Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rule Clarification by Calhamer in His Article

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 2:03:50 PM

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

Hi,

The following scenario will be under consideration:

Scenario 1:
Italy:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Austria:
Army in Trieste to Venezia..
Army in Tyrolia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Army in Budapest to Trieste.

The following quote is from
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/doz...

which is an article by Allan B. Calhamer, entitled, "A Dozen Years of
'Diplomacy'."

QUOTE
So far the situation has only arisen once, and I was lucky: the literal
wording
did not result in a bad rule, though my intention was better. I never
intended
that a piece actually dislodged by an attacker coming from province A
could
still stand off another piece attempting to enter A, simply by virtue
of an
order to attack A. That is, however, the rule as written. ((SA: This
was
altered in the 1971 revision.))
UNQUOTE

In Scenario 1, I have attempted, and hopefully I have gotten it
correct, to
set up a scenario matching the verbal description in the above, quoted
text.
The "story line," which I have made up for this scenario is simple:
the Austrians will attempt to
move into Venezia with a strength of 2 due to one support, and as the
army in
Trieste moves forward, the Austrians want the army to the east in
Budapest to
also move forward or westward towards Italy.

Province "A" is Trieste.
The piece actually being dislodged is the Italian army in Venezia.
The other piece attempting to enter province "A" (i.e., Trieste) is the
Austrian
army moving from Budapest.

This is the adjudication that was NOT intended by the author:
The Italians will be dislodged from Venezia due to the attacking
strength of 2
from the Austrians. Even though the Italians are dislodged from
Venezia,
because they attacked Trieste, they are also engaged in a stand-off
with the
army attacking Trieste from Budapest. Therefore, the Austrian army in
Budapest does not move. The Austrian army in Trieste moves to Venezia.
The
Italians in Venezia are dislodged.

An interesting study to carry out, which I have not done yet, is to
read the
older rule books, and see if I can see how this rule was read by the
person of
the time who saw the rule in the light that the author did not intend.

This is the adjudication that the author intended:
Because the Italians in Venezia are being dislodged due to the attack
from
Trieste, the Italians in Venezia have no ability to stop the Austrian
army
in Budapest from entering into Trieste. The adjudicated result is that
the Italian army in Venezia is dislodged, the Austrian army moves from
Trieste
to Venezia, and the Austrian army in Budapest moves to Trieste.

Note the authors wording going something like this, "having the ability
to
stand-off." I like that phrase better than "influences a province,"
because
"has or does not have the ability to stand-off" is more specific, and
relates
to a specific power or ability a unit has or does not have in a given
context.
For instance, a unit moving or attacking into a province, potentially
has the
ability to stand-off another unit or units, dislodge a unit, occupy a
vacant
province, cut support, and so forth, depending on the scenario at hand.

That is it. This article is not meant to be complicated. It was my
intention
to make sure I understood what was being discussed.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:23:49 PM

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

Hi,

The following scenario will be under consideration:

Abstract Scenario A2:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea does something which has not yet been specified.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

The above abstract scenario is a subset of the scenario presented in
the article
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/doz...

which is an article by Allan B. Calhamer, entitled, "A Dozen Years of
'Diplomacy'."

QUOTE
So far the situation has only arisen once, and I was lucky: the literal
wording
did not result in a bad rule, though my intention was better. I never
intended
that a piece actually dislodged by an attacker coming from province A
could
still stand off another piece attempting to enter A, simply by virtue
of an
order to attack A. That is, however, the rule as written. ((SA: This
was
altered in the 1971 revision.))
UNQUOTE

As a reminder, we will not deal with the specific issue quoted above;
I am
noting that the abstract scenario A2 is a subset of this quoted
scenario, though
I have changed the armies to fleets and changed their location.

By making these changes, the scenario is no longer the same.

Abstract scenario A2 is abstract in the sense that in this scenario, we
will
be creating "what if" scenarios, and for each what-if scenario we will
make
specific orders for the Italian fleet in the Ionian Sea.

For each what if scenario, the French and the Turkish fleets always
move into
or attack the Ionian Sea.

Here are the options in our what-if scenario that Italy could exercise
with
respect to concrete orders:

Scenario 2a:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.

Scenario 2b: (Italy leaves without a fight)
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tyrhennian Sea.

Scenario 2c:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.

We will not consider a scenario where Italy's fleet moves to the East
Mediterranean as this is a "repeat" symmetrically of Italy's fleet
moving to
Tunisia.

This article attempts to explore the concept of a stand-off ability as
relates
to these what-if scenarios. We want to know if having or not having a
stand-off
ability would effect the outcome of the scenario.

Let's first consider a more complicated what-if scenario 2d:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.
Italy: Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Fleet in Ionian Sea.

Note that this second Italian fleet in the Adriatic will only exist
within
this present scenario, 2d.

The question again is this: does the French fleet's capability of
being able
to "stand-off" a unit from the Ionian Sea have any significant effect
in this
scenario?

The answer is no, I believe. This is because the French fleet with
only a
strength of 1 cannot possibly move into the Ionian Sea against the
Italian
fleet holding there with a strength of 2. To say it another way, the
French
fleet's ability to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea does not
come up as
an issue in adjudicating this position.

Let us now turn to Scenario 2a:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.

Remember, there is no second Italian fleet for this scenario or for any
of the
following scenarios beginning with the label number "2".

Again, we want to know if the French fleet's ability to stand-off a
unit in the
Ionian Sea has any significant bearing upon the adjudication process.
I believe
the answer is again that of no. Since the French fleet cannot dislodge
the
Italian fleet holding with a strength of 1, whether the French fleet
has the
ability to stand-off any unit in the Ionian Sea is inconsequential to
the
adjudication process. In a sense, each unit, the French Fleet and the
Turkish
Fleet simply bounced off the Italian fleet that was holding in the
Ionian Sea.

Now for Scenari 2b:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tyrhennian Sea.

Because the Italians have left the Ionian Sea, now indeed the French
fleet's
ability to "project power" or to create a stand-off does enter
significantly
into the adjudication process, for it is this ability which stands off
the
Turkish fleet having similar ambitions in the Ionian Sea. The final
adjudicated
result is that neither the French fleet nor the Turkish fleet move.
That they
each had the ability to stand-off the other in the Ionian Sea was an
important
and significant power to have in this scenario, for without such a
power in
one of the fleets, the other fleet would have moved to the Ionian Sea.

Now for the final scenario:
Scenario 2c:
Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.

The French fleet's ability to stand-off the Turkish fleet in this
scenario is,
I believe inconsequential to the adjudication process; and, the same
goes for
the Turkish fleet's ability to stand-off the French fleet. Even though
the
Italian fleet attempted to move, it certainly will not move to Tunisia;
because
of this, the other single units, the French and Turkish fleets,
certainly will
not move into the Ionian Sea, because neither can dislodge the
Italians. So,
it appears that the ability of the French to stand-off a unit in the
Ionian
Sea is again inconsequential to the adjudication process.

An interesting aside is this: assume that the conflict between the
French and
the Italians in Scenario 2c we are considering is called a
"head-to-head"
battle. Assume furthermore that you, not knowing the rules, do not
know whether
or not the French when so engaged in such a head-to-head battle of
equal
strength do or do not retain their ability to "project power" or have
the
ability to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea. You might notice
that this
scenario does not inform you of the answer, because even if it was
decided that
the French fleet did have this ability to stand-off another unit in the
Ionian
Sea, it would be inconsequential to the adjudication process for this
particular
scenario.

Conclusion
----------
My conclusion, assuming it is a correct observation, is simple:
As concerns the adjudication process of the above scenarios, the French
fleet's
ability to "project power" or to create a stand-off in the Ionian Sea
is
inconsequential during the adjudication process in any scenario where
the
Italian fleet effectively remains in the Ionian Sea.

The Wrong Rule Interpretation
-----------------------------

Now, let's add another Italian fleet in the West Mediterranean. We
want to
create a scenario that is functionally equivalent to the scenario in
the above
quoted article.

Scenario 3:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

Let France represent the player who had the wrong interpretation of the
rules.
France believes that his fleet should have the ability to project power
or to
stand-off in the Ionian Sea. Furthermore, because we know the Italian
fleet
has orders to leave the Ionian Sea, and in fact will leave the Ionian
Sea, this
ability of the French fleet to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea
is far
from inconsequential in France's point of view.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that it was the game designer's
intention
that the French fleet in this specific scenario not have the ability to
stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea.

Now, my next step is to try to understand what this French player was
thinking
when he interpreted the older rule books; that is, why did he believe
that his
French fleet would be able to project power or to create a stand-off in
the
Ionian Sea.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:38:47 PM

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

I'm a bit confused as to the relevence of these examples; what you're
describing, as far as I know, has been in the standard rules from the
beginning and is neither a paradox nor point of confusion in adjudication.

-Adam


"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1106943829.675349.89320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> The following scenario will be under consideration:
>
> Abstract Scenario A2:
> France:
> Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
> Italy:
> Fleet in Ionian Sea does something which has not yet been specified.
> Turkey:
> Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.
>
> The above abstract scenario is a subset of the scenario presented in
> the article
> http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/calhamer/doz...
>
> which is an article by Allan B. Calhamer, entitled, "A Dozen Years of
> 'Diplomacy'."
>
> QUOTE
> So far the situation has only arisen once, and I was lucky: the literal
> wording
> did not result in a bad rule, though my intention was better. I never
> intended
> that a piece actually dislodged by an attacker coming from province A
> could
> still stand off another piece attempting to enter A, simply by virtue
> of an
> order to attack A. That is, however, the rule as written. ((SA: This
> was
> altered in the 1971 revision.))
> UNQUOTE
>
> As a reminder, we will not deal with the specific issue quoted above;
> I am
> noting that the abstract scenario A2 is a subset of this quoted
> scenario, though
> I have changed the armies to fleets and changed their location.
>
> By making these changes, the scenario is no longer the same.
>
> Abstract scenario A2 is abstract in the sense that in this scenario, we
> will
> be creating "what if" scenarios, and for each what-if scenario we will
> make
> specific orders for the Italian fleet in the Ionian Sea.
>
> For each what if scenario, the French and the Turkish fleets always
> move into
> or attack the Ionian Sea.
>
> Here are the options in our what-if scenario that Italy could exercise
> with
> respect to concrete orders:
>
> Scenario 2a:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.
>
> Scenario 2b: (Italy leaves without a fight)
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tyrhennian Sea.
>
> Scenario 2c:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
>
> We will not consider a scenario where Italy's fleet moves to the East
> Mediterranean as this is a "repeat" symmetrically of Italy's fleet
> moving to
> Tunisia.
>
> This article attempts to explore the concept of a stand-off ability as
> relates
> to these what-if scenarios. We want to know if having or not having a
> stand-off
> ability would effect the outcome of the scenario.
>
> Let's first consider a more complicated what-if scenario 2d:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.
> Italy: Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Fleet in Ionian Sea.
>
> Note that this second Italian fleet in the Adriatic will only exist
> within
> this present scenario, 2d.
>
> The question again is this: does the French fleet's capability of
> being able
> to "stand-off" a unit from the Ionian Sea have any significant effect
> in this
> scenario?
>
> The answer is no, I believe. This is because the French fleet with
> only a
> strength of 1 cannot possibly move into the Ionian Sea against the
> Italian
> fleet holding there with a strength of 2. To say it another way, the
> French
> fleet's ability to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea does not
> come up as
> an issue in adjudicating this position.
>
> Let us now turn to Scenario 2a:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea holds.
>
> Remember, there is no second Italian fleet for this scenario or for any
> of the
> following scenarios beginning with the label number "2".
>
> Again, we want to know if the French fleet's ability to stand-off a
> unit in the
> Ionian Sea has any significant bearing upon the adjudication process.
> I believe
> the answer is again that of no. Since the French fleet cannot dislodge
> the
> Italian fleet holding with a strength of 1, whether the French fleet
> has the
> ability to stand-off any unit in the Ionian Sea is inconsequential to
> the
> adjudication process. In a sense, each unit, the French Fleet and the
> Turkish
> Fleet simply bounced off the Italian fleet that was holding in the
> Ionian Sea.
>
> Now for Scenari 2b:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tyrhennian Sea.
>
> Because the Italians have left the Ionian Sea, now indeed the French
> fleet's
> ability to "project power" or to create a stand-off does enter
> significantly
> into the adjudication process, for it is this ability which stands off
> the
> Turkish fleet having similar ambitions in the Ionian Sea. The final
> adjudicated
> result is that neither the French fleet nor the Turkish fleet move.
> That they
> each had the ability to stand-off the other in the Ionian Sea was an
> important
> and significant power to have in this scenario, for without such a
> power in
> one of the fleets, the other fleet would have moved to the Ionian Sea.
>
> Now for the final scenario:
> Scenario 2c:
> Italy: Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
>
> The French fleet's ability to stand-off the Turkish fleet in this
> scenario is,
> I believe inconsequential to the adjudication process; and, the same
> goes for
> the Turkish fleet's ability to stand-off the French fleet. Even though
> the
> Italian fleet attempted to move, it certainly will not move to Tunisia;
> because
> of this, the other single units, the French and Turkish fleets,
> certainly will
> not move into the Ionian Sea, because neither can dislodge the
> Italians. So,
> it appears that the ability of the French to stand-off a unit in the
> Ionian
> Sea is again inconsequential to the adjudication process.
>
> An interesting aside is this: assume that the conflict between the
> French and
> the Italians in Scenario 2c we are considering is called a
> "head-to-head"
> battle. Assume furthermore that you, not knowing the rules, do not
> know whether
> or not the French when so engaged in such a head-to-head battle of
> equal
> strength do or do not retain their ability to "project power" or have
> the
> ability to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea. You might notice
> that this
> scenario does not inform you of the answer, because even if it was
> decided that
> the French fleet did have this ability to stand-off another unit in the
> Ionian
> Sea, it would be inconsequential to the adjudication process for this
> particular
> scenario.
>
> Conclusion
> ----------
> My conclusion, assuming it is a correct observation, is simple:
> As concerns the adjudication process of the above scenarios, the French
> fleet's
> ability to "project power" or to create a stand-off in the Ionian Sea
> is
> inconsequential during the adjudication process in any scenario where
> the
> Italian fleet effectively remains in the Ionian Sea.
>
> The Wrong Rule Interpretation
> -----------------------------
>
> Now, let's add another Italian fleet in the West Mediterranean. We
> want to
> create a scenario that is functionally equivalent to the scenario in
> the above
> quoted article.
>
> Scenario 3:
> France:
> Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
> Italy:
> Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
> Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
> Turkey:
> Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.
>
> Let France represent the player who had the wrong interpretation of the
> rules.
> France believes that his fleet should have the ability to project power
> or to
> stand-off in the Ionian Sea. Furthermore, because we know the Italian
> fleet
> has orders to leave the Ionian Sea, and in fact will leave the Ionian
> Sea, this
> ability of the French fleet to stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea
> is far
> from inconsequential in France's point of view.
>
> The fact of the matter, of course, is that it was the game designer's
> intention
> that the French fleet in this specific scenario not have the ability to
> stand-off another unit in the Ionian Sea.
>
> Now, my next step is to try to understand what this French player was
> thinking
> when he interpreted the older rule books; that is, why did he believe
> that his
> French fleet would be able to project power or to create a stand-off in
> the
> Ionian Sea.
>
> Thanks
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:58:55 PM

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

Hi Adam,

I made the error of not specifying when the article was written.
If my memory serves me, the Calhamer article was written
in the middle of the 1960's.

It was not my intention to suggest that this was "new" news,
sorry.

To an experienced player, this article may hold little interest.
I am a novice.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:10:30 PM

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

Hi,

Now, my next step is to try to understand what this French player was
thinking
when he interpreted the older rule books; that is, why did he believe
that his
French fleet would be able to project power or to create a stand-off in
the
Ionian Sea.

Scenario 3:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

Perhaps we can begin figuring this out by attempting to piece together
what
the French player believed. That is, we will make preliminary
speculations and
then see what beliefs we can exclude due to any found logical
inconsistencies.

France Did Believe
------------------
France believed that its fleet would project power or create a
stand-off in the
Mediterranean under the following circumstances:
1. When there was a head-to-head battle launched against it from the
Ionian
Sea. Of course, this is speculation, for we don't know if the player
even
cared about head-to-head battles in any way in particular.
2. When the French fleet was dislodged. We know the player certainly
believed
this.

Okay. Now let's try to map the player's thoughts to a more complicated
scenario and see what would have happened. This is an exploration.

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

In Scenario 4 we have a "head-to-head" battle of equal strength between
the
Italians and the Austrians. We will attempt to "map" the above
hypothetical
player's beliefs to this new Scenario 4.

We are concerned about what the Italian army in Trieste can project
into
Venezia, for instance, can this army stand-off and beat back the French
attack,
even though the Italians will never enter Venezia and even though the
Italians
are engaged in a head-to-head conflict arising out of Venezia.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to get us towards any conclusion.
For
instance:
1. If there is a believe about dislodgement and stand-offs, it does
not apply
here because the Italian army in Trieste is not going to be dislodged.
2. The ability of the Italians in Trieste to project power and impose
a
stand-off in Venezia to stop the French depends on what belief was held
about
head-to-head battles, and we don't know what believe was held by the
player on
this point. But, we suspect that the player might believe that a
head-to-head
battle would not effect projecting a stand-off. Maybe we can say this
stronger.
We know that the player did not believe that a head-to-head battle
would
disable his ability to create a stand-off. Because if he believed
this, then
whether he was dislodged or not would make no difference, and he would
not have
gotten into a discussion with the game designer during the playing of
their
game on this point.

Okay, let's review this one more time to check accuracy. If the player
believed
firmly that a head-to-head battle would nullify the unit's ability to
project
a stand-off, then whether he was dislodged or not would not have been
an issue.
So, we conclude that the player considered a head-to-head battle to be
of no
consequence with respect to projecting power in a stand-off.

If instead the player believed that a head-to-head battle would not
nullify
his fleet's ability to project power in a stand-off, then he might get
upset
when the game creator told him that his dislodged fleet projects no
such power.

Okay, let's rewrite what we know about this player's belief system
again:

France Did Believe
------------------
France believed that its fleet would project power or create a
stand-off in the
Mediterranean under the following circumstances:
1. When there was a head-to-head battle launched against it from the
Ionian
Sea. We feel very confident about this belief the player had.
2. When the French fleet was dislodged. We know the player certainly
believed
this.

Now if we map these beliefs to Scenario 4, we find that the Italians in
Trieste
do indeed stand-off and prevent the French from invading, and we
further find
that the Italians do this even in the face of a head-to-head battle of
equal
strength.

Final Conclusions
-----------------
We can, assuming my logic is correct, conclude that in the middle of
the 1960's,
the game creator, when he himself was playing the game, would expect
any
force moving into a province to project power in a stand-off even if
this
military unit was faced against a stiff head-to-head battle of equal
strength
originating from the very province it was attacking.

Whew! Finally, I proved it to myself.

This conclusion also answers the exact same question that was begun in
another thread here.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 11:43:21 PM

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

Hi,

Scenario 3:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

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

In the 1961 rule book, here is the paragraph that the player did not
understand (or this is the rule that was unclearly written):
QUOTE: Bottom of Page 4:
Note that it is only a support order which is nullified by attack from
the side.
A unit ordered to move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support
or stand
off a single unit, even though its own position is attacked with
support and it
is consequently dislodged.
UNQUOTE

As the rule stands, it allows a moving unit, even if it actually fails
to move,
or even if it is eventually dislodged, to project a stand-off into the
square it
was attacking. And, important to my personal study topic, this would
apparently include the situation where it could project a stand-off
even in the
face of a head-to-head battle of equal strength. That means that at
this stage,
we feel even more confident that a unit was allowed to project a
stand-off
through the head-to-head battle of equal strength, which in Scenario 4
would
mean that the Italians would definitely stop the French from entering
into
Venezia.

Aside:
I'd be curious to see what ever happened to this rule in the 1971 rule
book and
later editions of the rule book [of course, it's quite possible that I
missed
it even though it is present]. Because if you omit this rule, I would
interpret things such that you don't get the sense that the power to
project a
stand-off is possible in a head-to-head battle of equal strength
(because the
units so engaged "would not move, period," as I would say). I'll have
to
recheck the later editions.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:57:38 AM

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

Ouch.

;-)
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 9:08:03 AM

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

Sorry.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 11:25:05 AM

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

Hi,

In the 1961 rule book, here is the paragraph that
the player did not understand (or this is the rule
that was unclearly written with respect to the
game creator's true intent):
QUOTE: Bottom of Page 4:
Note that it is only a support order which is
nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered
to move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support
or stand off a single unit, even though its own
position is attacked with support and it
is consequently dislodged.
UNQUOTE

This rule is important in that it clearly and unambiguously
gives a unit in a head-to-head battle the ability to
project power into a stand-off. We will note that it
does not specifically mention the word "head-to-head;"
perhaps under the belief that the word was not needed
to define the rules; but, we may find that if you don't
make certain distinctions, you may run into logical
difficulties later---we'll have to see what happens:
for instance, under some situations and some rule
books, when a unit
U is attacking province P, and from province P
another unit C is "counter"-attacking unit U with
a greater strength, and unit U is dislodged and
is determined to have no ability to project a
stand-off into province P, we find that this "hides"
what would happen if unit U attacked with
equal strength. This suggests that for minimum
ambiguity, it may be safest to introduce the concept
of a head-to-head battle (but I don't know this with
certainty at this time). See my second or third post above
for a very detailed description of this phenomena.

As mentioned above, the quoted rule
is important in that it clearly and unambiguously
gives a unit in a head-to-head battle the ability to
project power into a stand-off.
We will be interested in knowing if a similar
rule existed in the 1958 draft of the rule book
and the first version of the rule book in 1959.

*********************************
1958 Rough Draft of the Rule Book
*********************************

Page 4 of the PDF document:
* If two units are ordered against each other from
adjacaent provinces, neither moves. Thus, generally,
a unit "met head on" loses its move.

This is a head-to-head battle of equal strength, and
no unit moves, it loses its move.

Other scenarios on page 3 show situations where units
don't move, and these are also single units meeting
in a generic stand-off.

In general, we see that the rules begin to be defined
by specifying that in a generic stand-off, a unit
does not move. This holds true for all the rule books
in general.

The concept of support is then introduced. Then it is
following by what it means to cut support:
Page 5 of the PDF document:
* If a supporting unit is attacked from the side,
it is deemed to turn to face the attacker, and has
the same effect against the attacker as any army not
ordered to move. The support is cut.

In short, a unit giving support and being attacked,
protects itself from attack with a holding strength
of 1. If a unit giving support is attacked from
the side, its support it offered is cut and nullified.

Page 6 of the PDF document:
* An attack, unlike a support, is not affected by
an attack from the side.

Finally, I, as a novice, now not only "see" this rule,
but can attempt to understand it better given the context
I have gradually accumulated through my studies.

We can be pretty sure, I believe, that he is saying this
at the minimum: If a unit is attacked from the side,
this unit has the ability to project a stand-off into
the square it was attacking.

Note that it specifically does not address a head-to-head
battle of equal strength. From the previous rules in this
rule book, then, this would mean that a unit in a head-to-head
battle does not move, or as I say for clarity, "does not
move, period." That is, a unit in a head-to-head battle
of equal strength, does not move and does not project
a stand-off into the square it was attacking.

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

Top of Page 4:
* Conflicts. If two units are ordered to the same space,
neither may move. If a unit is not ordered to move,
or is prevented from moving, and another unit is ordered
to its space, that unit may not move. If two units are
ordered each to the space the other occupies, neither may
move.

As before, the rule book begins by specifying under what
conditions units do not move: that is, units do not move
in a generic stand-off.

Page 4:
* The Support Order. ... This space must be one to which
the supporting unit could have made a move if not opposed
by other units; ...

I always have a problem with the phrase in italics, "could
have made a move if not opposed by other units;" What does
this mean? What is it trying to communicate? I don't know
at this time.

But, it may not matter, for most people understand the
mechanics of support, and support does not weigh into
the main, specific issue of concern in this article,
which addresses head-to-head battles and how these
do or do not effect the projection of a stand-off.

The paragraph on page 4 beginning with, "A unit moves..." I
have already parsed in detail in previous articles. If we
consider only what is written, it basically says this:
1. A unit that is better supported than any one else may move.
2. A unit in a generic stand-off does not move.
3. A unit less supported than any one else does not move.
4. It defines "dislodged" which everyone understands.

Note that a generic stand-off includes three concepts: a
stand-off, a head-to-head battle of equal strength, and an
attack into a unit holding in a province where the attack
and the defense are of equal strength.

We now, at the bottom of page 4, start to see very similar,
if not identical language that will also later be found in
the 1961 rule book (by the way, I think that the 1959 and
1961 rule books are identical):
* Note that it is only a support order which is nullified
by attack from the side. A unit ordered to move, even if
unsuccessful, still may cut a support or stand off a single
unit, even though its own position is attacked with support
and it is consequently dislodged.

It is very interesting that such an important rule governing
the projection of a stand-off is mentioned as a "note", almost
like a foot-note. That is, the rule is so fundamental to the
game, I would think that it would be given more prominence,
and have been mentioned under the general movement mechanics
and power projection definitions of the game.

Basically the rule says that any unit always has the ability
to project a stand-off into the province it is attacking.

*************************************************
Review and Comparison of 1958 and 1959 Rule Books
*************************************************

Our study concerns what ability to project a stand-off exists
for a unit in a head-to-head battle of equal strength. Let's
review the rules bearing on this point in the 1958 and 1959
rule books:

1958: An attack, unlike a support, is not affected by
an attack from the side.

1959: Note that it is only a support order which is nullified
by attack from the side. A unit ordered to move, even if
unsuccessful, still may cut a support or stand off a single
unit, even though its own position is attacked with support
and it is consequently dislodged.

The 1958 rule does not address head-to-head battles, so it
can be concluded that in a head-to-head battle of equal
strength, a unit would not project a stand-off into the
province it was attacking.

The 1959 rule allows the projection of a stand-off into
the attacked province under any circumstances.

But, we know that the game creator acknowledges that the
1959 rule was not really what he intended for ONE
scenario. So, let's fix that rule right now and address
that ONE scenario:

1959 Fixed: Note that it is only a support order which
is nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered to
move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support or
stand off a single unit, even though its own position is
attaacked with support and it is consequently dislodged
except for the following circumstance: if the attacking
unit in province U is attacking province P, and from
province P is launched an attack into province U of
greather strength such that the unit in province U is
dislodged, that unit in province U does not project
a stand-off force into province P.

We now have addressed and fixed the rule to account for
exactly the situation that arose in the game that the
author was playing way back in the first post of this
thread.

Let's now specify what this 1959 Fixed rule means:
it means that except for one very specific scenario,
a unit attacking province P always projects a stand-off
into province P.

Okay, so this means that if a unit in province U is
involved in head-to-head battle with a unit in
province P, that the unit in province U would indeed
still project a stand-off into province P.

This is critical to know, because it is what this study
is trying to determine. And, we have come to this
determination by reading the rule and correcting as
guided by the author's own article.

This means that my previous assertions in other articles
were false wherein I stated that in the above example
just given, the unit in province U would NOT project
a stand-off into the province P it was attacking (though
I was reading the 1971/1976 rule book and the year
2000, fourth edition rule book, but we are not addressing
these rule books here).

We now think we understand the rule books of 1959 and
1961, as well as the author's game occuring in the
middle of the 1960's as relates to whether or not
a unit in province U projects a stand-off into province
P in the face of a head-to-head battle eminating from
province P: the answer is that the unit in province U
does project such a stand-off. And, this answers our
question.

This means that using the 1959 and 1961 rule book, and
having made the correction the author and game creator
intended, that in 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 Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

the French would never capture Venezia, because the
Italians (even though engaged in a fierce head-to-head
battle of equal strength with the Austrians) would
still project a stand-off strength of 3 into
Venezia; since the French only have an attacking force
of 2, the French would not be allowed to capture
Venezia. The adjudicated result is that no units move.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:42:33 PM

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

Hi,

****************
Theoretical Part
****************

So far our studies have brought us into the middle
of the 1960's. Let it be assumed that the 1959
rule book and the 1961 rule book are identical;
then, we have looked at the 1958 rough draft of
the rule book, the 1959 and 1961 rule books,
as well as an important game played in the
middle of the 1960's which was written about
by the game creator and how this effected one
rule change.

This article poses a theoretical. Keep in mind
that there is no way I can answer the question
to this theoretical. So, please remember
that it is the theoretical question which is
interesting in and of itself.

In the article which opened this thread, we find
the game creator playing the game with another
player. They are following this rule:

1961: Note that it is only a support order which is nullified
by attack from the side. A unit ordered to move, even if
unsuccessful, still may cut a support or stand off a single
unit, even though its own position is attacked with support
and it is consequently dislodged.

Scenario 6:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

When the author came to Scenario 6 given above (which
I have modified, but it is functionally equivalent),
the author realized that the rule just stated above
was not literally what he meant, because he did
not intend the French fleet to project a stand-off
force into the Ionian Sea for this particular
situation.

So, I re-wrote and corrected the 1961 rule thus:

1961 Fixed: Note that it is only a support order which
is nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered to
move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support or
stand off a single unit, even though its own position is
attaacked with support and it is consequently dislodged
except for the following circumstance: if the attacking
unit in province U is attacking province P, and from
province P is launched an attack into province U of
greather strength such that the unit in province U is
dislodged, that unit in province U does not project
a stand-off force into province P.

Now as concerns our study of the head-to-head battle
of equal force and whether this projects a stand-off
into the attacked square, the above rule, as written,
does allow the projection of a stand-off into the
attacked square.

Now we entertain the theoretical; please remember that
as far as I know, there is no immediate answer to this
very theoretical question because it is based upon
fantasy-like assumptions.

Let's assume that the next day, the game creator was
playing a game and came upon Scenario 7:

Scenario 7:
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 Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

The Italian player asserts that under the revised rule
he does have the ability to stand-off the French
invasion of Venezia, because the rules allow it.

Now, what if, and this is where we go into a highly
assumptive scenario, but what if the game creator
then said, "darn it, I didn't mean this either,
I didn't mean for a unit faced with a head-to-head
battle to be able to project a stand-off into the
province it was attacking.
I thought the 1961 Fixed rule covered this
adequately; but, now I see that this so-called
head-to-head stuff was not adequately addressed
within the dislodgment fix to the 1961 rules. Maybe
I should have keep the terminology 'head-to-head'
afterall, for it may need to be defined to cover
this case."

If the game creator had said this, and he certainly
did not, but if he had, then we would come up with
the following fix to the fix like this:

1961 FIX FIXED HYPOTHETICALLY:
Note that it is only a support order which
is nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered to
move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support or
stand off a single unit, even though its own position is
attaacked with support and it is consequently dislodged
except for the following circumstances:
Exception 1: if the attacking
unit in province U is attacking province P, and from
province P is launched an attack into province U of
greather strength such that the unit in province U is
dislodged, that unit in province U does not project
a stand-off force into province P.
Exception 2: if the attacking unit in province U
is attacking province P, and from province P is
launched an attack into province U of equal strength
which of course results in the unit in province U
not moving, that unit in province U does not
project a stand-off force into province P. Of course,
the unit in province P also would not move and also
would not project a stand-off force into province U.

Keep in mind that the above did not happen.

To review, the 1961 rule, the fixed rule, and the
hypothetical fix to the fixed rule all do one
important thing: they place in writing in the
rule book that with one or more exceptions, a
unit attacked or dislodged, can project a stand-off
into the province it attacked. If this 1961
rule were not stated, we would conclude, by the
rules, than any stand-off resulted in the units
involved not moving, period, and not projecting
any stand-off into the province they attacked.

****************************
The 1971 and 1976 Rule Books
****************************

The previous articles have hopefully now prepared us
to look at the 1971 and 1976 rule books (which are
considered to be identical).

Under the section, VIII CONFLICTS, we see the standard
format of the rules, namely that the rules introduce
the concept that any unit involved in a generic
stand-off does not move.

Section IX.2 defines how units can move, which can be
listed like this:
1. Units involved in a generic stand-off do not move.
2. A unit can move to province P if its strength is
greater than all other units contesting to enter into
province P or hold within province P.
3. A unit may not move to Province P if its strength
is less than any other unit contesting to enter into
province P or holding within province P.
4. It talks about dislodgment which everyone understands.

As usual, the rule book follows the conventions of the
previous rule book and does not precisely define what it
means to "not move". For instance, does not moving mean
that you do or do not project a stand-off force into
the province you tried to move to? My assumption is that
you assume they do not project a stand-off force unless
a subsequent rule specifically allows it, for this is
the way the rules were crafted in all previous rule
books up to this time.

Now we come to section IX.7:
* It follows from the above rules that, where two or more
equall well supported units are ordered to the same space,
neither may move, even though one of them has been dislodged
by a supporting attack on the same move.

There is a lot of information in this one paragraph for a
novice to miss and not understand without adequate
preparation.

It is implicitly stating this: any unit projects a
stand-off force into the square it is attacking even
though it may be attacked or even dislodged.

Therefore, again, we see a major rule related to movement
mechanics and the projection of stand-off power, relegated
almost to a footnote. Certainly one can understand that
a novice might not understand this rule book. Because one
doesn't usually say, "It follows from the above rules that ..."
without first defining what those rules are.

We initially guess that any unit projects a
stand-off force into the square it is attacking:
1. even though it may be attacked from the side
(or even dislodged), and
2. even though it may be attacked from the front
(or even dislodged).

However, one could say that the conclusion
regarding point (2) if not supported in the text.

Because the text clearly states: "where two or more
equally well supported units are ordered to the same
space ..." and it clearly does not say anything whatsoever
about head-to-head conflicts wherein a two units are
mutually ordered into each other's provinces.

So, technically, we cannot allow item (2) to enter in
as an assumption or to be invoked implicitly.

Therefore, focusing on the text, and what it implies,
we can only say this and nothing more:
any unit projects a stand-off force into the square
it is attacking when it is attacked from the side.

Then the rule book offers this one exception:
* However, if two units are ordered to the same space,
and one of them is dislodged by a unit coming from
that space, the other unit may move.

In other words, a unit in province U attacking province P
where the unit in province U meets a head-to-head battle
of greater strength, unit U does not project a stand-off
into province P.

However, it never addesses what happens when a unit
in province U attacks province P and is faced with
a head-to-head battle with respect to the projection
of stand-off power.

Nor can one look at and reason about this issue by
looking at Example 5 and Example 6 in the rule book
on page 6, because if you change these scenarios such
that the "unit in the middle" does not
effectively move, you can get no indication
as to whether or not the unit would have projected
a stand-off force if it was not dislodged [see the
second or third article for how this effect is
hidden in this thread].

This whole section only addresses the projection
of stand-off force with respect to a unit being dislodged.
It never addresses the stand-off force with respect to
units involved in a head-to-head battle of equal strength.

However, we now come upon section X CUTTING SUPPORT, and
this may change or reasoning about the rules.

Page 6:
* If a unit ordered to support in a given space is
attacked from a space different from the one into which it
is given support, or is dislodged by an attack from any
space, including the one into which it is giving support,
then its support is "cut."

But, this does not address the main issue: does or does not
a unit involved in a head-to-head battle of equal strength
project a stand-off force into the province it attacked.

So, the reading of the rules as they stand is that a
unit involved in a head-to-head battle of equal strength
does not project a stand-off force into the province it
attacked.

The above reading of the rules is my opinion, and no
other person reading the rules holds this opinion to
my knowledge.

In order for someone to allow a unit in a head-to-head
battle to project a stand-off strength, then the 1961 Fix
that I wrote about in a previous post would have to be used
instead.

Of course, one can come to other conclusions by not
reading the rule book as restrictively, or by suggesting
that the intent of the game creator was known during
this time period, or by saying that we can be less
restrictive in our interpretation of the rule book
because it is badly written, and so forth.

To nail this down so that there would be no doubt and
no uncertainty, we would probably want to determine
the intent of the game creator by finding postal games
he played during the period of 1971 and later, such
as through the 1970's (but not into the 1980's). By
examining the postal games, we might get lucky and
would be able to see how the rules were applied to
the games so played. Or, we could receive information
from people who did play with him in fact-to-face
games during the 1970's.

Another good argument that could be leveraged is this:
there were many rule issues that needed to be clarified
during the 1971 re-write of the rules, but this issue
you are concerned about (whether or not a unit engaged
in a face-to-face battle of equal strength could or
could not project a stand-off) was definitely, certainly,
and absolutely not one of them. This, I think, would
be a sound argument to use too, and if used and accepted,
would mean that a unit involved in a face-to-face
battle of equal strength would project a stand-off force
into the province it was attacking.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 3:51:45 PM

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

Hi,

**********************************************************************
The 1982 second edition rule book and the 1992 third edition rule book
**********************************************************************

These rule books do not, as far as I can see, weigh
in on the topic any differently than has already discussed
for previous rule books: that is, whether or not a
unit involved in a head-to-head battle of equal strength
does or does not project a stand-off force.

***************************************
The Year 2000, Fourth Edition Rule Book
***************************************

Like all the previous rule books, this rule book defines
the generic stand-off situations and states that units
so involved cannot move.

Under the section, SUPPORT ORDER, on page 7, it states:
* A unit moves with its own strength combined with
all of its valid supports. Unless it is opposed by
a unit that is equally or better supported, it can
complete its move. One unit supporting another
provides a combined strength of two and so will defeat
an opponent's unit that is unsupported.

The only question here is what "opposed" means. We
will assume that when a unit effectively does not move,
it is no longer opposing any other units. To say it
another way, we do not grant any unit any power to
project a stand-off unless the rules specifically mention
that a unit has this power. This is how the rule
books for 1959 and 1961 were organized, in that these
rule books eventually did state explicitly, though
almost in a footnote, exactly what powers a unit
had in projecting a stand-off, and did so after
defining scenarios where a unit would not move.

To assume otherwise, is to assume we already know the
rules prior to obtaining the ruling information from
the rule book itself.

When we get to Diagram 10 on page 8, we notice that
if there had been a British fleet in Tuscany ordered
into the Tyrrhenian Sea, that is would enter into
the Tyrrhenian Sea because the other forces contending
were in a stand-off and did not move [we will amend this
later once the units are granted more powers as we read
further into the rule book].

Just like in the 1971/1976 rules, this rule book has
a corresondingly important section,
on page 9 and the diagrams 12, 13, and 14, because
this is where the additional powers of the units to
project stand-off power is defined (though, a good
writer would have placed this very important
definition in a separate section).

However, in the year 2000, fourth edition rule book,
it does not begin the section, Dislodgment in Standoffs,
by saying anything like this: "it follows from the
above that ...". Because nothing about the unit's
ability to project stand-off powers can follow anything
previously written, since the issue has not even
been addressed yet.

Instead, it just digs right in:
* A dislodged unit can still cause a standoff in a
province different from the one that dislodged it.
When two or more equally supported units are ordered
to the same province, neither can move--even if one
of them is dislodged from a province other than the
one that is the target of the standoff during the
same turn.

Diagram 12 shows the scenario in the rule book.
Unfortunately, the rule book does not show a more
revealing example where, in Diagram 12, if there
had been a British army in Prussia moving into
Silesia, and adjudicate it [we will revisit this
Diagram 12 later on].

If there had been a British army in Prussia
ordered to Silesia in Diagram 12, the other powers
contending with a stronger force would not move,
and the British would move into Silesia [we will
revisit this Diagram 12 later on].

Note the text: it still causes a stand-off. Which
is equivalent to saying it still projects a
stand-off force!

So now we need to add the appropriate powers. If an
army is ordered to a province P, even if this
army is dislodged, it still projects a stand-off
force.

Again, a face-to-face attack of equal strength
has not been addressed, so we finally grant the
following powers to all units based upon what we
have read:
Any unit moving into a province and not faced with
a head-to-head battle of any kind, does project a
stand-off force into the province so attacked.

Then, of course, the one exception is given:
If a unit in province U is attacking province P,
and meets the unit in province P in a head-to-head
battle where the unit coming from province P
has more strength, then obviously the unit originally
in province U is dislodged, but more importantly,
this unit so dislodged from province U projects
no stand-off force whatsoever into province P.

So, here is what we know so far, as we gradually
grant stand-off powers to the units as the rule
book gradually unfolds and defines what these are:
1. Since the rule book has not specified that a
unit moving into a province that is itself attacking
the original province of the said unit has any
ability to project a stand-off, then any unit involved in
a head-to-head battle of equal strength simply does
not move, period, and does not project any stand-off
into the province it attempted to move to.
2. As long as the unit is not involved in a head-to-head
battle of equal strength, it can project a stand-off
power into the province it is attacking, even if it
subsequently dislodged by an attack from another and
different province than the province it was attacking;
but, if this unit is involved
in a head-to-head battle and has lesser strength
and is dislodged, then it has no ability to project
a stand-off into the province it tried to move to.

And in short:
A unit may project a stand-off force into the province
it is attacking as long as the said unit is not
involved in a head-to-head battle where the enemy
is of an equal or greater strength.

Notice that by using the term "head-to-head" we are
able to concisely and unambiguously define the stand-off
power of all units in all situations in one, simple
sentence.

Now we can amend some of our adjudicated results for
the Diagrams given in the rule book.

In Diagram 10, if we place a British fleet located in
Tuscany and ordered to the Tyrrhenian Sea, it would
not be allowed to enter the Tyrrhenian Sea, this
is because those forces involved in the stand-off,
even though they don't move, have specifically been
granted the power to project a stand-off force in
this scenario (there is no head-to-head battle
anywhere).

In Diagram 12, if we place a British army located in
Prussia having the orders to move to Silesia, it
would not be allowed to enter Silesia, again, for
the identical reasons just given above.

Now let's consider this text written about Diagram 13:
* However, because Rumania dislodged the Army in
Bulgaria, it [the army in Bulgaria] has no effect on
Rumania at all.

Should we analyze and attempt to understand if the
last two words ("at all") tacked onto the above
sentence have any ramifications?

If so, should we consider that the text for Diagram
14 does not use the two words: "at all". For
instance, it doesn't say:
* In Diagram 14, even though the Turkish unit has
support, it fails at all to prevent the unsupported
Russian move into Rumania because a unit coming
from Rumania dislodged the Turkish unit.

Basically, where "at all" is used, strikes me as simple
emphasis, so that the reader is urged to notice the
distinction between Diagram 12 and both Diagrams 13 and
14.

The use of the words "at all" cannot be turned into a
proof like that carried out in an earlier post where
we attempted to logically determine what rule set was
being used by the game creator and that other player
when they were playing Diplomacy in the middle of the
1960's.

Nor can use take Diagram 13 and Diagram 14 and play
what-if scenarios with them to find any indication
or proof about what ability an army in a face-to-face
battle of equal strength could or could not project
with respect to stand-off power.
(this was discussed in the second or third posting
to this thread).

In Diagram 25 on page 14, I doubt that you could
argue or prove much from it, though it might very
well suggest that in the mind of the author, any
unit involved in a head-to-head battle does not
project stand-off force.

For instance, if we assume that the author realized
that the Army from Tyrolia was in a head-to-head
battle of equal force and could not project a
stand-off power into Munich, then the author may
have written this:

* In most cases, this supported attack from Silesia
into Munich would beat the unsupported attack from
Ruhr.

instead of this [all caps added for emphasis]:

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

But, I don't think this can be made into a proof
either. Because there would always be doubts about
what the author was thinking, if anything.

In short, as concerns the ability of a unit to
project stand-off power, it is my personal reading
of the text which sums it up like this (a personal
reading, by the way, which no other person to my
knowledge agrees with):
A unit may project a stand-off force into the province
it is attacking as long as the said unit is not
involved in a head-to-head battle where the enemy
is of an equal or greater strength.

We note that this is indeed different from the
1959 and 1961 rule books (these 1959 and 1961
rules books, by the way, are identical).

My reading of the year 2000, fourth edition
rule book, for Scenario 8:

Scenario 8:
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 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.

would indeed allow the French to successfully
capture Venezia and dislodge the Austrians from Venezia.
This is because the Italians attacking from
Trieste would be locked in a head-to-head battle
of equal strength, and no unit in this situation
has been granted the power to project a stand-off
under these conditions by the rules.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 10:42:08 PM

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

Hi,

Thanks for everyone's patience. At least I understand
the rules better. There may be an incorrect conclusion
concerning the 1971/1976 rule book, because I found
a logical error I made in the year 2000, fourth edition
rule book, but I won't bother to study the year 1971/1976
rule book any further, asI won't be using that rule book.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:22:41 AM

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

Hi,

Some might find reading these articles is easier
at my web site:

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

Go to the section containing my articles,
then scroll down to the rules section.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:49:21 AM

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

Hi,

The article at my web site,

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

may differ in results than the articles here.
As I review my previous articles looking for
logic errors, I keep wondering if my results
concerning the year 2000, fourth edition
rule book need to be re-investigated.

But, I will not keep flip-flopping and posting
these changes in opinion here. Go to my
web site to see my "current opinion of
the day," if you will. Hopefully, my opinion
will eventually stabilize.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:57:21 AM

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

Hi,

Actually, I am now reviewing my articles, but I won't
post any updated opinions here. My final results--
which right now are not very stable, as I tend to
keep checking the results and the logic used--
will be at my web site.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 12:41:40 PM

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

Hi,

My final conclusions on the 1971/1976 rule books,
is that they are unparsable given my assumptions.
More details are at my web site.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 4:39:05 PM

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

Hi Randy,

The article version at my web site does
address the issue that one could change
one's assumptions.

However, I personally, have decided not
to continue exploring the 1971/1976
rule books.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 4:58:52 PM

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

Hi Randy,

To clarify, the 1971/1976 rule book
might allow for a prior known definition
of a unit's ability when unable to move
to stand-off a unit from the province
that said unit tried to move to. So,
given this, I have decided not to
continue looking at these rule books.

However, for the year 2000, fourth
edition rule book, it is my reading that
this assumption is not made.

Any upcoming comments about my article (the
third revised version) concerning the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book, are, of course, most
welcome, to catch any logical inconsistencies
or errors that I may exist in my writing and
analysis.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:03:22 PM

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

Here is the rewite of this article:

Hi,

****************
Theoretical Part
****************

So far our studies have brought us into the middle
of the 1960's. Let it be assumed that the 1959
rule book and the 1961 rule book are identical;
then, we have looked at the 1958 rough draft of
the rule book, the 1959 and 1961 rule books,
as well as an important game played in the
middle of the 1960's which was written about
by the game creator and how this effected one
rule change.

This article poses a theoretical. Keep in mind
that there is no way I can answer the question
to this theoretical. So, please remember
that it is the theoretical question which is
interesting in and of itself.

In the article which opened this thread, we find
the game creator playing the game with another
player. They are following this rule:

1961: Note that it is only a support order which is nullified
by attack from the side. A unit ordered to move, even if
unsuccessful, still may cut a support or stand off a single
unit, even though its own position is attacked with support
and it is consequently dislodged.

Scenario 6:
France:
Fleet in Tunisa to Ionian Sea.
Italy:
Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Fleet in West Mediterranean supports Fleet in Ionian Sea to Tunisia.
Turkey:
Fleet in East Mediterranean to Ionian Sea.

When the author came to Scenario 6 given above (which
I have modified, but it is functionally equivalent),
the author realized that the rule just stated above
was not literally what he meant, because he did
not intend the French fleet to project a stand-off
force into the Ionian Sea for this particular
situation.

So, I re-wrote and corrected the 1961 rule thus:

1961 Fixed: Note that it is only a support order which
is nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered to
move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support or
stand off a single unit, even though its own position is
attaacked with support and it is consequently dislodged
except for the following circumstance: if the attacking
unit in province U is attacking province P, and from
province P is launched an attack into province U of
greather strength such that the unit in province U is
dislodged, that unit in province U does not project
a stand-off force into province P.

Now as concerns our study of the head-to-head battle
of equal force and whether this projects a stand-off
into the attacked square, the above rule, as written,
does allow the projection of a stand-off into the
attacked square.

Now we entertain the theoretical; please remember that
as far as I know, there is no immediate answer to this
very theoretical question because it is based upon
fantasy-like assumptions.

Let's assume that the next day, the game creator was
playing a game and came upon Scenario 7:

Scenario 7:
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 Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.

The Italian player asserts that under the revised rule
he does have the ability to stand-off the French
invasion of Venezia, because the rules allow it.

Now, what if, and this is where we go into a highly
assumptive scenario, but what if the game creator
then said, "darn it, I didn't mean this either,
I didn't mean for a unit faced with a head-to-head
battle to be able to project a stand-off into the
province it was attacking.
I thought the 1961 Fixed rule covered this
adequately; but, now I see that this so-called
head-to-head stuff was not adequately addressed
within the dislodgment fix to the 1961 rules. Maybe
I should have keep the terminology 'head-to-head'
afterall, for it may need to be defined to cover
this case."

If the game creator had said this, and he certainly
did not, but if he had, then we would come up with
the following fix to the fix like this:

1961 FIX FIXED HYPOTHETICALLY:
Note that it is only a support order which
is nullified by attack from the side. A unit ordered to
move, even if unsuccessful, still may cut a support or
stand off a single unit, even though its own position is
attaacked with support and it is consequently dislodged
except for the following circumstances:
Exception 1: if the attacking
unit in province U is attacking province P, and from
province P is launched an attack into province U of
greather strength such that the unit in province U is
dislodged, that unit in province U does not project
a stand-off force into province P.
Exception 2: if the attacking unit in province U
is attacking province P, and from province P is
launched an attack into province U of equal strength
which of course results in the unit in province U
not moving, that unit in province U does not
project a stand-off force into province P. Of course,
the unit in province P also would not move and also
would not project a stand-off force into province U.

Keep in mind that the above did not happen.

To review, the 1961 rule, the fixed rule, and the
hypothetical fix to the fixed rule all do one
important thing: they place in writing in the
rule book that with one or more exceptions, a
unit attacked or dislodged, can project a stand-off
into the province it attacked. If this 1961
rule were not stated, we would conclude, by the
rules, than any stand-off resulted in the units
involved not moving, period, and not projecting
any stand-off into the province they attacked.

****************************
The 1971 and 1976 Rule Books
****************************

The previous articles have hopefully now prepared us
to look at the 1971 and 1976 rule books (which are
considered to be identical).

Under the section, VIII CONFLICTS, we see the standard
format of the rules, namely that the rules introduce
the concept that any unit involved in a generic
stand-off does not move.

Section IX.2 defines how units can move, which can be
listed like this:
1. Units involved in a generic stand-off do not move.
2. A unit can move to province P if its strength is
greater than all other units contesting to enter into
province P or hold within province P.
3. A unit may not move to Province P if its strength
is less than any other unit contesting to enter into
province P or holding within province P.
4. It talks about dislodgment which everyone understands.

As usual, the rule book follows the conventions of the
previous rule book and does not precisely define what it
means to "not move". For instance, does not moving mean
that you do or do not project a stand-off force into
the province you tried to move to? My assumption is that
you assume they do not project a stand-off force unless
a subsequent rule specifically allows it, for this is
the way the rules were crafted in all previous rule
books up to this time.

Now we come to section IX.7:
* It follows from the above rules that, where two or more
equally well supported units are ordered to the same space,
neither may move, even though one of them has been dislodged
by a supporting attack on the same move.

There is a lot of information in this one paragraph for a
novice to miss and not understand without adequate
preparation. We will assume that no unit has any ability
to project stand-off power unless the rules specifically
grant these powers.

Now we have to parse through this, and it is tricky because
of all the different cases that are implied (that is why
the use of the term "head-to-head battle" would definitely
make the rules easier to understand, and certainly raise
the confidence in the reader that the author was saying
what he intended).

First we note that only one case is addressed: a stand-off,
and not a head-to-head battle nor a failed-lean.

So, only those units involed in a stand-off (not to be
confused with a more encompassing term, the generic
stand-off), are granted the ability to project a
stand-off power into the province that was attacked.

Then an exception is made: in a stand-off, if the unit
is dislodged due to a head-to-head battle, it is not
allowed to project a stand-off power into the province
it attacked.

Okay, I think we can now say that we have bad writing,
again deriving from the fact that the author refuses
to use the term "head-to-head" to clarify the definition
process.

For first, we are told that units only are only granted
the ability to project stand-off power if they are
engaged in a stand-off (which does not include the
head-to-head battle and the failed lean); but then,
we are told that if the unit is dislodged due to
a head-to-head battle, that unit is not granted the
ability to project a stand-off power.

I give up. This is too poorly written to parse.
If you are to address head-to-head battles, even
implicitly (by stating that a unit is dislodged
from the province it attacked), you most probably
need to adopt the convention of using the term
head-to-head battle so that the rules can be
understood clearly.

What this suggests, perhaps, is that the writer
is assuming the following, even though it is
never explicitly stated: any unit moving to
a province P, even though failing to move, always
projects a stand-off power unless an exception
is later made in the text.

Or, this might suggest that when the writer uses
the term "stand-off" he means a generic stand-off,
even though the specific sentence by declaring that
two or more units are moving to one province logically
excludes a head-to-head battle and a failed lean.

But, given my assumptions, that you grant no
such powers unless such powers are specifically
granted in the rules, the writing is too confused
to parse, so I personally give up, and will instead
now focus on the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
with respect to the issue being discussed.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:17:28 PM

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

Hi,

The discussion of the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
was posted before the above rewrite concerning the
1971/1976 rule books.

This is the link to the year 2000, fourth edition rule book
discussion:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.diplomacy...
Thanks
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:27:35 PM

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

Hi,

The re-write of the article dealing with the 1971/1976
rule books was posted after the article dealing
with the year 2000, fourth edition rule book.

You should find the discussion of the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book above somewhere in
the threads.

Or see http://www.geocities.com/Diplomacy2007/

for the most recent re-writes of all these articles
I've placed in this thread.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:22:52 AM

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

In article <1107106900.396109.258610@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:

> My final conclusions on the 1971/1976 rule books,
> is that they are unparsable given my assumptions.

That is the point at which you've used an Indirect Proof to show that your
assumptions are wrong. You get an A in the Indirect Proof unit of the
pre-calculus course.

--
Randy Hudson
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 6:27:40 AM

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

"NewsGroupUser" <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:1107053449.131729.252170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Like all the previous rule books, this rule book defines
> the generic stand-off situations and states that units
> so involved cannot move.

http://www.naturalexposures.com/images/otter-l.jpg

--
Visit http://tinyurl.com/3sjb4 to sponsor me in the February 12, 2005
Vermont Special Olympics "Penguin Plunge". All donations are greatly
appreciated.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:08:22 AM

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

Hi Randy,

Please note that Randy's logical post refers to an
older version of my article dealing with the
1971 and 1976 rule books; so that others are
not commenting on older versions of my
article, only the current versions of the articles
remain.

Thus, the second re-write of the 1971/1976
rule book is now here (posted after Randy's
comments, though not written having seen
Randy's comments), wherein I decided not
to continue working with these rule books because
they might assume prior knowledge of the
rules prior to the rules being defined.

And, the third re-write of the year 2000, fourth
edition rule book is also in these posts, though
no one has commented on this article yet.

Any upcoming comments about my article (the
third revised version) concerning the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book, are, of course, most
welcome, to catch any logical inconsistencies
or errors that I may exist in my writing and
analysis.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:35:42 AM

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

Hi,

Here is a minor update which does change the reading
of the text in any significant way, I don't think:

----------

Okay, let's begin parsing. Let's begin by rephrasing:
A unit U--attacking province P but unable to move, and
even if unit U is dislodged--has the ability to stand off
other units attempting to enter province P.

Note that the context of our rephrasing was based
upon the unit being in a generic stand-off.
Therefore, we will exclude a head-to-head
vacuum from the following delineation given in the
next paragraph.

Note also that are rephrasing grants more powers
to the units than the original phrase did (since
our current phrasing does allow a unit to project
stand-off power even if it is dislodged by a unit
from the province it was attacking). Note that
someone assuming apriori that the units have
far reaching powers, should not object to our
translation. If I'm not mistaken, this overly broad
rephrasing will be logically taken into account
when we get to parsing the second bullet point
later on below.

Let's delineate, noting that we have made a gracious
parsing and that no further powers can be granted to
a unit than those listed here:
....

----------

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:40:46 AM

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

Hi,

I meant to say:

Here is a minor update which does NOT change
the reading of the text in any significant way,
I don't think:

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 10:53:39 AM

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

Hi,

Here is a minor update to the third re-write of
the article dealing with the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book which does not
change the reading of the article's text in any
significant way, I don't think:

----------

....

Okay, let's begin parsing. Let's begin by rephrasing:
A unit U--attacking province P but unable to move, and
even if unit U is dislodged--has the ability to stand off
other units attempting to enter province P.

Note that the context of our rephrasing was based
upon the unit being in a generic stand-off.
Therefore, we will exclude a head-to-head
vacuum from the following delineation given in the
next paragraph.

Note also that are rephrasing grants more powers
to the units than the original phrase did (since
our current phrasing does allow a unit to project
stand-off power even if it is dislodged by a unit
from the province it was attacking). Note that
someone assuming apriori that the units have
far reaching powers, should not object to our
translation. If I'm not mistaken, this overly broad
rephrasing will be logically taken into account
when we get to parsing the second bullet point
later on below.

Let's delineate, noting that we have made a gracious
parsing and that no further powers can be granted to
a unit than those listed here:
....

----------

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:04:53 AM

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

Hi,

Here is a minor update to the third re-write of
the article dealing with the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book which does not
change the main point of the article's text in any
significant way, I don't think:

----------

....

Okay, let's begin parsing. Let's begin by rephrasing:
A unit U--attacking province P but unable to move, and
even if unit U is dislodged--has the ability to stand off
other units attempting to enter province P.

[NEW PARAGRAPH FOLLOWS]

Note also that are rephrasing grants more powers
to the units than the original phrase did (since
our current phrasing does allow a unit to project
stand-off power even if it is dislodged by a unit
from the province it was attacking). Note that
someone assuming apriori that the units have
far reaching powers, should not object to our
translation. If I'm not mistaken, this overly broad
rephrasing will be logically taken into account
when we get to parsing the second bullet point
later on below.

....

----------

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:25:36 AM

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

Hi,

The following minor changes have been made to my
third re-write of the article dealing with the year 2000,
fourth edition rule book:

[MINOR WORDING CLARIFIED]

Okay, let's begin parsing. Let's begin by rephrasing:
A unit U--attacking province P but unable to move due
to a stand-off, and even if unit U is dislodged--has
the ability to stand off other units attempting to
enter province P.

[NEW PARAGRAPH INSERTED]

Note that are rephrasing grants more powers
to the units than the original phrase did (since
our current phrasing does allow a unit to project
stand-off power even if it is dislodged by a unit
from the province it was attacking). Note that
someone wishing that the units have far reaching
powers before the facts of the rule book are read and
interpreted, should not object to our translation.
If I'm not mistaken, this overly broad rephrasing
will be logically taken into account when we get to
parsing the second bullet point later on below.

Thanks
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:05:00 PM

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

Hi,

I've moved the posting related to the year 2000, fourth
edition rule book to this new post:

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

In this way, all these threads here now relate to rule books
starting in 1958, and the new thread focuses on the most recent
rule book of the year 2000.

Thanks
!