Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter One EP #279

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 09:34:32 +0000

Issue #279 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

******************************************************************************
Abstract: Mouse Balls Available as FRU (Field Replacement Unit)

Mouse balls are now available as FRU. Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or
should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement.  Because of the
delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be
attempted by properly trained personnel.

Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside
of the mouse.  Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls.
Ball removal procedures differ depending upon manufacturer of the mouse.
Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method.  Domestic balls are
replaced using the twist-off method.  Mouse balls are not usually static
sensitive.  However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge.  Upon
completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.
It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining
optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should
suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.

To re-order, specify one of the following:

P/N 33F8462 - Domestic Mouse Balls
P/N 33F8441 - Foreign Mouse Balls.
******************************************************************************

Chapter One contains:

TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER,
THE COMMANDERS, THE SUTHERLAND CONFLICT, NOW AND ZEN, TRUST ME!, PANIPAT

And is published by eric_s_klien@cup.portal.com/Eric Klien

Chapter Two contains:

A TON OF JUDGE GAMES

And is published by nick@sunburn.waterloo.edu/Nick Fitzpatrick

-------------
Chapter One
-------------

Table of Contents:

Interesting Diplomacy Conversations Preserved for Eternity - Part One
----

From: bz556@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joshua E. Randall)
Subject: Deluxe Diplomacy

Oh, that Ken.  :-)  I have just started using the judge today.  It looks
great.

>I'm pretty sure Per was talking about a re-release of the board game by
>Avalon Hill.  The new (deluxe!) version would include better pieces
>(whatever that means) and a new guide along the lines of the Civilzation
>player's guide.
>
>Hmm, new one on me.

Well...I *guess* Per knows what he is talking about.  He mentioned someone
at AH to contact...let's see if I have the name here...Rex Martin.  Hope
this helps.

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

There have been a number of comments recently about
Denmark and fleet movements.  Here are the facts for those of
you who are not certain of the rules:

(1)  Is there a waterway in Denmark?

The question is irrelevant.  If you look at the map then you will
see that the province of Denmark also includes some sea surrounding it.

(2) Is it possible to move fom NTH-Den and then from Den-BAL?

Yes.  This is obvious from the structure of the map, and
is the way the game has been played since the release of the 1961
rulebook (and possible with the 1959 rules, I can't remember).
If you think that players have been playing with the wrong rules
for over 30 years then you may care to consider that Alan Calhamer
has played in a number of postal games and diplomacy tournaments and
has never objected to this rule.

(3) Is there a new edition of the rules coming out?

Avalon-Hill are planning a "de-luxe" edition of the game which will
contain a copy of a revised "Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy".  Some of the
rules may be clarifed *but* there will be no changes to the existing rules.

Mark

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

>(1)  Is there a waterway in Denmark?
>
>The question is irrelevant.  If you look at the map then you will
>see that the province of Denmark also includes some sea surrounding it.

Good point.

>(2) Is it possible to move fom NTH-Den and then from Den-BAL?
>
>Yes.  This is obvious from the structure of the map, and
>is the way the game has been played since the release of the 1961
>rulebook (and possible with the 1959 rules, I can't remember).
>If you think that players have been playing with the wrong rules
>for over 30 years then you may care to consider that Alan Calhamer
>has played in a number of postal games and diplomacy tournaments and
>has never objected to this rule.

Right. It isn't COMPLETELY obvious from the rules. But it is everyone's
interpretation, and the best supported one, and established practice,
and clearly what Calhamer intended. Enough.

>(3) Is there a new edition of the rules coming out?
>
>Avalon-Hill are planning a "de-luxe" edition of the game which will
>contain a copy of a revised "Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy".  Some of the
>rules may be clarifed *but* there will be no changes to the existing rules.

Cool. I didn't know that. (Also, love that British usage, with plural
verbs for collective nouns....)
However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
a year ago or so.

Jamie

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

Jamie, what are you doing logging on on a Saturday afternoon.  Surely
you *must* have something better to do? 8-)

(I assume that y'all have a copy of Rod Walker's ``Gamer's Guide To
Diplomacy'' published by Avalon Hill.  Every diplomacy player should
have a copy of this and Richard Sharp's ``Guide To Diplomacy'' in their
collection of dip material.)

As far as I understand Avalon Hill have asked a number of well-known North
American dip players to contribute articles to a revised booklet.  I know
that Cal White has been asked to write something on pubbing a zine and
international contacts.  I think that David Hood (editor of *Diplomacy
World*, something else y'all should be getting) is in charge of
co-ordination with Avalon Hill.  Avalon Hill are , 8-), hoping to pub it in
1994.

The delux diplomacy set will contain the board/rules and *wooden* pieces.
It will also contain a copy of the book, which I presume will also be
available direct from Avalon Hill.

>However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
>rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
>Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
>of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
>a year ago or so.

Pandin's Paradox... yawn!

However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.  They've
not been released else-where so, for example, British players can still
attempt the unwanted convoy.  Personally, I never saw the problem with
the Unwanted Convoy and didn't see the need to outlaw it.  The new
American rules on TUC are pretty silly.  (If you have a copy of a new
set of rules reread the section on convoying armies and player intent.)

Mark.

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

>  The delux diplomacy set will contain the board/rules and *wooden* pieces.

Big deal. We sophisticated e-mail players don't use physical objects
to represent our games. Anyway, we've all memorized the map. :-)

>>However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>>in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
>>rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
>>Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
>>of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
>>a year ago or so.
>
>   However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
>released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
>they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.

I'm wrong, but you're not sure. Right, Mark.
I know I'm right about fixing the Pandin Paradox. I don't know about
the unwanted convoy business. I agree that's nothing to worry about,
esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

I don't have the new rules. I should get them, I guess.

Jamie

p.s. the fix for the PP goes like this:
A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
of water does not cut that support.
(That's not the exact wording.)
It's ugly. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But it does fix the
paradox problem, and I can't think of a better way to fix it.
According to Ken Lowe, the paradox actually arose in a JUDGE game
once! I find that hard to believe, but Ken is so trustworthy....

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: PP and TAC

JD>> However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
JD>> in the rules since the 1976 edition. The change involves the convoy
JD>> rule and the cutting of support, and was designed to eliminate the
JD>> Pandin Paradox (I hope I've got his name right). There was a good bit
JD>> of discussion of the change and the paradox in an issue of EP about
JD>> a year ago or so.

MN>    However you're wrong!  The new Avalon Hill rules (which I think were
MN> released circa 1987) cleared up the `un-wanted convoy' busness (yawn!),
MN> they may have also cleared up PP but I am not so sure on this.

JD> I'm wrong, but you're not sure. Right, Mark.

Naturally you're the one who's wrong! 8-)
The main rule-fix in recent times hs been to outlaw TUC. (*shame*)
They may have changed PP at the same time.  (I don't have
a set of American rules.)

JD> I know I'm right about fixing the Pandin Paradox. I don't know about
JD> the unwanted convoy business. I agree that's nothing to worry about,
JD> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
JD> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

JD> I don't have the new rules. I should get them, I guess.

There really isn't that much point.

JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
JD> of water does not cut that support.
JD> (That's not the exact wording.)
JD> It's ugly. It doesn't make intuitive sense. But it does fix the
JD> paradox problem, and I can't think of a better way to fix it.

I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
always been my understanding of this `problem'.  I *suspect* that
PP only existed in the pre-1971 rulebook and was one of the things
that was fixed in the 1971 rulebook (which fixed a number of problems
that had been found in the rulebook during postal play in the 1960's).
I don't think that the 1976 rulebook actually cleared this up.
(I may be wrong.) I'll reread the 1971 rulebook tonight.

Mark

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: PP and TAC
To: "Eric S. Klien" <Eric_S_Klien@CUP.PORTAL.COM>

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

>JD>> However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>JD>> in the rules since the 1976 edition.

>The main rule-fix in recent times hs been to outlaw TUC. (*shame*)
>They may have changed PP at the same time.

Oh, I get it.
You consider fixing the PP to be minor and changing the UC rule to
be "main." Vice versa for me.

>   Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
>use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

I don't see anything WRONG with it, either. It just makes more
intuitive sense to me to specify the convoy route. (Just try to
picture those soldiers... "Hm, we weren't expecting the enemy boats
to show up, oh well, just hop on... Oh NO! Disruption!" :-) )

>JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
>JD> of water does not cut that support.

>I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
>always been my understanding of this `problem'.

You mean, you always understood that a convoyed attack won't
cut a support offered to a fleet in a body of water? If so,
you have an awesome talent to read things into the rules. It
never would have occurred to me to read the old rules that way.
Apparently most people read them my way, otherwise there would
have been no Pandin Paradox in the first place.

>I *suspect* that
>PP only existed in the pre-1971 rulebook and was one of the things
>that was fixed in the 1971 rulebook (which fixed a number of problems
>that had been found in the rulebook during postal play in the 1960's).

I have a '76 rule book right here. It says in XII.5 that a convoyed
attack does not protect the convoying fleets, in the sense that
the attack won't cut support of a fleet-which-is-attacking-one-of-
the-convoying fleets. But the Pandin Paradox shows that's not enough.

>I don't think that the 1976 rulebook actually cleared this up.
>(I may be wrong.) I'll reread the 1971 rulebook tonight.

No, it didn't. It wasn't cleared up until the recent rule change.

I'm sure all other readers of the list find this fascinating, huh?

Jamie

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Re: PP and TAC

> Oh, I get it.
> You consider fixing the PP to be minor and changing the UC rule to
> be "main." Vice versa for me.

We seem to have sussed out the bone of contention!  Since I've never seen a
problem resolving PP (see below) I never consider it a problem...

>   Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
>use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

JD> I don't see anything WRONG with it, either. It just makes more
JD> intuitive sense to me to specify the convoy route. (Just try to
JD> picture those soldiers... "Hm, we weren't expecting the enemy boats
JD> to show up, oh well, just hop on... Oh NO! Disruption!" :-) )

I know.  But it can be such a damned sneaky tactical ploy that when it
come off I think it *deserves* to be allowed!

The American rules pose some problems for FTF play.  Are you going to insist
that players list the convoy route for every convoy, and what are you going
to do if they don't?  NMR the unit becuase it didn't specify a route?

JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
JD> of water does not cut that support.

>I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
>always been my understanding of this `problem'.

JD> You mean, you always understood that a convoyed attack won't
JD> cut a support offered to a fleet in a body of water? If so,
JD> you have an awesome talent to read things into the rules. It
JD> never would have occurred to me to read the old rules that way.
JD> Apparently most people read them my way, otherwise there would
JD> have been no Pandin Paradox in the first place.

Well I have been able to work out why I thought there was a non-problem here,
and I'm sure you;ll be glad to learn that you were "right" all the time!

Pandin's paradox was discovered by a postal diplomacy player, and as soon
as it was discovered houserules had to be added to cover this situation.
Houserules were changed to ensure that a convoying army could not protect a
convoying fleet.  (I don't know if this was done in consultation with Calhamer
or not)  So I have always known the "correct" way to adjuticate this problem.
Along the way I must have forgotten that this originated as a postal fix and
may not have been incoperated into the "official" rule-book.  The houserule
fix was that "no units move", this has the same result as the official
change yo've quoted.

So now we know!

Mark

A PS

JD> No, it didn't. It wasn't cleared up until the recent rule change.

Can you send me a copy of the new rule please?  I've looked in the AZ
file and although PP is there there isn't a mention of the new rule change
and how that effects the adjutication: it should be included.  I've amended
the file and quoted from you above.

From: George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>

> A fleet can move from Baltic Sea to SKA or visa versa via Denmark.
> Why cannot one also move from Baltic Sea to the North Sea via denmark
> as denmark also boarders on the North Sea?

> The only explanation I can come up with is that it is no possible to move
> from the North Sea to Denmark and then to the Baltic Sea because you just
> can't - although there is no specific mention in the rules.

> Well, there being no mention of anything related to this in the rules is
> rather confusing...

Well, lets quote the rules and see if we can clear up any confussion.

[Expienced players may wish to skip this message. I'm only trying to
help novice people learn the rules. No offense to Mark and Jamie but
just saying "The question is irrelevant" and "This is obvious..." is
not a good way to teach new people the rules.]

VII THE MOVE ORDER...
  1. MOVEMENT
  ...A Fleet may move to any body of water or coastal province which is
  adjacent to its current location...

So can one move bal-nth, bal-ska, bla-aeg, bal-hel, or bar-gob? No, in
all five situations you you must first move to den, den/swe, con, kie,
or stp.

When a fleet in in a coastal province, the warships [hey, I thought
  this wasn't a *war* game?] are assumed to be at any point along the
  coast of that province. The fleet may move to an adjacent coastal
  province only if it is adjacent along the coastline.

Opps, In all five cases above one might assume that you are on the
"wrong" side coast of the given province. All five provinces clearly
have two coastlines (on good maps). The two coasts in St. Petersburg
are even labeled.

3. MOVEMENT IN CERTAIN UNUSUAL POSITIONS ON THE BOARD.
  a. KIEL AND CONSTANTINOPLE
  By virtue of waterways through these two provinces, fleets may enter
  along one coast, and, on another move, leave from the other coast.

Ah, that permits bla-con-aeg and bal-kie-hel in two moves.

b. PROVINCES HAVING TWO COASTS (Bulgaria, Spain, and St. Petersburg)
  A fleet entering one of these provinces enters along one coast and
  may then move only to a space adjacent to that coast.

Oh, stp(nc)-gob is not valid so bar-stp-gob is not valid. That leaves
two questionable moves, bal-den-nth and bal-den/swe-ska. Both moves
center on the issue of coastlines. *IF* den and swe have two coastlines,
then the moves are *NOT* valid.

c. SWEDEN AND DENMARK
  A fleet moving from the Baltic Sea to Skaggerak or vice versa must
  first move to Seden or Denmark. The common border with Denmark does
  not separate the coast of Seden into two coastlines.

Hmm, this is indeed a confusing answer. It is clear that sweden does
not have two coastlines (because they say so) so bal-swe-ska is legal.
And bal-den-ska is legal, again because they say it is.

But it doesn't say *Denmark* does not have two coastlines. And for the
two other similar looking provinces, kie and con, the rules were
explicit to mention the internal waterways. But, as has been pointed
out, it is accepted practice to take this rule, and deduce that Denmark
does not have two coastlines and thus bal-den-nth is legal.

Perhaps the only reason Denmark doesn't have two coasts is that there
wasn't room on the board to print the labels? Maybe. But the real
logic is if Denmark doesn't seperate Sweden into two coastlines, how
could Sweden separate Denmark into two coastlines? Or you can use the
map as part of the rules; the map does not have two coasts labeled for
Denmark, hence it does not have two coastlines.

> why in the rule book (2nd edition/feb '82) on page 3 where it talks
> about Kiel and Constantinople doesn't it also mention Denmark.

Because Kiel and Const have wholly internal waterways which might
otherwise be unseen if not explained. Denmark's waterway is similar
but it also touches Sweden and so a little explanation about how it
affects both provinces is in order. First they explain in 3.b what it
means to have two coastlines and then in 3.c they explain Denmark's
special case. Perhaps there should be a note in 3.a to "see below
about Denmark".

While we are at it, if we need to explain that bal-den-nth is valid,
we need to do the same for (fleet) moves like bla-con-smy,
bla-con-bul(sc), ber-kie-hol and a couple others. The fact that there
is a waterway which overrides the two coastline rule makes these moves
valid.

I hope this helped.

George

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

(re unwanted convoy)
>I know.  But it can be such a damned sneaky tactical ploy that when it
>come off I think it *deserves* to be allowed!

Yeah, I'll buy that.

>   The American rules pose some problems for FTF play.  Are you going to insist
>that players list the convoy route for every convoy, and what are you going
>to do if they don't?  NMR the unit becuase it didn't specify a route?

Actually, I don't know what the American rules say about UC. I do know
the JUDGE rules. Sure, you can have players write down the convoy
route face to fact. What's the problem? If they don't, you treat
it according to house rules, same as you treat any ambiguously written
order (eg, f mao - spa).

>Well I have been able to work out why I thought there was a non-problem here,
>and I'm sure you;ll be glad to learn that you were "right" all the time!

Imagine my surprise.
:-)

>The houserule
>fix was that "no units move", this has the same result as the official
>change yo've quoted.

Actually, it doesn't.
For one thing, in the Pandin Paradox, the result with the new
rule would be that the attacked convoying fleet would be dislodged.
For another, there are perfectly unparadoxical situations in which
the new rule still has an important consequence. I like your house
rule better, myself. The new official Dip Rule ruined a really good
solution to a problem I sent to Eric for EP (which no one has responded
to, by the way, <sulk sulk>).

>Can you send me a copy of the new rule please?

No, I don't have it. Sorry. The approximation I gave is the best
I can do. If someone reading this has a recent rule book, send
the new rule to Mark. It would be in section XII.

Jamie

Publisher comments:

Quote is a true IBM information quote from one of their catalogs.  This
is an actual alert to IBM field engineers that went out to all IBM Branch
Offices.  First published by Susan_Martinez@starbase1.caltech.edu/Susan
Martinez.

I need scribes to type in articles.  I am also interested in people's
experiences with scanners.  I would like to know what brands of scanners
and OCR software are the best.  I am also very interested in finding one
player for a WIN92 game.

******************************************************************************
To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers,
            and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com.
******************************************************************************