Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter One EP #280

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 09:38:54 +0000

Issue #280 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

******************************************************************************
Loren mentally reviewed the search-and-seizure laws.  He didn't need a
warrant for something he had an active LAWSAT tip on, and in any case the
Supreme Court had pretty much abolished the Fourth Amendment for drug dealers,
anyway.
******************************************************************************

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 Two
----
From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Denmark (again!)

George has provided a *very* clear answer to this question by referring to
the rule book in considerable detail.  Well done George!

As it happens I do have a comment, or two, to make...

> 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.

It is equally true to say that since the rules specially mention StP
and Bul as having two coasts its failure to mention Den must mean that
Denmark has only one coast.

> 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.

I think that is people look at the map they will soon see why Denmark has
only one coast: the Denmark province includes "water".

Once again, thanx to George.

From: George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo

> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

Why does it make more sense? If I want to get to Spain to Tunis and I
can lobby the owners of both gol and wes+tyr to convoy me, why can't I
tell the army in Spain to take whichever boat shows up? When fighting
a land battle, you don't have to specify which neighbor is giving
support and you can even get stuck with unwanted support. What would
be really fun is if you got on the boat in wes and they dropped you
off in North Africa instead of Tunis. While *that* isn't allowed, I
see no reason to not leave the convoy route unspecified. Well, except
to make it easier to program the judge.

House rules are house rules, every game should have them. Myself I
miss one very important aspect in the game, which is permitted in the
rules but often not in many games, which is miswritten orders. The
rules are clear that

4. MECHANICS OF WRITING ORDERS
   ... An illegal order is not followed, and the unit so ordered
   simply stands in its place... An order which admits of
   two meanings is not followed...

It doesn't say illegal orders are not *allowed*, just that they mean
nothing. It doesn't say you have to write orders for all your units.
etc.

I'm in favor of *more* ambiguity in the play of the game, not less.
This isn't a chess game.

George

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: PP revisited (oh no, not again!)

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

THere's no problem *if* you have this house rule.  I wonder how many
tournament actually have this house rule.

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

JD> Actually, it doesn't.
JD> For one thing, in the Pandin Paradox, the result with the new
JD> rule would be that the attacked convoying fleet would be dislodged.

We'll get onto your next (and linked) statement in due course.  My question
is this: are you sure that we mean the *same* thing when we say PP?

Here is the commonly used defining example of PP (taken from the AZ file):

FRANCE: F(MID) SF(Spa/sc)-WES, F(NAP) SF(ION)-TYN
ITALY : F(Tus) SF(TYN), F(TYN) CA(Rom)-Tun
ENGLAND: F(WES) &F(LYO) CA(NAf)-Tus, F(TUn) SF(WES)

The rule you quoted was: "convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an
action in a body of water does not cut that support"

Let's go through this example.  Italy convoys an army to Tun.  It can't cut
the support of the English fleet *BY YOUR QUOTED RULE*.  Hence the English
support from Tun is valid.  This means that WES has a support.  This meams
that the French supported attack into WES *FAILS*.  This means that the
convoy route is not disrupted.  This means that the convoy to Tus goes
ahead.  But *BY YOUR QUOTED RULE* the Italian fleet's support is not cut.
Hence TYN has a valid support, hence the French supported attack into
TYN fails and so the Italian convoy is not cut.

The net result is nothing moves!

My conclusion is either that (a) You quoted the rule wrong or (b)
We don't agree what PP is.  (IMHO you're *WRONG*!!!!! on PP)

> For another, there are perfectly unparadoxical situations in which
> the new rule still has an important consequence. I like your house
> rule better, myself.

That is a different matter. You're right, there are going to be some
*important* implications, and I don't like them one bit! (eg
FF(Bre) SF(MAO), IF(Naf) SF(Por)-MAO, EF(Lon) CA(Wal)-Bre, A(Wal)-Bre...
this is horrible in the new rules!)

Mark

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo

> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

GB> Why does it make more sense? If I want to get to Spain to Tunis and I
GB> can lobby the owners of both gol and wes+tyr to convoy me, why can't I
GB> tell the army in Spain to take whichever boat shows up? When fighting
GB> a land battle, you don't have to specify which neighbor is giving
GB> support and you can even get stuck with unwanted support. What would
GB> be really fun is if you got on the boat in wes and they dropped you
GB> off in North Africa instead of Tunis. While *that* isn't allowed, I
GB> see no reason to not leave the convoy route unspecified. Well, except
GB> to make it easier to program the judge.

Since when did "sense" have anything to do with it?  Is is sensible that
it takes six months to move an army from Belgium to Holland and six months
from the top of StP to the bottom of Moscow?  No!  I agree with George,
I don't like the "specify the convoy route" rule (as I've already stated
I just *love* the UWC!)

GB> House rules are house rules, every game should have them. Myself I
GB> miss one very important aspect in the game, which is permitted in the
GB> rules but often not in many games, which is miswritten orders. The
GB> rules are clear that

I agree, miswritten orders add a whole new scope to the game.  Obviously they
are not allowed in the Judge programming.  Most postal GMs *encourage*
the writting of "miswritten orders" although there are some heavy disputes.
ie if I have A(Lpl) and write F(Lpl)-wal is this a valid order for my
A(Lpl)?  Some GMS say no, it's a miswritten order.  Other GMs point out to
the rule about "badly written orders which can only have one meaning".
 If this is a
"badly written" order and not a "misorder" then it is OK and allowed.
And what happens if I just order "Lpl-Wal" without specifying the
unit type?  Is that a "miswritten" or a "badly written" order.

It makes sense to be strict about orders from the point of view of
Judge.

Mark

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

me> Well, except to make it easier to program the judge.

you> It makes sense to be strict about orders from the point of view of Judge.

If I can't use "sense" to talk about Diplomacy, they you can't use it
to talk about computer programs! :-)

Seriously though, this notion that something works the way it does
because of implied limitations in the supporting computer program
will, I hope, become a thing of the past. If not, it will be a very
dull 21st century. The judge is *great*. But all programs can be
"improved" and adding (optional) support for miswritten orders should
be (parhaps at the bottom) of the list of improvements.

Then we can modify our computer players up to version 2 to take
advantage of miswritten orders to the computer adjudicator. Then all
the v1 computer players will say to themselves, but he is a computer,
how could he have miswritten an order? Ah, he must be a *human* player
trying to pretend to be a computer player. Well, I'm smarter than
that...

George

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Re: programming the judge

GB> Well, except to make it easier to program the judge.

MN> It makes sense to be strict about orders from the point of view of Judge.

GB> If I can't use "sense" to talk about Diplomacy, they you can't use it
GB> to talk about computer programs! :-)

GB> Seriously though, this notion that something works the way it does
GB> because of implied limitations in the supporting computer program
GB> will, I hope, become a thing of the past. If not, it will be a very
GB> dull 21st century. The judge is *great*. But all programs can be
GB> "improved" and adding (optional) support for miswritten orders should
GB> be (parhaps at the bottom) of the list of improvements.

I agree.  Obviously you could make Judge more and more flexable by not
getting to accept orders in one, and only, valid format.  I am not
writting Judge code... but I don't think that this option is a very high
priority code and it'll probable remain at the bottom of the batch until
Ken is decommissioned.

GB> Then we can modify our computer players up to version 2 to take
GB> advantage of miswritten orders to the computer adjudicator. Then all
GB> the v1 computer players will say to themselves, but he is a computer,
GB> how could he have miswritten an order? Ah, he must be a *human* player
GB> trying to pretend to be a computer player. Well, I'm smarter than
GB> that...

Well the most common thing to occur is: Our player 1 has a miswritten order
this turn.  He's a good player so he would check his orders v.carefully.
Hence it must be a deliberate misorder and not an accidental misorder.
Hence he is trying to deceive us in some way...

Miswritten orders do not fool good players!

Mark

From: George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: programming the judge

> Miswritten orders do not fool good players!

But certainly everything is not black and white. A good (espcially
computer!) player keeps track of *everything* and everything has
value. So he forgets to label his unit a fleet. In a "no press" game,
is that a hint that he doesn't intend to build any more fleets? Does
the adjuicator write in big letters HE HAS A FLEET HERE or does it
quietly allow the order (if it was not ambiguous) and let the casual
(sloppy) player start thinking it was an army?

Ane why can't a computer player be written to play in a casual
fashion.  Let it get fooled on occasion, etc. It takes all kinds.
Certainly we have some world leaders without a clue.

Not sure what my point is but if you see one, run with it. :-)

George

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

I have a program that takes the status of a Diplomacy game and
produces a (postscript) map of the game, complete with units
indicating positions and arrows indicating which moves were attempted
and which failed etc. It currently does a pretty good job on any
report, or series of reports, sent out by the judge. It tries to skip
header and trailer lines of mail files so I, for example, just pipe a
given mail message directly to the program and out comes a map on the
printer. If the report is a movement report, it can print out a second
map of the resulting positions. If the report has a center ownership
section, that will get put on the map too, as do movement orders.

It has support for the most common variants including youngstown. It
shouldn't be hard to support others if a postscript version of the map
already exists.

The program is written in C and is in the public domain. It is free to
anyone who wants it or who wants to put it on an ftp or mail server.
It is 150K as a uuencoded compressed tar file.

George
grb1@cornell.edu

From: Joshua Randall <randall-joshua@CS.YALE.EDU>
Subject: Simple (?) Question

As long as we're taling about this...:

Does an attack cut a convoy?  Let's make it a simple, one-fleet attack.

For example (a commone early-game situation), say Italy has A APU, F ION and
Turkey has F AEG.  Italy wants to convoy his Army to Tunis.  But Turkey orders
F AEG-ION.  Does this disrupt Italy's convoy?

Thanks.

--
Joshua E. Randall                       randall-joshua@minerva.cis.yale.edu

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: PP revisited (oh no, not again!

Joshua,
I simple attack doesn't disrupt the convoy. The convoy is disrupted
only if one of the fleets is DISLODGED. In my opinion, it is this
fact that makes convoys something more than just a way for England
to get armies into Europe.

Mark and George,
I take your points. Unwanted convoys are pretty rare, but I see
that they do add spice to the game.
As for miswritten orders, I agree that it would be very nice to
have an option on JUDGE that accepts any orders whether miswritten
or not and does not inform the player who wrote them when they
are miswritten. But *I* am not going to be the one who tells
Ken to add it to his stack....

Now, Mark, to the nitty gritty stuff.

You're right, I had forgotten the exact nature of the Pandin Paradox.
But I can give another situation that illustrates the paradox equally
well, and in this situation the "no units move" house rule has a
different implication from that of the new official rule.

Here's the set up <thinking thinking thinking thinking....>

ENGLAND
A Edi - Bel
F Nth C A Edi - Bel
A Pic - Lon
F Eng C A Pic - Lon

RUSSIA
F Lon S F Nth

FRANCE
F Bel S F MAO - Eng
F MAO - Eng
F Den - Nth
F Hol S F Den - Nth

Is F Nth dislodged?  Is F Eng dislodged?

1. Under the old rules.... Edi-Bel cuts the support of Bel for MAO-Eng
if and only if F Nth is not dislodged. Suppose F Nth is not dislodged.
The Bel's support for MAO-Eng is cut. So the convoy by Eng of Pic-Lon
is not disrupted. So Pic-Lon cuts Lon's support of Nth. So F Den-Nth
succeeds (supported by F Hol). So F Nth is dislodged, contradicting
the assumption.
So suppose F Nth *is* dislodged. Then Edi-Bel fails to cut support of
Bel for MAO-Eng. So MAO-Eng succeeds, and the convoy by Eng of Pic-Lon
is disrupted. So Lon's support for Nth is intact, and that means
Nth is not dislodged by the attack from Den. That contradicts
the second assumption.
So F Nth cannot be dislodged nor can it fail to be dislodged. So the
old rules implied a contradiction.

2. Under the new rules, neither convoy (the one across Eng or the
one across Nth) can cut the support of its target (in the one case
Bel in the other Lon). So F Eng is dislodged. But F Nth is not.

According to the new rule, then, F Eng is dislodged by F MAO, which
is not the same as every unit staying where it is. Perhaps
Mark's house rules would be different for a case like this.

>My conclusion is either that (a) You quoted the rule wrong or (b)
>We don't agree what PP is.  (IMHO you're *WRONG*!!!!! on PP)

I was wrong about the canonical example. Damn.
What do you think of my alternative paradox?

>   That is a different matter. You're right, there are going to be some
>*important* implications, and I don't like them one bit! (eg
>FF(Bre) SF(MAO), IF(Naf) SF(Por)-MAO, EF(Lon) CA(Wal)-Bre, A(Wal)-Bre...
>this is horrible in the new rules!)

Exactly.

Jamie

From: Tony Dugdale <CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Youngstown Query
To: "Eric S. Klien" <Eric_S_Klien@CUP.PORTAL.COM>

I have a few rather random questions about Youngstown.
Anyone out there have any clues?

BTW, I'm refering to Loeb's postscript map of Nov.20, 1991

1.  Why doesn't off-F and off-E touch each other?  Logic
tells me that either Fezzan touches off-D or the above-
mentioned offboards should touch each other.  Is there a
specific strategic or game-tested reason this isn't the
case?  The same holds for Off-I and Off-J.  Either East
Indian touches Off-C, or they touch each other.  Do you
get my point?

2.  Why do the following areas exist?  They seem kinda
useless to me:  Kashmir, Hokkaido (they seem to have no purpose
except allowing another retreat point for fleets/armies), also
Brunie, Hir (this last one only stops certain fleet movements)
Hon (why not let Kyoto touch ECS?), and Shan (why not let
Laos touch Burma?).  Just wondering ...

3.  Why is the Suez as weird as it is?  Why not just make
it a province like any other (like Constantinople)

4.  This is probably the strangest question.  Why is Caspian
Sea impassable?  Why not make it a water province, and let
the ships go up the Volga river and through canals in "Sevastapol"
to Black Sea.  In other words, make Caspian Sea like Baltic Sea,
and make Sevastapol like Kiel:  with waterways that prevent two
differing coasts.  True enough, anyone who would put a fleet
on the Caspian would be kinda dim, but it would allow for
interesting retreats and would allow a fleet in Sevastapol
to touch Iran, not to mention giving Omsk two coasts and making
a fleet built in Moscow possible!!  It's just an idea, and I'm
wondering if it's been done before ...

Tony D

From: George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Youngstown Query

> 1.  Why doesn't off-F and off-E touch each other? Logic
> tells me that either Fezzan touches off-D or the above-
> mentioned offboards should touch each other.

Using the (recent) map and rules published by the Schenectady
Wargamers Assoc., movement between off board boxes isn't even
permitted. You move into a box and then to a remote province. In
Loeb's version you move into a box and then to other boxes. So Loeb's
map and the judge rules is a slightly different variation of the
youngstown variant. His map is consistant; you can't move into a box
from two different provinces, only from the one it is in. So you can't
move fez-obd for that reason. And obe and obf touch obd but not each
other.

> 2.  Why do the following areas exist?  They seem kinda
> useless to me:  Kashmir, Hokkaido (they seem to have no purpose
> except allowing another retreat point for fleets/armies)...

I'm a little confused why you picked those areas vs. any other random
non-center province. Why does Burgandy exist? But to answer with an
answer, Kashmir, for example, is very strategic. It can be one end of
a solid defensive line for India. Take the orders "kas s del, del s
raj, raj s mad, mad s raj, eio s mad, cey holds". Six units hold the
southern end of a stalemate line.  If the kas unit is in nep, then
four units can attack del (one cuts the support of raj).

> also
> Brunie, Hir (this last one only stops certain fleet movements)
> Hon (why not let Kyoto touch ECS?), and Shan (why not let
> Laos touch Burma?).  Just wondering ...

Without Shan, three armies can't dislodge two english units in
Thailand and Johara without outside help. I'm sure we can think of
ways to use the other provinces but it is rather lates.

> 3.  Why is the Suez as weird as it is?  Why not just make
> it a province like any other (like Constantinople)

Suez is a province like any other. It is egypt that is wierd. Why is
egypt+suez unlike const? Well, to permit a convoy through the suez for
one thing. Can't do a convoy through const.

> 4.  This is probably the strangest question.  Why is Caspian Sea impassable?

Don't know that one. Maybe because it is in the original game.

> True enough, anyone who would put a fleet on the Caspian would be
> kinda dim, but it would allow for interesting retreats and would allow
> a fleet in Sevastapol to touch Iran, not to mention giving Omsk two
> coasts and making a fleet built in Moscow possible!!

Are you the same person who asked question number 2? :-)

George

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Convoys et al

> Now, Mark, to the nitty gritty stuff.

> You're right, I had forgotten the exact nature of the Pandin Paradox.
> But I can give another situation that illustrates the paradox equally
> well, and in this situation the "no units move" house rule has a
> different implication from that of the new official rule.

> Here's the set up <thinking thinking thinking thinking....>

> ENGLAND
> A Edi - Bel
> F Nth C A Edi - Bel
> A Pic - Lon
> F Eng C A Pic - Lon

> RUSSIA
> F Lon S F Nth

> FRANCE
> F Bel S F MAO - Eng
> F MAO - Eng
> F Den - Nth
> F Hol S F Den - Nth

> Is F Nth dislodged?  Is F Eng dislodged?

(Argument deleted which shows that this situation can't be resolved under the
old rules.)

> 2. Under the new rules, neither convoy (the one across Eng or the
> one across Nth) can cut the support of its target (in the one case
> Bel in the other Lon). So F Eng is dislodged. But F Nth is not.

> According to the new rule, then, F Eng is dislodged by F MAO, which
> is not the same as every unit staying where it is. Perhaps
> Mark's house rules would be different for a case like this.

Well under the standard HR's the resolution would be no units moved.  Most
HRs state: "in the event of a paradox all units involved hold".

> What do you think of my alternative paradox?

It shows that I hate the new rule.  I can't remember seeing any discussion
about this new rule before.  Can you recall which rulebook brought it in
to play?  I think that AH have made a mistake on this.

Mark

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Youngstown

There have been something in the order of 14 diffeent
Yougstown variants, I am not sure which one Judge runs.
There are many differences between the different games.

If anyone is interested there have been several articles written
on the different Youngstown games, explaining the differences between
the different versions (although I don't think I have a copy to hand).

Although many of the differences between versions are very minor, the
latter versions tend to have more players added to them.  Unfortunately
whilst Youngstown is an easy variant to learn (and run by Judge) it is
not the best World variant for large numbers of players.  Mercator
and Colonia are better.

Mark

From: George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: more on youngstown off board movement

I though I would pass this on, a conversation I had with Ken about the
judge variant of youngstown. It gives you an idea of how a variant is
born.

> Regarding off board area movement, your description is very different
  > from the version promoted by the Schenectady Wargamers Association, or
  > at least as I know it.

That's probably correct.  I solicited rule descriptions and got two
  which were very different.  The fellow that sent me the SWA map gave
  me what he had as the SWA rules for this variant, but I found them
  quite inconsistant and confusing -- particularly when it came to the
  off board box movement.  The rules he gave me indicated that you
  couldn't move from one box to another and paths were not reflective.
  Eg: You could go from NPO-ObL-NAO, but NAO-ObL was not allowed, you
  had to go through ObA.  Another problem came up when trying to support
  units.  He tried to tell me you could support a move into another box
  although it wasn't explicitly described in his rules, but that violates
  basic principles of Diplomacy, namely that you can only support a move
  into a space where you can move.  Without being able to do that
  support, though, there were cases where a power could park a unit in an
  offboard box and it could stand off all attempted attacks no matter how
  many units the aggressor had free to throw at it.  Meanwhile, the guy
  with the standing unit could continue to pump units through the one-way
  door.  I chose to use most of Jon's rules when it came to the off board
  boxes as they were much more succinct and seemed to be more consistant
  with the rest of the game and the topology of the map -- not to mention
  much easier to implement.

> So, I was wondering how wide spread your variant is and where/when did
  > Jon Monsarrat describe his off board rules?

I have no idea how wide spread Jon's variant is/was.  I got it from another
  email enthusiast who got it from him as he had his own adjudication program
  that supported it.  My variant is a mixture of his (offboard boxes) and the
  SWA variant (initial locations and Suez) so I'm pretty sure that it is only
  used for games played via my adjudicator.  I have no connection with
  non-email Diplomacy, so I don't know what gets played outside my world.

> George

-Ken

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: Youngstown

It sounds as if the Judge game is a *new* version of Youngstown.  Someone
should download a copy of the map and rules and send a copy to the NAVB
so it can be catalogued.

KEN  The fellow that sent me the SWA map gave
KEN  me what he had as the SWA rules for this variant, but I found them
KEN  quite inconsistant and confusing -- particularly when it came to the
KEN  off board box movement.  The rules he gave me indicated that you
KEN  couldn't move from one box to another and paths were not reflective.
KEN  Eg: You could go from NPO-ObL-NAO, but NAO-ObL was not allowed, you
KEN  had to go through ObA.

Almost all diplomacy variants that have off-board boxes have them as boxes
in two-way directions.  I can't think of any (off-hand) that have them only
on a 1-way direction.  Could the SWA people have got a garbled account
somewhere of how Youngstown boxes work?

KEN  Another problem came up when trying to support
KEN  units.  He tried to tell me you could support a move into another box
KEN  although it wasn't explicitly described in his rules, but that violates
KEN  basic principles of Diplomacy, namely that you can only support a move
KEN  into a space where you can move.  Without being able to do that
KEN  support, though, there were cases where a power could park a unit in an
KEN  offboard box and it could stand off all attempted attacks no matter how
KEN  many units the aggressor had free to throw at it.  Meanwhile, the guy
KEN  with the standing unit could continue to pump units through the one-way
KEN  door.

I seem to recall that some OBB variants have rules concerning supporting
into and outta the box.  I'd have to look them up.

Mark

From: DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
Subject: Convoys

Hi all.

To add another voice to the cacophony around Unwanted Convoys:  I disagree with
people who regard it as legitimate.  What is important to remember is that
Diplomacy is basically a board wargame set in a political (diplomatic) context.
Thus I believe we should keep some kind of realism to the tactics.  It is
unreasonable to suppose that WWI soldiers would have jumped on enemy boats when
they had assumed they were driving to the next province.

While Diplomacy does bend historical reality with the amount of stabbing etc.
which can occur, this is strategic and depends entirely on the players.
Permitting something like an unwanted convoy is a different beast altogether.

It is in order to retain this piece of `historical' feel that I think UC's
should be disallowed by forcing specification of convoy routes, and treating
omission of convoy route as an order to move by land (if possible) or as any
other misorder if not.

-Hal
From: Tony Dugdale <CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: RE: Re: Youngstown Query

> > 1.  Why doesn't off-F and off-E touch each other? Logic
> > tells me that either Fezzan touches off-D or the above-
> > mentioned offboards should touch each other.
>
> Using the (recent) map and rules published by the Schenectady
> Wargamers Assoc., movement between off board boxes isn't even
> permitted. You move into a box and then to a remote province. In
> Loeb's version you move into a box and then to other boxes. So Loeb's
> map and the judge rules is a slightly different variation of the
> youngstown variant. His map is consistant; you can't move into a box
> from two different provinces, only from the one it is in. So you can't
> move fez-obd for that reason. And obe and obf touch obd but not each
> other.

I assume that the judge uses Loeb's version (!).  Not moving
between boxes make more sense to me, and seems to make round-
the-world travel much more effective.  But, concerning the
previous map, it still doesn't make sense.  Think of the offboards
as provinces and not just as magic boxes of transport.  Either
Fezz touches off-D or off-E touches off-F in the same way that
either Kiel touches Baltic or Denmark touches Berlin.  In the
way it's set up now, Fezzan extends out to infinity, and Off-D
teleports around underneath it.  ANother logical possibility would
be for Sudan and Sahara to touch.  Anything else make no sense.
But maybe it shouldn't make sense ...
>
> > 2.  Why do the following areas exist?  They seem kinda
>       [ ... ] Stuff deleted.

OK, the answers here make a lot of sense.  I assume Hokkaido
exists for the same reason.  I had just thought that they were
as useless as Syria in the original (there are SOME times its
important, but the game wouldn't suffer immensely if it weren't
there).  Good points.  Thanx
> > 3.  Why is the Suez as weird as it is?  Why not just make
> > it a province like any other (like Constantinople)
>
> Suez is a province like any other. It is egypt that is wierd. Why is
> egypt+suez unlike const? Well, to permit a convoy through the suez for
> one thing. Can't do a convoy through const.

Then why not just say "a fleet in Suez can convoy" instead of all
the weirdness about armies going straight from Jordan to Egypt.
Just asking (it makes for some interesting strategies to be sure,
but I'm just interested in the history and the "why")
>
> > 4.  This is probably the strangest question.  Why is Caspian Sea impassable?
>
> Don't know that one. Maybe because it is in the original game.
>
> > True enough, anyone who would put a fleet on the Caspian would be
> > kinda dim, but it would allow for interesting retreats and would allow
> > a fleet in Sevastapol to touch Iran, not to mention giving Omsk two
> > coasts and making a fleet built in Moscow possible!!
>
> Are you the same person who asked question number 2? :-)
>
> George

Touche!  :-)  But I never said I had anything AGAINST useless
provinces ...

Perhaps a variant on the judge could support Caspian as a
province in the same way that one variant disallows fleet
movement through Omsk.  It wouldn't be too hard, would it?

Tolara

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: TUC Rides Again
To: "Eric S. Klien" <Eric_S_Klien@CUP.PORTAL.COM>

> To add another voice to the cacophony around Unwanted Convoys:  I
> disagree with
> people who regard it as legitimate.

Well, under the 1971 rulebook (and many of the subsequent ones) it is, of
course, legitimate.  It is only "illegal" if you use one of the North
American rulebooks which specifies that convoys must always specify a
route.

> What is important to remember is that
> Diplomacy is basically a board wargame set in a political (diplomatic)
> context.
> Thus I believe we should keep some kind of realism to the tactics.  It is
> unreasonable to suppose that WWI soldiers would have jumped on enemy boats
> when they had assumed they were driving to the next province.

Realism?  Realism?!  REALISM!!  WWI provides an abstract setting for the
diplomacy mechanism.  Realism goes as far as the names of the 7 powers,
and ends about there.

> While Diplomacy does bend historical reality with the amount of stabbing etc.
> which can occur, this is strategic and depends entirely on the players.
> Permitting something like an unwanted convoy is a different beast altogether.

Why?  If we are going to disallow a *legitimate* tactical ploy
(which occurs about once every 1000 or so games...) because we don't like
the realism why don't we change the movement rules?

Jamie!  It's a good think the new rulebook (with the new convoy rule)
outlaws the UWC.  Just think of the fun for something like this:

FRANCE : F(ENC) CEA(Pic)-Bel, F(Bel) SF(Hol)-NTH
ENGLAND: A(Pic)-Bel, F(NTH)H

If the UWC was allowed the supported attack into NTH would go ahead!
(Even more elaborate and phun examples can be devised!)

mark

From: Jamie <PL436000%BROWNVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: TUC Rides Again

Oooooooh.

Jamie
(is that what you wanted me to say, Mark?)

From: DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
Subject: UWC cont'd

>Well, under the 1971 rulebook (and many of the subsequent ones) it is, of
>course, legitimate.  It is only "illegal" if you use one of the North
>American rulebooks which specifies that convoys must always specify a
>route.

I use the '71 (actually '76, but what the hell) rulebook.  I think in all
likelyhood, the UWC is allowed because it wasn't anticipated.  The fact that
this has been corrected in later rulebooks is significant (even if they had
other problems themselves)

>   Realism?  Realism?!  REALISM!!  WWI provides an abstract setting for the
>diplomacy mechanism.  Realism goes as far as the names of the 7 powers,
>and ends about there.

Yes, realism.  If it is only a background for the diplomatic mechanism, why
even bother with the names of the powers.  Any, as far as tactics are concerned
, we are either representing armies and fleets, or we are representing some
abstract and undefined concept.  I believe they have been called armies and
fleets in every rulebook which has been published.  (Or should I be saying this
to the designer of two `downfall' variants) 8-)

>   Why?  If we are going to disallow a *legitimate* tactical ploy
>(which occurs about once every 1000 or so games...) because we don't like
>the realism why don't we change the movement rules?

What makes the UWC legitimate?  The rules.  I believe the rules were imperfect
on this point, just as it is widely held that the `patches' to fix the PP are
imperfect.  And what are any houserules anyway but modifications to the AH
rules?

-Hal

From: amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject: TUW (the last word! ....well maybe.)

Hal> I use the '71 (actually '76, but what the hell) rulebook.  I think in all
Hal> likelyhood, the UWC is allowed because it wasn't anticipated.
Hal> The fact that
Hal> this has been corrected in later rulebooks is significant (even if they had
Hal> other problems themselves)

Unfortunately I have to agree.  Sinced the revised rulebook hasn't been issued
in the UK (the UK distributors are Gibson's) I'll stick to my nice 71
rulebook.  (Sounds like a wine-tasting, the 71 is more refined, the 87 a
rough number etc)

>   Realism?  Realism?!  REALISM!!  WWI provides an abstract setting for the
>diplomacy mechanism.  Realism goes as far as the names of the 7 powers,
>and ends about there.

Hal> Yes, realism.  If it is only a background for the diplomatic mechanism, why
Hal> even bother with the names of the powers.

Cause it sells better.

Hal> What makes the UWC legitimate?  The rules.  I believe the rules were
Hal> imperfect
Hal> on this point, just as it is widely held that the `patches' to fix the
Hal> PP are
Hal> imperfect.  And what are any houserules anyway but modifications to the AH
Hal> rules?

Now there is a school of thought (not a very large one) that claims
that postal/email games are variants because there is more than 15 minutes
between deadlines...

A more serious school of thought is that all games played to the
American style of separating seasons are variants because they allow
diplomacy to occur after the Autumn adjutication about the Winter
adjustments.  Whilst I sometimes claim that all such games are variants,
in actuality we have to recognise that these are modifications
to adapt diplomacy to postal play.  (I still prefer the International system
of combining seasons, but then I am used to it.)

Mark

Publisher comments:

Quote is from p. 83 of Days of Atonement by Walter Jon Williams.

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.
******************************************************************************

References

Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter One Issue 278
Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Thu, 01 Oct 1992 19:36:02 +0000