Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The "Head-to-Head" Hidden Rule

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:58:08 PM

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

Hi,

The following scenario will be under
consideration, Scenario 5:

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

It often happens when there are long threads, that those
coming in late, refuse to read further, I know, I've been there
as the reader, and done that.

In my previous article, with many posts, I attempted to
explore the past rule books, including the 1958 rule
book rough draft, and my investigations suggest, to
me at least, that the following important rule is
not being seen by the majority opinion:

When two hostile units in neighboring provinces attack
one another with equal strength, it is as if neither
of these units moved at all, and none of these units
will influence the province they are attacking in
any way whatsoever.

It is not my point to bolster the minority view in this
article. This article attempts simply to lay out what
the minority opinion believes, for those who are less
inclined to read an article with many, many posts.

This is not a proof, or a bolstering of argument, but
a plain statement of the minority viewpoint. The most
important point of the minority viewpoint has already
been mentioned above.

This means that in Scenario 5, because Trieste and
Venezia are in a head-to-head battle of equal strength,
it is as if none of them moved. This allows the
French to move in with a strength of 2, capture
Venezia, and dislodge the Austrians from Venezia.

Note this additional general rule: if the attacking
Italians moving from Trieste to Venezia had one more
support, so that their total strength was 4 instead
of just 3, then and only then, in the face of a
face-to-face battle, would the Italians be able to
influence Venezia, and they would do this only by
capturing Venezia, beating back the Austrian face-to-face
attack, as well as munching up and beating back
the French attack into Venezia. Of course, if
another hypothetical power also attacked Venezia
with a strength of 4, that would be a standard
stand-off, and the French would not be allowed
with their meager strength of 2 to enter
Venezia, thus, the Austrians would remain in
Venezia.

See also the fourth edition, year 2000 rule book,
Diagram 25 on page 14 and the associated text.
You may need more than this example to persuade
you, so see the other article and the many posts
to see the actual exploration process.

Now, if you remove all the Italians from the battelfield,
then you are no longer discussing a face-to-face
battle which is the point of this article.

If instead you remove all the Austrians from the
battlefield, then again you are no longer discussing
a face-to-face battle which is the point of this
article.

The point of this article is that a face-to-face
battle, if the strengths are equal, does have a
profound impact on the result, because those units
so involved, in effect do not move, and have no
influence on the province they attacked.

Please do not confuse a face-to-face battle with
a stand-off. "Face-to-face" is older terminology
for two units in neighboring (adjacent) provinces
mutually attacking one another. When the "face-to-face"
attack involves equal strengths, that is when each
unit in effect did not move and does not influence
the province it is attacking in any way.

Thanks

More about : head head hidden rule

Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:16:12 PM

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

Hi,

As a small additional point. If there is a face-to-face
battle between units A and B, where A and B are
in neighboring (adjacent) provinces and these two
units are attacking into each other, if unit A has
less strength than unit B, then unit A has no
influence whatsoever upon the province unit B
is attacking from, even if it turns out that due
to other units disposed on the field, unit A is
never dislodged from its original location (i.e.,
there was another unit C which matched the
strength of unit B, and unit C was attacking the
same province that unit B was attacking;
in this case, unit A lost the face-to-face battle
with unit B AND was beleageured, with the
result that unit A had no
effect on the province it tried to attack).

I may have to think about this additional
rule a little more; I'm jotting it down now since
it occurred to me now, but I have not thought it out
as thoroughly and precisely as the original post
in this thread. But, this additional rule or
concept feels intuitively correct at this time.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 4:48:22 PM

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

Hi,

It took a few more iterations through the rule books, but
here is my final take on the rules at this link. It also contains
a very important conceptual framework written by Jim Burgess
at the end of the article.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.diplomacy...
Thanks
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:18:01 AM

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

NewsGroupUser wrote:
>
> Scenario 5:
> France:
> Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
> Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
> Italy:
> Army in Trieste to Venezia.
> Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
> Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
> Austria:
> Army in Venezia to Trieste.
> Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
> Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
>
> When two hostile units in neighboring provinces attack
> one another with equal strength, it is as if neither
> of these units moved at all, and none of these units
> will influence the province they are attacking in
> any way whatsoever.
>
> It is not my point to bolster the minority view in this
> article. This article attempts simply to lay out what
> the minority opinion believes, for those who are less
> inclined to read an article with many, many posts.
>
> This means that in Scenario 5, because Trieste and
> Venezia are in a head-to-head battle of equal strength,
> it is as if none of them moved. This allows the
> French to move in with a strength of 2, capture
> Venezia, and dislodge the Austrians from Venezia.

Not only is that a minority view, I was not aware that *anybody* had
ever played that way! Regretfully, I'm feeling too lazy to argue about
it right now....
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:41:07 AM

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

Rod Spade wrote:
>
> Not only is that a minority view, I was not aware that *anybody* had
> ever played that way! Regretfully, I'm feeling too lazy to argue
about
> it right now....

Hi Rod,

It has come to my attention that almost everyone plays in identically
the same fashion, and the way almost everyone plays is not as described
in this article. This article was an exploration.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:40:21 PM

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

Hi Rod,

I would delete this post completely, but it is impossible
due to your reply. Please note that my original writings
here are out of date and have been overtaken by this
new posting wherein your comments and suggestions
are most welcome:

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

Thanks
!