DATC Test Case 6.E.4

[Guest]

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

DATC Test Case 6.E.4.

We will explore this scenario.

Note, please, that my dependency-based algorithm agrees with the
results
of the DATC. Note further, however, that the DATC assumes the
existence of
not a dependency-based adjudication algorithm, but a true, pure,
formally
simultaneous adjudication algorithm. However, and this is open to
discussion,
of course, I do not see in the rules anywhere where it is defined that
the
adjudication algorithm must be pure and formally simultaneous, only
that the
result of the adjudication algorithm simulates simultaneous movement to
some
degree, as in "fuzzy simultaneity."

My current dependency-based algorithm, adjudicated this position with a
result
identical to the DATC. However, I disagree with my own algorithm! For
my
algorithm allowed the French in the North Sea to weigh in on the
results in
Holland. Instead, I would prefer it if my algorithm noted that the
French were
blockaded from ever reaching Holland.

The DATC gives the following description for test case 6.E.4.

Title: Test Case, non-dislodged loser still has effect.

Quote: If in an unbalanced head to head battle the loser is not
dislodged,
it still has an effect on the area of the attacker.

Quote: The French fleet in the North Sea is not dislodged due to the
beleaguered garrison. Therefore, the Austrian army will not move to
Holland.

Here is the scenario for Test Case 6.E.4:
Scenario 1:
Germany:
Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
Fleet in Helgoland Bight supports Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
Fleet in Skagerrak supports Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
France:
Fleet in North Sea to Holland.
Fleet in Belgium supports Fleet in North Sea to Holland.
England:
Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Fleet in Edinburgh Supports Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Fleet in York supports Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Austria:
Army in Ruhr to Holland.
Army in Kiel supports Army in Ruhr to Holland.

All units are supporting except for the following which are moving:

German Fleet in Holland to North Sea. Strength 3.
English Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea. Strength 3.
French Fleet in North Sea to Holland. Strength 2.
Austrian Army in Ruhr to Holland. Strength 2.

The question the scenario poses is this: The French, a relatively
minor
power in this example, have intentions on Holland; do these intentions
bounce the Austrian attack into Holland or not?

In human terms, a human might ask: "Can that French fleet in the North
Sea
go behind the lines of the German fleet and fight in Holland?" Or, "Can
the
French even consider Holland until and unless they have over-whelmed
the
attacking Germans?"

Of course, the majority viewpoint of a purely, formal, true
simultaneous
adjudication engine, would say, "yes." The battles rage simultaneously
in the
North Sea and in Holland, while the lines of attack intermesh and
overlap in a
rather "confused" (I might say) manner.

Please don't assume that I have any personal opinion. When I look at
these
examples I get dizzy, especially when I decide to consider what would
happen
if a pure, true, formal simiultaneous adjudication engine is not used.
[Now
having written this article, I do have an opinion: for now, and it is
the
minority opinion.]

What causes confusion, let's say, if we speak for a minority opinion,
is that
if the British were not in the scenario, the French fleet in the North
Sea
would have no effect in Holland, because they never got behind the
German
line, but instead were dislodged from the North Sea. So, does adding
the
British to the scenario now allow the French fleet to go behind the
German
lines and attack Holland?

My personal preference at this time, is that while certainly the French
fleet in the Noth Sea has every intention of moving to Holland, it is
entrapped within the strongly supported attack from Holland to the
North Sea.
Therefore, even though the French fleet in the North Sea is not
dislodged,
it never touched the shores of Holland, and thus the Austrians took
Holland.

If the French were not entrapped in this fashion, then when you remove
the
British from the scenario, the French could "escape" by attacking
Holland
itself!

Please remember, that I am fully aware of the majority view and that
they
use an adjudicator which is purely simultaneous in its adjudication
process.

I am questioning whether the use of such a pure, simultaneous
adjudication
process can be supported by the rule book. Or if the rule book even
says what
kind of adjudication process it prefers. I suspect that the rule book
does not,
and that the rule book assumes that "some process" is used such that
the result
is as if the units moved simultaneously. And, that "some process"
could
adjudicate using a different set of rules wherein France never touched
the
soil of Holland.

Thanks

 

[Guest]

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

Here is the scenario for Test Case 6.E.4:
Scenario 1:
Germany:
Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
Fleet in Helgoland Bight supports Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
Fleet in Skagerrak supports Fleet in Holland to North Sea.
France:
Fleet in North Sea to Holland.
Fleet in Belgium supports Fleet in North Sea to Holland.
England:
Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Fleet in Edinburgh Supports Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Fleet in York supports Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea.
Austria:
Army in Ruhr to Holland.
Army in Kiel supports Army in Ruhr to Holland.

All units are supporting except for the following which are moving:

German Fleet in Holland to North Sea. Strength 3.
English Fleet in Norwegian Sea to North Sea. Strength 3.
French Fleet in North Sea to Holland. Strength 2.
Austrian Army in Ruhr to Holland. Strength 2.

As I mentioned above, my current algorithm did not represent
the minority opinion. I will attempt to adjust my algorithm now
so that it represents the minority opinion. The minority opinion
has two aspects to it:
1. The adjudication algorithm is a black box, we are not concerned
with how it works, we are only concerned that the result of the
black box adjudicator results in seemingly simultaneous movement.
2. Letting the French effect the outcome in Holland seems
contrary to common sense, for it assumes that the Germans
simply let the French bypass them completely.

My algorithm would start by recognizing the North Sea as the
only hot spot open for initial consideration when the adjudication
process begins.

The most powerful entities moving into the North Sea, England
and Germany, obviously bounce.

My algorithm would then say that the British are holding, and the
Germans are holding. Specifically, it would say that the Germans
are now holding in Holland; but this is the part of the algorithm
that needs to be enhanced to allow for the minority view point.

So, since the Germans in Holland are now "holding," the next
hot spot that lights up is Holland.

Bearing upon the consideration of Holland are the Germans
holding there unsupported, the Austrian attack on Holland
with a strength of 2, and the French attack on Holland
with a strength of 2.

Algorithm Fix: I would now fix the algorithm to ask this
question: what did the potential attacker of this hot spot
encounter on his way to this hot spot? Specifically,
what did the French fleet in the North Sea encounter
on its way to Holland?

The algorithmic fix would determine that the French fleet
encountered attacking Germans with a strength of 3!
This new algorithmic fix would then not allow the French
fleet from the North Sea to ever attack Holland.

Once this fix is made, Holland falls to the Austrians.

Of course,this is just an idea of a preliminary fix.
The minority view would need to use the great,
creative resources of the DATC examples to ensure
that this fix did not pollute and distort other
Diplomacy board scenarios.

Thanks