Re: Diplomacy rules question

From: ender2@husc10.harvard.edu (Matt Ender)

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1992 04:09:22 +0000

In article <1992Feb24.183356.29583@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>
> I have been only playing Diplomacy for a short time, and a
>position has arisen which the rules are unclear about.
>
>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 ]
>
>Obviously the attack on Sweden succeeds.

Right.

>  Russia is mounting a force 3 attack on Norway.  According
>to the rules a unit cannot cut the support of an attack on
>itself (this is stated clearly).

Actually, the rules say:  any attack from a province other than the
one to which the unit is supporting (ie from Nor when Swe S Fin-Nor
cuts support.  Also, any attack that manages to dislodge the unit cuts
support, regardless of where it came from.

>So the force 3 attack
>should still be force 3 and Russia should gain Norway,

Nope, the force 3 loses the Swedish support (as Swe was dislodged) and
Norway gets bounces.

>overcoming England's force 2 attack.  However one of the
>examples given in the rules simply contradicts this.  It
>appears that the (implicit) rule being used is that if an
>attack succeeds then support is cut even if it is support
>for an attack against that unit.  If the attack against
>Sweden fails then the support isn't cut.  Doesn't it
>contradict the idea that superior force always wins (since
>now a unit may cut the support of an attack against itself)?

The idea is that if attacked from somewhere else, or attacked so
forcefully as to be expelled from the province, the Swedish
(supporting) unit is a bit too busy to assist the planned assault (on
Norway).

>  Doesn't it also contradict the idea that moves are
>simultaneous?  You now cannot decide which attacks work
>after calculating support/cutting support, as whether
>support exists may depend on whether an attack succeeds.

Not really; as above.

>   Toby.
>--
>Toby Kelsey
>School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
>University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

-- Matt

References

Diplomacy rules question
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Mon, 24 Feb 1992 18:33:56 +0000