interpretation using the rules as given
in the opening paragraph of this revised post.

>
> 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!

Sorry, my conclusion is wrong. As stated above, the Italians and the
Austrians both do not move. There is no relationship to consider
with the French as they are under no such restriction.

>
> 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 conclusions were faulty as reasoned about above in the new inserted
text.

>
> 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
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:55:13 PM

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

Hi,

Okay, the rule book for 1976 is ambiguous after all! I did
not have the correct scenario in front of me.

For the above scenario, the 1976 rules work fine, but they
fail miserably for this scenario, where any unit in a
generic stand-off does not move:

Scenario 7:
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Apulia to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Apulia to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Tyrolia supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

If we literally follow the 1976 rules, then the Italians
and the Austrians are in a strength 2 generic stand-off
over Venezia, and neither unit involved would move.

So now what happens? Literally following the rule,
the French would walk into Venezia with a strength of
only 1, because there is no rule to apply to the French
saying that they cannot move.

As far as I know, this seems wrong to me, and probably
wrong to everybody else. But, technically, we would then
have to look through all the examples in the rule book and
see if we found one which would contradict this adjudication.

Assuming we could find a strong contradiction to this
adjucation, we can then conclude that the rules are
ambiguous.

I will not look for an example contradicting the above
adjudication right now, but will keep my eyes open
for it (that is, I certainly don't right off the bat recall
seeing such a similar scenario in the rule book).

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 2:23:31 PM

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

Hi,

The following scenario will be under
consideration, Scenario 8:

Scenario 8: Venezia occupied at start of turn.
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.

Let's also throw in Scenario 9 while we are at it:

Scenario 9: Venezia unoccupied at start of turn.
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Apulia to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Apulia to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Army in Tyrolia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.


I've just gone over the year 1976 rule book, and it seems to support
the
minority viewpoint at the exclusion of the majority viewpoint. Okay, I
know
I made some errors in my posts, even saying the opposite, but that
happens
when you are on an exploratory journey.

Just for clarity, then, let's adjudicate both positions above.

For Scenario 8: The Austrians and the Italians are in an equal
strength
generic stand-off and simply don't move; the French have no
restrictions on
their movement given the rules, so the French with a strength of 2
capture
Venezia and dislodge the Austrians from Venezia.

For Scenario 9: This could be a shocker, it was to me when I first
looked at
it and applied the rules, but here goes: The Austrians and the
Italians are
again in a generic stand-off with a strength of 2 and are not allowed
to move;
the French, with only a strength of 1 capture Venezia. It's a mind
blower,
but appears consistent with the rules.

Okay, let's repair a few of my previously inaccurate posts and consider
a
few side-variants for scenario 8.

Scenario 8 modified only as follows:
1. A new major power is introduced attacking Venezia with a strength
of 2.

As before, the Italians and the Austrians simply do not move in their
generic
stand-off. Another stand-off of strength 2 occurs between the French
and this
new, major power. Conclusion: no units move.

Scenario 8 modified only as follows:
1. The Italians now have one additional support for their attack into
Venezia making their attack strength now 4.

There is no stand-off of any kind, the Italians having the strongest
force
move into Venezia and dislodge the Austrians.

Scenario 8 modified only as follows:
1. A new major power is introduced attacking Venezia with a strength
of 3.

As before, the Italians and the Austrians do not move by the rule
because they
are clearly involved in a generic stand-off. The new major power
clearly
beats out Frances meager attack strength of 2, therefore, the new major
power
captures Venezia and dislodges the Austrians from Venezia.

Scenario 8 modified only as follows:
1. The Italians now have one additional suport for their attack into
Venezia making their attack strength now 4.
2. A new major power is introduced attacking Venezia with a strength
of 4.

The Austrian counter-attack of strength 3 does not equal 4 which is the
strength
of the Italian attack, so at this stage, those Italians can still
legally move.
But then we find that there is a generic stand-off between the Italians
attacking with a strength of 4 and this new major power attacking with
a
strength of 4, thus, by the rule, neither the Italians nor this new
major power
are allowed to move. The only player who can move is France, and it
legally
over-whelmes Venezia with its lower-rated strength of 2 and dislodges
the
Austrians from Venezia.



Okay, so the above is how I interpret the 1976 rules. Now that I have
clarified some of my previous posts, my next article will explore to
see if
the year 2000, fourth edition rule book changes my holding of the
minority
opinion.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 2:36:45 PM

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

You can't do this, because you have to do the conceptualizing
of the algorithm first. As I said, you don't understand the
use of the word algorithm.... think of the word equation.
You need to have a general way of writing a single equation
for each unit, that encompasses ALL of the possible things
that it could do, and how it could be adjudicated given ONE
single move. But I don't think we'll get anywhere this way,
you don't seem to have enough Mathematics or Computer Science
background and if I speak more precisely I'll just confuse
you worse.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the explanation. Please feel free to
elaborate, I enjoyed reading your discussion. There
is nothing wrong with me being confused
while I'm learning.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 4:18:35 PM

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

Hi Jim,

Good point. As I have been studying, I have come to learn
that there is not difference in how you define the generic
stand-off, whether it be an attack against a defending unit,
a head-to-head battle, or a stand-off.

Your other views are very important also:
It is important what I said in the
other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
and the balance of power.

So, I'm pretty sure that when I play, I'll be playing
the "simple version," and that being that any unit
involved in any kind of generic stand-off does not move.
And, I can do this knowing that it meets the one
minimum requirement: it is a consistent rule.

Thanks for your fresh-air idea, I think it gives everyone
a context within which to play the game, even if their
exact take may not match exactly some other persons.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:12:14 PM

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

Hi Randy,

You have been very kind and patient with me.

I guess the next interesting topic, if you will, is
why you all see it so differently than I do. What is
it specifically that makes our interpretation so
different?

I don't want to wear out my welcome here. I have
had fun exploring the rules. Albeit, it appears that
everyone thinks I have been exploring them incorrectly.
I accept that. But it has still been fun. Now, it would
be nice if we could actually figure out what we are
reading that makes us interpret it differently.

I will return, but let me rest a bit so that I don't quickly
wear out my welcome. When I come back, I
will focus on your posts exclusively, and the goal is
not necessarily that one convince the other of any
particular idea, but to understand why one interprets it as
they do. Unfortunately, which may not reflect well on
my IQ, English is my first language.

Everyone who speaks here, even if indirectly, pretty
much agrees with you: my interpretation is wrong;
at least, that is my current understanding, but if
anyone has said differently, I apologize.

Again, you've been a good, honest guide. Through
you, eventually, I may actually hold your beliefs about
the rules.

Thanks again, and my next posting, which will be about
a week or so, I will specifically address your responses
to my posts. Again, the objective is to focus on what
I can't see, that you all see; that is, I will try to be in
the role of student, who before venturing off making
up his own rules, should at least understand why
everyone else clearly and strongly believes in a
different set of rules.

This thread has become sloppy to the extent that it
has been an exploration. But, my last posting, while
it may reflect an incorrect reading of the rules, at least,
I hope, is consistent. And, it will allow me to play my
first Diplomacy game too.

Thanks again!

Randy Hudson wrote:
> In article <1106860907.999798.172200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > The most important aspect of the 1976 rule book is that if a unit
is
> > involved in any kind of generic stand-off, whether you want to call
it an
> > equal strength head-to-head battle of units in adjacent provinces,
or a
> > stand-off of a province that the attacking units are not currently
in, or
> > an attack upon a province which is occupied and defends itself
equally,
> > the major point is that these units so involved simply do not move.
> >
> > So, if two powers are in a stand-off over a province that neither
> > currently occupies, and they are both attacking this province with
> > strength of 3, then neither moves, and if there is another attacker
with
> > just a force of 1, that other attacker will enter the province. At
least
> > that is how I read the 1976 rule book.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Perhaps English isn't the language in which you're most comfortable.
But
> you seem to be translating the rules, somehow, into saying something
> different than what they actually say.
>
> You seem to restate rules as meaning something different than what
they say,
> note that the restatement is ambiguous, and then conclude the rules
are
> ambiguous. When you reach that point, you then have to go back and
see
> whether it was your restatement that introduced the ambiguity. In
these
> cases it was.
>
> Despite dozens of paragraphs of mixed-line-length, difficult-to-read
> reassertions of your own beliefs, you have not bothered to actually
respond
> to what I've written.
>
> Units which fail to move, fail to move. They aren't "converted to
hold";
> and, with only one exception, they continue to have effect on the
space
> where they attempted their move.
>
> The one exception is if they were dislodged by a unit moving from
that
> space. In that case, there is a rule which explicitly states that:
IX.7,
> Dislodgement of a Piece Participating in a Standoff. There, the
author
> points out that the rules state what you deny they state, and then
creates
> an exception:
>
> | It follows from the above rules that, where two or more equally
> | well supported units are ordered to the same space, neither may
move...
> | however, if ... one of them is dislodged by a unit coming from
that
> | space, then the other unit may move... a dislodged unit has no
effect
> | on the space its attacker came from.
>
> In your view, the last clause should have simply said "a unit which
fails to
> move has no effect." But that's not what the rules say.
>
> > The main effect of this rule, wherein any unit involved in any kind
of
> > generic stand-off doesn't move, is that the game becomes much
simpler!
> > Quite a few of the scenarios in the DATC would then be considered
faulty.
>
> I believe that rules variant would be unplayable, because of frequent
> adjudication paradoxes, where there were multiple possible outcomes
from a
> particular order set depending on what order one converted bounced
moves to
> holds. At any rate, that is not what the rules currently say.
>
> > But, let's focus on some important points here. If a unit can not
move,
> > it can not possibly appose any other unit.
>
> Why not? You keep asserting this, without any support or evidence,
and you
> dismiss all the evidence to the contrary as "the rules are
ambiguous." The
> rules are clear that "does not move" and "has no effect" are two
distinct
> concepts; they are explicitly contrasted in rule IX.7, quoted above.
(The
> other case where a unit has no effect is when its convoy is
disrupted, rule
> XII.3: "...the army to be convoyed remains in its original province
and has
> no effect on the province to which it was ordered." Again, the two
concepts
> are kept distinct.)
>
> --
> Randy Hudson
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:41:29 PM

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

Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,

Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
people responded to which sub-topic.

Here is what Jim wrote in one post:

-----------------------------
Those of us who know and
talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
and the balance of power.
-----------------------------

If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
is basically right."

Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it incorrectly?

My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
next question is this, by using the scenarios and
outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?

Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
irrelevant, perhaps.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:23:34 PM

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

In message <1106842097.394823.28020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes

>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.

Albania, and Serbia, do not border Venezia, so two of these orders are
invalid. I assume that this is a simple error. In what follows I shall
assume that all the orders were valid, and that Albania and Serbia do
somehow border Venezia.

Even so, I do not understand your interpretation at all. Why should
there be a stand-off in Trieste, when only one unit is trying to move
there?

Here is my adjudication.
The army in Venezia goes, unopposed, to Trieste.
The army in Albania goes to Venezia, as it has more force than the army
in Piemonte.
The army in Piemonte stays where it is.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:00:08 PM

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

Jim Burgess wrote:
> "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:
>
> >Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,
>
> >Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
> >to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
> >Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
> >I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
> >show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
> >people responded to which sub-topic.
>
> That depends on the software with which you read the newsgroup,
> I read it in UNIX with something called "nn", but let that go.
> We're not accusing you of being intentionally difficult, you
> will admit that you have way more time to craft posts than I
> do and way more time to read them, I've not read most of your
> longer posts completely and freely admit that.
>
> >Here is what Jim wrote in one post:
>
> >-----------------------------
> >Those of us who know and
> >talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
> >definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
> >other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
> >worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
> >that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
> >and the balance of power.
> >-----------------------------
>
> You can "know" Allan pretty well by reading his articles:
>
> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_...
>
> See especially the article "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".... Stephen
> Agar sometimes reads this newsgroup, note his comments in editing
> that article. Some of the "confusion" arises BECAUSE Allan needed
> a lot of editing. But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
> never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
> that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
> they could get on with the Diplomacy.... and trying to sneak
> Flying Dutchmen onto the board....
>
> >If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
> >this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
> >book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
> >"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
> >doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
> >attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
> >is basically right."
>
> I am no more in the know on that than anyone here and we
> all assure you on THAT issue, Randy is not basically right,
> he's completely right.
>
> >Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
> >that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
> >just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
> >this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
> >playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
> >edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it
incorrectly?
>
> >My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
> >will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
> >next question is this, by using the scenarios and
> >outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
> >Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
> >intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?
>
> >Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
> >rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
> >irrelevant, perhaps.
>
> >Thanks
>
> Again, don't try to slide "minority/majority" to "insider/outsider".
> It isn't helping. There are tens of thousands of Diplomacy players
> worldwide and we all play the game almost entirely the same way
> as far as adjudication goes. Every once in a while we find a
> small hobby sub-group that plays with some strange rule
interpretation,
> but these days that's pretty rare.
>
> Jim-Bob

Hi Randy and Jim,

Randy, I'd say that Jim's comments about sum it up.
I see no reason at this stage to comment on your
follow-ups. You all play the game almost entirely
the same way as far as adjudication, and I understand
the mechanics of this adjucation process, so I don't
at this time have a question about that.

In a sense, if I may, hopefully accurately, interpret
Jim's comments:
> But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
> never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
> that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
> they could get on with the Diplomacy

is that based upon the above paragraph, your saying
that the "finer points" may actually be undefined or
perhaps even ambiguous,
but what is important from a practical point of view
is that everyone plays by the same rules.

If it be so that the "finer points" are perhaps undefined
and perhaps even ambiguous, then perhaps there is
hope for my IQ after all, in that my interpretation was
perhaps at least possible, it just is not the way that
the game is played.

As far as I'm concerned, you gentlemen have answered
my questions sufficiently, and I appreciate your time.

Thank again.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:32:21 PM

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

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


>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.

I don't actually have an algorithm since I'm setting up
a straw man, I don't think that's actually the way to do it,
but if I did, there would be a system of 8 algorithms, one
for each unit that you would want to be able to solve
uniquely for a single adjudication for all 8 units.

>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.

It doesn't matter.

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

You can't do this, because you have to do the conceptualizing
of the algorithm first. As I said, you don't understand the
use of the word algorithm.... think of the word equation.
You need to have a general way of writing a single equation
for each unit, that encompasses ALL of the possible things
that it could do, and how it could be adjudicated given ONE
single move. But I don't think we'll get anywhere this way,
you don't seem to have enough Mathematics or Computer Science
background and if I speak more precisely I'll just confuse
you worse.

>Thanks

Go back to what you were doing. But realize again that
simultaneous movement means simultaneous movement. You
consider ALL the moves together and have ONE outcome
for each unit that is unique. That's an adjudication.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:35:16 PM

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

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

>Hi Nick,

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

Why? There is zero evidence to label them and you're just trolling.
I won't respond any more to any message that uses those terms,
speaking for myself. I'm not upset at you, there just is no
reason to use incorrect language and start arguing about what
is a majority and minority view.

Jim-Bob

>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
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:42:14 PM

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

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

>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.

This is most definitely correct. For those reading along who haven't
been through this before, it generally does NOT help you in any way
whatsoever to think of units on a diplomacy board as armies and
fleets at war attacking each other. It is an abstract representation
of expressing influence and trying to do something, move to
a province or influence a move of another unit to a province,
according to a set of foreordained constrictions called rules.
A move is an attempt to move from one place to another, there is
no intent, there is no presumption of battle, there only is a
move from one place to another. An adjudication for THAT unit
must resolve (a) is the move successful and (b) if not, is the
unit dislodged from the place where it was. The default is that
the unit remains where it was.

Jim-Bob

>Nick
>--
>Nick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:46:42 PM

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

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

>In message <1106842097.394823.28020@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes

>>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.

>Albania, and Serbia, do not border Venezia, so two of these orders are
>invalid. I assume that this is a simple error. In what follows I shall
>assume that all the orders were valid, and that Albania and Serbia do
>somehow border Venezia.

>Even so, I do not understand your interpretation at all. Why should
>there be a stand-off in Trieste, when only one unit is trying to move
>there?

>Here is my adjudication.
>The army in Venezia goes, unopposed, to Trieste.
>The army in Albania goes to Venezia, as it has more force than the army
>in Piemonte.
>The army in Piemonte stays where it is.

>Nick

Thanks, Nick, it is that simple. This trying to distinguish standoffs
from face-to-face battles is not helpful, which is why it doesn't
appear in recent versions of the rules. Those of us who know and
talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
and the balance of power.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:06:55 AM

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

Hi Randy,

In response to the comments by Jim Burgess,
I said, in apart:

I see no reason at this stage to comment on your
follow-ups.

This was not meant to be disrespectful, as you
have, afterall, read my posts, which I appreciate.

Since everyone plays by the same set of rules,
and if, we might assume, that it is theoretically
possible for me to interpret the rules differently,

the question remains somewhat theoretical
at this stage whether or not I understand the
reasoning behind the rules everyone adopted.

And, the question is somewhat theoretical
at this stage whether you fully understand
the reasoning as to how I, a novice, understand
the rules.

However, I, obviously, enjoy talking about rules.
So, without wanting to wear out my welcome,
if you let me know that it is okay to respond to
your responses to my posts, I will do so within
the next two weeks. The two week delay is to
"let up some" and not be a news group
bandwidth hog and the like.

I have good news on another front. I'll be
playing my first game of face-to-face diplomacy.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:55:40 AM

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

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

>You can't do this, because you have to do the conceptualizing
>of the algorithm first. As I said, you don't understand the
>use of the word algorithm.... think of the word equation.
>You need to have a general way of writing a single equation
>for each unit, that encompasses ALL of the possible things
>that it could do, and how it could be adjudicated given ONE
>single move. But I don't think we'll get anywhere this way,
>you don't seem to have enough Mathematics or Computer Science
>background and if I speak more precisely I'll just confuse
>you worse.

>Hi Jim,

>Thanks for the explanation. Please feel free to
>elaborate, I enjoyed reading your discussion. There
>is nothing wrong with me being confused
>while I'm learning.

>Thanks
OK, I'll try. So for each of your scenarios (I'll try to
use your language) you have an order for some finite number
of units on the board. The order can succeed (the unit can
get where it is going or a support/convoy order can be
successful) or it may not. And then if it doesn't succeed
the unit can be dislodged or not. So, staying simple (there
are a couple of exceptions that are minor) you have three
outcomes of any order: succeeds, fails remains in place,
and fails dislodged. You then want to simultaneously take
these statements (the set {S, R, D}) and have one and only
one member of that set be assigned to each unit on that
turn. This is the definition of an adjudication, the set
above is a possibility set. Each unit in one of your
scenarios has that same set up.

Then simultaneous solutions would simultaneously solve
this for all units.

Sequential solutions would choose one unit, work out its
adjudication, and then move on, going back to resolve
conflicts.

You seem to like group solutions, which are a hybrid
between these two.

I adjudicate in my head sequentially most of the time.
That seems to be a natural human heuristic tendency.
We all take mental shortcuts, doing it the "right way",
simultaneously is just too hard, and unnecessarily complex.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:05:43 AM

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

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

>Hi Jim,

>Good point. As I have been studying, I have come to learn
>that there is not difference in how you define the generic
>stand-off, whether it be an attack against a defending unit,
>a head-to-head battle, or a stand-off.

>Your other views are very important also:
>It is important what I said in the
>other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
>worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
>that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
>and the balance of power.

>So, I'm pretty sure that when I play, I'll be playing
>the "simple version," and that being that any unit
>involved in any kind of generic stand-off does not move.
>And, I can do this knowing that it meets the one
>minimum requirement: it is a consistent rule.

>Thanks for your fresh-air idea, I think it gives everyone
>a context within which to play the game, even if their
>exact take may not match exactly some other persons.

>Thanks

I wasn't necessarily trying to do that, but it is the
appeal of variants. If you want to define your own rules,
in the general spirit of Diplomacy (or sometimes not, see
Rather Silly Diplomacy and others of its ilk), this is
a long tradition. Rules variants as subtle as what you're
talking about would draw little interest, but you could
run them.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:46:35 AM

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

Hi All,

If someone is interested. Here the rewrite of chapter 5 of the DATC.
It will be in the next update.

In the rewrite, I separated the mathematical part of the Diplomacy
rules from the algorithm part. In the current version this is a little
bit mixed.

So, here a description of the adjudication in the form of 'equations'.

In the DATC it will be better readable, because it will be HTML formatted.

Any suggestion to make this better, are welcome.

Regards,

Lucas



5. THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION
Writing a Diplomacy adjudicator program may look not more difficult than writing a program that checks the moves of a chess
game. However, the contrary is true. A Diplomacy adjudicator that passes all test cases as described in this document
contains many small and difficult details.

To help with writing an adjudicator program or just with the manual adjudication, the adjudication of Diplomacy is analyzed
here. The first step in understanding the adjudication is to understand the principle that a set of orders leads to a set of
decisions to be made. One order may lead to multiple decisions to made. For instance, when a unit is ordered to move, it can
be decided that the move fails, but when the move uses a convoy, then it has also to be decided whether the unit has any
influence on the area where it was ordered to move.

The second step is to understand that the decisions depend on each other and in this way form a set of equations. Decisions
can only be made when all the variables (decisions) it depends on are known first. For instance, when the units are ordered
to follow each other in a move, then the decision of the unit moves at the end depends on the move decision of the unit at
the front.

In the final step an algorithm is constructed. This algorithm is based on the decisions and respects their dependencies. In
some other descriptions, such as the DPTG, the notion of "decision" is not described and the algorithm is described directly.
This has as disadvantage that it gives no understanding of adjudication and why the algorithm is constructed as it is.
Furthermore, with such description it is rather hard to look to alternative algorithms. We will see that there are multiple
ways to tackle the problem of writing an adjudication program.

Note that in the adjudication description some sanity checks are left out. For example a test whether a support order matches
with the order of the unit it supports. These are covered by the test cases and are not relevant for the understanding of the
process of adjudication.

5.A. OVERVIEW OF ADJUDICATION DECISIONS
There are eight different types of decisions. Each type of decisions is given a name, to refer easily to that decision type.
To distinguish the decision type of the other text, the name is given in CAPITALS.

The first three decisions are directly related to the success or failure of an order:

MOVE
Decision will result in 'moves' or 'fails'.
SUPPORT
Decision will result in 'given' or 'cut'.
DISLODGE
Decision will result in 'sustains' or 'dislodged'.

Example:
Italy:
A Tyrolia - Trieste
A Venice Supports A Tyrolia - Trieste

Austria:
F Trieste Hold

At the end of adjudication, the MOVE decision of Tyrolia is 'moves', the SUPPORT decision of Venice is 'given' and the
DISLODGE decision of the army in Trieste is 'dislodged'.

When a unit tries to dislodge another unit, then the strength of the move must be calculated and if that strength is larger
than the hold strength of the other unit, then the move of the unit succeeds. So, the following two decision types are
needed:

ATTACK STRENGTH
For each unit ordered to move, the strength to attack. A decision that results in a value equal or greater than zero.

HOLD STRENGTH
For each area on the board the strength to prevent that other units move to that area. A decision that results in a value
equal or greater than zero.
Both ATTACK STRENGTH and HOLD STRENGTH are numerical decisions, because the result of the decision is a number.

In the previous example the ATTACK STRENGTH of the army in Tyrolia is two, while the HOLD STRENGTH of the army in Trieste is
one.

A unit can not dislodge a unit of the same player. Also supports to a foreign unit can not be used to dislodge an own unit.
However, these supports can be used to prevent that another unit enters the area. This strength can be greater than ATTACK
STRENGTH and must also be calculated:

PREVENT STRENGTH
A numerical decision for each unit ordered to move. It is the strength to prevent other units to move to the area where it is
ordered to move. A decision that results in a value equal or greater than zero.

Example:
Austria:
A Vienna - Tyrolia
A Tyrolia - Munich
A Trieste Supports A Vienna - Tyrolia

Germany:
A Munich Supports A Venice - Tyrolia
A Venice - Tyrolia

The ATTACK STRENGTH of the army in Vienna is zero, because it can not dislodge its own unit in Tyrolia. However, the PREVENT
STRENGTH of the army in Vienna is two, which prevents that the move of the German army in Venice with an ATTACK STRENGTH of
two succeeds.

When a unit is dislodged in a head to head battle, then the unit has no effect anymore on the area it was ordered to move.
This means that the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero. However, it is still required to calculate the strength that prevents the
opposite unit in the head to head battle to move. This value can be greater than ATTACK STRENGTH since all support has to be
calculated. Therefore a separate numerical decision is necessary:

DEFEND STRENGTH
For each unit ordered to move in a head to head battle, the strength to defend its own area from the other unit of the head
to head battle to enter. A decision that results in a value equal or greater than zero.

Example:
France:
A Belgium Supports A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Holland Supports A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Burgundy - Ruhr
A Munich Supports A Ruhr - Burgundy
A Marseilles - Burgundy

Germany:
A Ruhr - Burgundy

In this example the French army in Munich supports the move of the German army in Ruhr instead of the French army in
Burgundy. This makes that the ATTACK STRENGTH, the PREVENT STRENGTH and the DEFEND STRENGTH of the German army in Ruhr are
all different. The ATTACK STRENGTH is one, because the French support should not be counted for the attack. The PREVENT
STRENGTH is zero, because it is dislodged by the French army in Burgundy and therefore it can not prevent the army in
Marseilles to go to Burgundy. However, the DEFEND STRENGTH contains all supports and is therefore two. Still this DEFEND
STRENGTH is insufficient in the head to head battle, since the French army in Burgundy has an ATTACK STRENGTH of three.

It is important to understand the difference between PREVENT STRENGTH and DEFEND STRENGTH. In some algorithms this is
calculated by the same routine. The returned strength of such routine depends on the moment in the adjudication process.
However, in this analysis decisions are defined independent from the moment in the adjudication process and therefore these
two strengths needs to be distinguished.

Finally, when an army is ordered to move and the move will be convoyed, it has to be decided whether the convoy will succeed:

PATH
For each unit ordered to move, the decision whether there is a path from the source to the destination. This decision will
result in 'path' or 'no path'. When the move is without any convoy, the decision always results in 'path'.

Example:
England:
A Yorkshire - Belgium
F North Sea Convoys A Yorkshire - Belgium

Germany:
F Holland Supports F Denmark - North Sea
F Denmark - North Sea

The fleet in the North Sea is dislodged, therefore the PATH decision of the Yorkshire order is 'no path'. The PATH decisions
of non-convoying units are always 'path'. In this case the PATH decisions of the moving fleet in Denmark is 'path'.

5.B. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION EQUATIONS
With the clear meaning of the decisions, the next step can be made. In this step a detailed and precise description is given
for each of the decisions. These descriptions can be directly compared with the rules for verifying the correctness.

5.B.1. MOVE DECISION
A MOVE decision of a unit ordered to move results in 'moves' when the following conditions are true:

The ATTACK STRENGTH is larger than the DEFEND STRENGTH of the opposing unit in case of a head to head battle or otherwise
larger than the HOLD STRENGTH of the attacked area.
The ATTACK STRENGTH is larger than the PREVENT STRENGTH of any unit moving to the same area.
If one of the above conditions is not true, then the MOVE decision results in 'fails'.

Note, that this MOVE decision has only one 'fails' result. For proper reporting of the adjudication result to the players,
more information might be appropriate. For instance, if a move fails due to a move of another unit to the same area, this
could be reported as 'bounce'. Also the exact bouncing unit might be listed in the report. This can be implemented by
introducing different 'fails' as result of the MOVE decision result. Or this information could be part of the 'fails' result.
Anyway, these ways of failure should be treated the same in other parts of the adjudication.

5.B.2. SUPPORT DECISION
A SUPPORT decision of a unit ordered to support results in 'given' when the following conditions are true:

All units ordered to move to the area of the supporting unit have a ATTACK STRENGTH with value zero. However, if the support
order is a move support, then the unit that is on the area where the supported move is directed, can not cut this support and
can not make this condition false.
the DISLODGE decision of the unit has status 'sustains' (dislodge rule).
If one of the above conditions is not true, then the SUPPORT results in 'cut'.

If the 1982 rule about convoy disruption paradoxes is played, then the support is not cut in some cases (see for more details
choice b of issue 4.A.2).

5.B.3. DISLODGE DECISION
A DISLODGE decision of a unit results in 'dislodged' when the following conditions are true:

There is a unit ordered to move to the area of the unit, with 'moves' for the MOVE decision.
If the unit for which the DISLODGE decision is considered has a move order, then the MOVE decision must be 'fails'.
If one of the above conditions is not true, then the DISLODGE decision is 'sustains'.

5.B.4. ATTACK STRENGTH DECISION
In case the PATH decision is 'no path', then the ATTACK STRENGTH is zero. Otherwise, the ATTACK STRENGTH depends on the
result of the order of the unit in target area. The following situations must be distinguished:
Empty.
This is the case when the target area does not contain a unit or it contains a unit with a move order. Both units must not be
engaged in a head to head battle with each other. If the unit in the target has just another move, then the MOVE decision of
the unit in the target area must be 'moves'. In such case the ATTACK STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support
the move and for which the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.
Unit of the same nationality.
This is the case when the 'empty' condition does not hold and the unit in the target area is of the same nationality. At that
moment the ATTACK STRENGTH is zero.
Unit of different nationality.
This is the case when the 'empty' condition does not hold and the unit in the target area is of different nationality. At
that moment the ATTACK STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support the move. Only the supports must be counted for
units for which the SUPPORT decision is 'given' and for which the nationality is different from the nationality of the unit
in the target area.

5.B.5. HOLD STRENGTH DECISION
For calculating the HOLD STRENGTH, the following situations must be distinguished:
The area is empty.
In this case the HOLD STRENGTH is zero.
The area contains a unit without a move order.
The HOLD STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support the unit in hold and for which the SUPPORT decision is
'given'.
The area contains a unit with a move order.
If the MOVE decision has status 'failed', then the HOLD STRENGTH is one, otherwise zero.

5.B.6. PREVENT STRENGTH DECISION
The PREVENT STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support the move and for which the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.

However, there are two exceptions. In the following situations the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero:

If the unit is engaged in a head to head battle and the MOVE decision of the opposing unit is 'moves'.
If the PATH decision of the unit is 'no path'.
Note that for the first exception, it is essential that the unit is engaged in a head to head battle. If there is only a test
that the MOVE decision of the opposing unit is 'moves', then this may lead to a situation where two units end in the same
area (see test cases 6.G.16, 6.G.17 and 6.G.18).

If issue 4.A.7 must be adjudicated according to choice a, then it should not be checked whether the unit is engaged in a head
to head battle. Instead the PREVENT STRENGTH is zero when the MOVE decision of the same unit has status 'fails' and the MOVE
decision of the opposing unit has status 'moves'.

5.B.7. DEFEND STRENGTH DECISION
The DEFEND STRENGTH is one plus the number of orders that support the move and for which the SUPPORT decision is 'given'.

5.B.8. PATH DECISION
The PATH decision is 'path' when one of the following conditions holds:
The unit makes a valid move without convoy.
There is a path of fleets to the target area. Each fleet has a matching convoy order and has 'sustains' for the DISLODGE
decision.

If both conditions are false, then the PATH decision is 'no path'.
5.B.9. CIRCULAR MOVEMENT AND PARADOXES
The decisions are a kind of equations. The adjudicating person or computer, must find a resolution for which the conditions
of all the decisions are true at the same time.

However, there are situation for which there is no resolution or for which there is more than one resolution. At such moment
the board with orders contains a circular movement or convoy disruption paradox. These situations have to be handled
different. It is not possible anymore to look to the complete situation at once. Instead, subsets of the orders has to be
determined and adjudicated with the rules that deal with them.

The decisions that must be adjudicated, depend on each other. These dependencies form a directed graph. However, it is very
likely that this graph is not fully connected and consists of independent sub-graphs (situations on the board that are not
related).

Each sub-graph should be adjudicated separate from the other sub-graphs. If there is only one resolution for such sub-graph,
then that resolution should be taken. If there is no resolution or more than one resolution, then the sub-graph contains a
single circular movement or convoy disruption paradox. The circular movement or the core of the paradox, consists of all the
decisions that indirectly depend on theirselves (that means that there is a directed path from such decision to itself). This
is called the decision cycle.

The next step is to determine whether the decision cycle is a circular movement or a convoy disruption paradox. If the
decision cycle contains a MOVE decision of a unit that targets a fleet with a convoy order, then there is a convoy disruption
paradox. If there is no such decision, then there is a circular movement.

In case of a circular movement all the MOVE decisions of the decision cycle result in 'moves'. The remaining decisions of the
sub-graph are adjudicated as normal. Note, that if a unit interfers the circular movement, because it moves to the place of
one of the unit of the circular movement, then the sub-graph will have only one resolution (if not complicated by supports)
and the circular movement would already be adjudicated differently in an earlier stage.

In case of a convoy disruption paradox, the paradox rule as chosen in 4.A.2 should be applied on the decisions cycle. The
remaining decisions of the sub-graph are adjudicated as normal. Note, that the MOVE decision of the army that convoys is not
in the decision cycle, since for the paradox only the cutting of support is essential. Therefore only the ATTACK STRENGTH
decision of the army that convoys appears in the decision cycle. This is important when applying the Szykman rule or the 'All
Hold' rule.

When the Szykman rule is applied, all ATTACK STRENGTH decisions of the decision cycle are adjudicated to zero The
corresponding MOVE decision is set to 'fails' and the corresponding PREVENT STRENGTH is also adjudicated to zero. For these
decisions the description as specified in section 5.B should not be followed.

If you interpret the 2000 rulebook in such that in some very rare cases the attacked unit is dislodged by the convoying army
(see choice c in issue 4.A.2 and test case 6.F.17), then first the decision cycle must be searched for a SUPPORT decision of
a support order of an attack on a convoying fleet that convoys an army to the area of the supporting unit. That SUPPORT
decision must be set to 'given'. If no such decision could be found, then the 2000 rulebook has no resolution and a fallback
rule must be used such as the Szykman rule or the 'All Hold' rule.

Variant rules may introduce new kind of paradoxes (see test cases 9.E, 9.F and 9.G). If those rules are included, then it is
dangerous to conclude that there is a circular movement in case the decision cycle does not contain a convoy disruption
paradox. It is better to check if the moving units of all the MOVE decisions of the decision cycle are part of one single
circular movement. If so, these units advance, but if not then a fallback paradox rule must be applied. In this fallback
scenario all the MOVE decisions of the decision cycle resolve in 'fails' and all the SUPPORT decisions of the cycle resolve
in 'cut'.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:55:48 AM

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

In article <1106860907.999798.172200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

> The most important aspect of the 1976 rule book is that if a unit is
> involved in any kind of generic stand-off, whether you want to call it an
> equal strength head-to-head battle of units in adjacent provinces, or a
> stand-off of a province that the attacking units are not currently in, or
> an attack upon a province which is occupied and defends itself equally,
> the major point is that these units so involved simply do not move.
>
> So, if two powers are in a stand-off over a province that neither
> currently occupies, and they are both attacking this province with
> strength of 3, then neither moves, and if there is another attacker with
> just a force of 1, that other attacker will enter the province. At least
> that is how I read the 1976 rule book.

Sigh.

Perhaps English isn't the language in which you're most comfortable. But
you seem to be translating the rules, somehow, into saying something
different than what they actually say.

You seem to restate rules as meaning something different than what they say,
note that the restatement is ambiguous, and then conclude the rules are
ambiguous. When you reach that point, you then have to go back and see
whether it was your restatement that introduced the ambiguity. In these
cases it was.

Despite dozens of paragraphs of mixed-line-length, difficult-to-read
reassertions of your own beliefs, you have not bothered to actually respond
to what I've written.

Units which fail to move, fail to move. They aren't "converted to hold";
and, with only one exception, they continue to have effect on the space
where they attempted their move.

The one exception is if they were dislodged by a unit moving from that
space. In that case, there is a rule which explicitly states that: IX.7,
Dislodgement of a Piece Participating in a Standoff. There, the author
points out that the rules state what you deny they state, and then creates
an exception:

| It follows from the above rules that, where two or more equally
| well supported units are ordered to the same space, neither may move...
| however, if ... one of them is dislodged by a unit coming from that
| space, then the other unit may move... a dislodged unit has no effect
| on the space its attacker came from.

In your view, the last clause should have simply said "a unit which fails to
move has no effect." But that's not what the rules say.

> The main effect of this rule, wherein any unit involved in any kind of
> generic stand-off doesn't move, is that the game becomes much simpler!
> Quite a few of the scenarios in the DATC would then be considered faulty.

I believe that rules variant would be unplayable, because of frequent
adjudication paradoxes, where there were multiple possible outcomes from a
particular order set depending on what order one converted bounced moves to
holds. At any rate, that is not what the rules currently say.

> But, let's focus on some important points here. If a unit can not move,
> it can not possibly appose any other unit.

Why not? You keep asserting this, without any support or evidence, and you
dismiss all the evidence to the contrary as "the rules are ambiguous." The
rules are clear that "does not move" and "has no effect" are two distinct
concepts; they are explicitly contrasted in rule IX.7, quoted above. (The
other case where a unit has no effect is when its convoy is disrupted, rule
XII.3: "...the army to be convoyed remains in its original province and has
no effect on the province to which it was ordered." Again, the two concepts
are kept distinct.)

--
Randy Hudson
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 2:05:13 AM

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

In article <ctbo0s$th6$1@pcls4.std.com>,
Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

> Then simultaneous solutions would simultaneously solve
> this for all units.
>
> Sequential solutions would choose one unit, work out its
> adjudication, and then move on, going back to resolve
> conflicts.

In practice, simultaneous equations are solved by sequential algorithms.
So, any rule set which can be adjudicated by a simultaneous solution is
adjudicable by sequential solutions. But, it's easy to get sequential
solutions wrong by either resolving certain moves prematurely, or getting in
a loop where no unresolved moves can be resolved.

--
Randy Hudson
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:12:59 AM

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

Wow, that is really excellent. Good work!

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:16:09 AM

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

ime@panix.com (Randy Hudson) writes:

>In article <1106860907.999798.172200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

>I believe that rules variant would be unplayable, because of frequent
>adjudication paradoxes, where there were multiple possible outcomes from a
>particular order set depending on what order one converted bounced moves to
>holds. At any rate, that is not what the rules currently say.

Yeah, and it happens to be the case that the Pandin type paradoxes never
or almost never arise in actual play. Some of his rules variants using
these ideas might arise and make the game partly unplayable. It would
be very, very slightly interesting to know.

>> But, let's focus on some important points here. If a unit can not move,
>> it can not possibly appose any other unit.

>Why not? You keep asserting this, without any support or evidence, and you
>dismiss all the evidence to the contrary as "the rules are ambiguous." The
>rules are clear that "does not move" and "has no effect" are two distinct
>concepts; they are explicitly contrasted in rule IX.7, quoted above. (The
>other case where a unit has no effect is when its convoy is disrupted, rule
>XII.3: "...the army to be convoyed remains in its original province and has
>no effect on the province to which it was ordered." Again, the two concepts
>are kept distinct.)

>--
>Randy Hudson

Yes, that's right, of course.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:17:47 AM

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

ime@panix.com (Randy Hudson) writes:

>In article <ctbo0s$th6$1@pcls4.std.com>,
> Jim Burgess <burgess@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>> Then simultaneous solutions would simultaneously solve
>> this for all units.
>>
>> Sequential solutions would choose one unit, work out its
>> adjudication, and then move on, going back to resolve
>> conflicts.

>In practice, simultaneous equations are solved by sequential algorithms.
>So, any rule set which can be adjudicated by a simultaneous solution is
>adjudicable by sequential solutions. But, it's easy to get sequential
>solutions wrong by either resolving certain moves prematurely, or getting in
>a loop where no unresolved moves can be resolved.

>--
>Randy Hudson

And that's right too. The ideal is surely the grand simultaneous
equation solution, but it is difficult to implement, I don't think
anyone's adjudicator actually does this.

Do they?

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:32:23 AM

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

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

>Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,

>Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
>to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
>Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
>I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
>show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
>people responded to which sub-topic.

That depends on the software with which you read the newsgroup,
I read it in UNIX with something called "nn", but let that go.
We're not accusing you of being intentionally difficult, you
will admit that you have way more time to craft posts than I
do and way more time to read them, I've not read most of your
longer posts completely and freely admit that.

>Here is what Jim wrote in one post:

>-----------------------------
>Those of us who know and
>talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
>definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
>other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
>worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
>that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
>and the balance of power.
>-----------------------------

You can "know" Allan pretty well by reading his articles:

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_...

See especially the article "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".... Stephen
Agar sometimes reads this newsgroup, note his comments in editing
that article. Some of the "confusion" arises BECAUSE Allan needed
a lot of editing. But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
they could get on with the Diplomacy.... and trying to sneak
Flying Dutchmen onto the board....

>If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
>this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
>book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
>"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
>doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
>attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
>is basically right."

I am no more in the know on that than anyone here and we
all assure you on THAT issue, Randy is not basically right,
he's completely right.

>Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
>that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
>just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
>this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
>playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
>edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it incorrectly?

>My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
>will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
>next question is this, by using the scenarios and
>outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
>Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
>intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?

>Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
>rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
>irrelevant, perhaps.

>Thanks

Again, don't try to slide "minority/majority" to "insider/outsider".
It isn't helping. There are tens of thousands of Diplomacy players
worldwide and we all play the game almost entirely the same way
as far as adjudication goes. Every once in a while we find a
small hobby sub-group that plays with some strange rule interpretation,
but these days that's pretty rare.

Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 9:02:15 AM

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

Hi,

I've removed most of my articles from my web site and have substituted
the
following text (though most of my articles are still, I believe, in
this newsgroup):

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost everyone plays Diplomacy in an identical fashion. My articles
that were
here would, perhaps, add unnecessary confusion and have been removed as
they
were an exploration of the rule book or rule books, and my
interpretation was
different from how almost everyone plays Diplomacy. In short, almost
everyone
plays Diplomacy as described by the DATC.

Presumably, although I have yet to ask this question in the newsgroup,
the
way everyone plays Diplomacy is how the game designer intended. If
this is so,
then this demonstrates a clear intent, and is important in and of
itself,
regardless of how one might interpret the rule book or rule books.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I'd like to ask my last related qustion or two.

Question 1
-------------
For those who know, does the way that almost everyone plays
Diplomacy at this time reflect the original game designer's
intentions? I suspect the answer is yes due to the following
reasoning: if almost everybody plays by the interpretation
of the DATC, then this must include game designer also.

Question 2
-------------
Are there any historical games that I could look at
in which the original game designer particpated in?
Thanks in advance.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:31:12 PM

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

Hi,

Thanks for the input Lucas. Concerning my terminology
about "almost everyone" I meant with respect to the issues
I have misinterpreted, that is, concerning the issues I
have misinterpreted, almost everyone agrees that I have
mis-read the rule book or rule books. Sorry for any confusion.


I now have a simpler question.

Question 3
---------

I realize that the rules of Diplomacy have
undergone change and development over
time.

I would like to see the moves that occurred
in the first diplomacy snail-mail games either
in the UK or the USA, or both.

So, how would I do this? Would I subscribe
to which "zine," or would I talk to a publisher
of a "zine" and say that I wish to purchase
the first 10 snail-mail games that are currently
stored on record.

Thanks everyone.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:38:17 PM

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

> For those who know, does the way that almost everyone plays
> Diplomacy at this time reflect the original game designer's
> intentions?

The game designer (Calhamer) has rather strange view on rules.
If you look how talks about it, it is more that he discovers the
rules then invent the rules. So, it is difficult to talk about
the designer's intentions.

Hi Lucas and everyone,

I can understand where he is coming from. With a relatively
simple set of movement rules, the situation gets very complex
very quickly.

In a sense, I'd say that the game creator has an open mind,
and he's constantly rediscovering his game while he thinks
about it; this is just my guess based upon your statement.
It probably shows he is very creative.

Cheers
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:56:03 PM

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

Hi Jim,

Concerning your question,
"Nobody wants ambiguity, did you read what he wrote about
these questions?"

I did indeed stop by the link you provided, but I must have
missed this point. I'll try again going to
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_...
and reread "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:56:07 PM

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

Hi Randy and Jim and Everyone,

This issue for this thread has finally been
resolved such that I now have evidence
of the game designer's beliefs.

See this topic in the news group:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.diplomacy...

Jim pointed me to the article, and I was
able to deduce from there.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:25:51 PM

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

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


>Jim Burgess wrote:
>> "NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> writes:
>>
>> >Hi Randy and Jim Burgess,
>>
>> >Randy, as I said somewhere early on in this post, I'd love
>> >to hear from someone in the know about the rules. Maybe
>> >Jim did speak out about them, and if so, let's assume that
>> >I did not initially understand. Keep in mind that posts don't
>> >show up her in temporal order, but are nested by how
>> >people responded to which sub-topic.
>>
>> That depends on the software with which you read the newsgroup,
>> I read it in UNIX with something called "nn", but let that go.
>> We're not accusing you of being intentionally difficult, you
>> will admit that you have way more time to craft posts than I
>> do and way more time to read them, I've not read most of your
>> longer posts completely and freely admit that.
>>
>> >Here is what Jim wrote in one post:
>>
>> >-----------------------------
>> >Those of us who know and
>> >talk to Allan Calhamer have some conception of the process of rule
>> >definement and his views. It is important what I said in the
>> >other note, that the Calhamerian views of the game are NOT
>> >worried much about the mechanics of move ordering, except
>> >that they be proper and consistent. The key is the Diplomacy
>> >and the balance of power.
>> >-----------------------------
>>
>> You can "know" Allan pretty well by reading his articles:
>>
>> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/articles_by_...
>>
>> See especially the article "A Dozen Years of Diplomacy".... Stephen
>> Agar sometimes reads this newsgroup, note his comments in editing
>> that article. Some of the "confusion" arises BECAUSE Allan needed
>> a lot of editing. But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
>> never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
>> that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
>> they could get on with the Diplomacy.... and trying to sneak
>> Flying Dutchmen onto the board....
>>
>> >If Jim Burgess is in the know, can you, Jim, comment on
>> >this directly? As far as the year 2000, fourth edition rule
>> >book goes, can you set me straight and say, for instance,
>> >"your interpretation that any unit involved in a stand-off
>> >doesn't move and has no effect on the province it
>> >attempted to move to is basically wrong." And, "Randy
>> >is basically right."
>>
>> I am no more in the know on that than anyone here and we
>> all assure you on THAT issue, Randy is not basically right,
>> he's completely right.
>>
>> >Then I will know from an inside, person in the know, what
>> >that inside view is. Or maybe there is no "inside" view,
>> >just consistency. I guess another way of saying it is
>> >this, is there such a thing as a main-stream way of
>> >playing that was intended by the year 2000, fourth
>> >edition rules, and if so, am I basically interpreting it
>incorrectly?
>>
>> >My general impression is that, in advance,the answer
>> >will be that I'm not interpreting it correctly. Then the
>> >next question is this, by using the scenarios and
>> >outcomes as shown by DATC, which presumably
>> >Randy agrees with, is this the correct way as
>> >intended by the year 2000, fourth edition rule book?
>>
>> >Once we get an insider view, then how I interpret the
>> >rules does, one must conclude, seem rather
>> >irrelevant, perhaps.
>>
>> >Thanks
>>
>> Again, don't try to slide "minority/majority" to "insider/outsider".
>> It isn't helping. There are tens of thousands of Diplomacy players
>> worldwide and we all play the game almost entirely the same way
>> as far as adjudication goes. Every once in a while we find a
>> small hobby sub-group that plays with some strange rule
>interpretation,
>> but these days that's pretty rare.
>>
>> Jim-Bob

>Hi Randy and Jim,

>Randy, I'd say that Jim's comments about sum it up.
>I see no reason at this stage to comment on your
>follow-ups. You all play the game almost entirely
>the same way as far as adjudication, and I understand
>the mechanics of this adjucation process, so I don't
>at this time have a question about that.

ANd that's good, the discussion has been good from that perspective.

>In a sense, if I may, hopefully accurately, interpret
>Jim's comments:
>> But still, the key point is that A.B.C. almost
>> never writes about these kinds of finer points except to say
>> that he tried to get all the consistency stuff worked out so
>> they could get on with the Diplomacy

>is that based upon the above paragraph, your saying
>that the "finer points" may actually be undefined or
>perhaps even ambiguous,
>but what is important from a practical point of view
>is that everyone plays by the same rules.

Nobody wants ambiguity, did you read what he wrote about
these questions? But the practicality was first.

>If it be so that the "finer points" are perhaps undefined
>and perhaps even ambiguous, then perhaps there is
>hope for my IQ after all, in that my interpretation was
>perhaps at least possible, it just is not the way that
>the game is played.

That's right.

>As far as I'm concerned, you gentlemen have answered
>my questions sufficiently, and I appreciate your time.

>Thank again.


You're quite welcome, any time,
Jim-Bob
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 9:07:27 PM

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

> In short, almost everyone plays Diplomacy as described by the DATC.
The DATC is the result of an intensive study on rulebooks, houserules
and discussion in varies forums.

It is not true that everyone plays Diplomacy in the same way. The
disputable items are listed in chapter 4. The most disputable items
are 4.B.4 and 4.E.1. For those issues there are really two groups
and I even failed to determine which is the majority view and which
is the minority view.

For issues not listed in chapter 4, it is very likely that it is not
disputed. Just try to find a test case which such situation and look
to the explanation.

> Question 1
> -------------
> For those who know, does the way that almost everyone plays
> Diplomacy at this time reflect the original game designer's
> intentions?
The game designer (Calhamer) has rather strange view on rules.
If you look how talks about it, it is more that he discovers the
rules then invent the rules. So, it is difficult to talk about
the designer's intentions.

Regards,

Lucas
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 9:32:44 PM

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

"Jim Burgess" wrote:
> And that's right too. The ideal is surely the grand simultaneous
> equation solution, but it is difficult to implement, I don't think
> anyone's adjudicator actually does this.
>
> Do they?
I think so. The JDip, Palmpolitik and DipTool implementations are
really different from the 'DPTG' (sequence based) family of adjudicators.

JDip and Palmpolitik use a 'random decision based' adjudicator. Take
the equations I posted earlier. You initialize the decisions (or variables
that are still 'unknown') to 'undecided' or 'unknown', whatever name you
like.

This is different from a sequence based algorithm, where a move succeeds
until it fails and a support is given until it is cut. Here it starts in
a state where it can go to both 'cut' or 'given', but at the moment it is 'cut' or
'given' it will remain there. Like in any equation, if a variable is known,
it will not change (in fact before it was known, it did not change, but it
was just unknown).

Then you start adjudicating orders at random (or just start at the top).
If it is possible to adjudicate the order, adjudicate, otherwise (when it
depends on orders which are still 'undecided') skip it and try later again.

Repeat until you can't do anything anymore. In that case you are finished
or you encountered a circular movement or convoy paradox. Resolve that
situation and continue until you are finished.

The DipTool algorithm is different. It uses a 'leaf decision based' algorithm.
It takes the order equations and builds a dependency graph of these equations.
It will first adjudicate the 'leafs' of the graph. That are those orders that
can be adjudicated, because they do not depend on other orders or only orders
that are already adjudicated.

It will continue adjudicating the 'leafs' of the graph. This ends when the
adjudication is finished or when there is a circular dependency. This circular
dependency does not need to be a circular movement or convoy paradox. It is
possible that this circular dependency, still has just one resolution. DipTool
will take one order out of this cycle and do a guess for this order. It then
adjudicated the other orders out of the cycle and then re-adjudicate the order
it guessed. If the result is consistent, then this is a possible resolution of
the cycle. It will do all possible guesses for the chosen order. If there is only 1
consistent resolution for the cycle, then that resolution is chosen. Otherwise,
there is a circular movement or convoy paradox and that will be resolved with
a special rule.

The 'decision based' algorithms are clearly superior to the 'sequence based'
adjudicators. At the moment there is no sequence based adjudicator or algorithm
known that does not contain at least one undisputable hard bug. The DPTG has 3
bugs. While JDip, Palmpolitik and DipTool all pass the DATC test cases.

Regards,

Lucas
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 2:46:44 PM

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

Hi,

When I began this thread, I was a beginner in parsing the
rule books. So, a lot of the posts I have made here can
at this time be disregarded.

A detailed examination of some of the basic dynamics
of the game are now posted in this article:

Year 2000, Fourth Edition Rule Book, and DATC 6.E.4 and 6.E.5

Explorations of the 1958 and 1959 and 1961 rule books are
given in this article:
Rule Clarification by Calhamer in His Article

Thanks
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!