Re: Diplomacy rules question

From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 21:02:28 +0000

In article <1992Feb24.194850.12262@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> chojnows@osiris (Brian Chojnowski) writes:
>chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>
>>Move:
>>(English) Fleet Norway -> Sweden
>>(German) Fleet Denmark s. Fl. Norway -> Sweden
>>(English) Fleet North Sea -> Norway
>>(English) Fleet Norwegian Sea s. Fl. North Sea -> Norway
>>(Russian) Army Finland -> Norway
>>(Russian) Fleet Sweden s. A. Finland -> Norway
>>(Russian) Fleet St. Petersburg (N. Coast) s. A. Finland -> Norway
>>[ s. = supports ]
>
>Norway - Sweden works, sweden is dislodged,
>A support is cut when it is dislodged, so Sweden is unable to support
>Finland to Norway.
>Russia therefore is even with the english move on norway for a bounce, and
>sweden may not retreat there.

Sorry Brian, but this is incorrect.  The determination of support
cutting cannot make reference to dislodgement (the single exception
to this involves convoys which doesn't apply here)

No attack can cut support to a (second) attack on any of the member of the
first attack.  see my other posting for a more detailed analysis.

[conclusion based on the above error deleted]

Mel

References

Diplomacy rules question
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Mon, 24 Feb 1992 18:33:56 +0000
Re: Diplomacy rules question
chojnows@osiris (Brian Chojnowski)
Mon, 24 Feb 1992 19:48:50 +0000

Referenced By

Diplomacy rules question
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Mon, 24 Feb 1992 18:33:56 +0000
Re: Diplomacy rules question
chojnows@osiris (Brian Chojnowski)
Mon, 24 Feb 1992 19:48:50 +0000