Diplomacy zine -- More rule change stuff

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Wed, 10 May 1989 23:50:53 +0000

Issue #61 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

Summer '06 of the game PANZER (BNC number 1989H)

Nothing happened, but here is some press anyway

_________________
        The Daily Ottoman
        -----------------

"May a thousand baby snails hatch in his nostrils."  So said
the enlightened Emperor Arrah in response to the latest French diplomatic
'initiative' made by an anonymous source in the French hierarchy over
the weekend.  "Probably the king's mother-in-law," guessed the Imperial
Press Secretary Adrian Attik.

Meanwhile, the fierce fighting on the Western front continues
as Cmdr. Ruhm A. Neeyuh and his brother and chief advisor Halbay
of the 2nd Army in Serbia have promised to liberate the suffering
citizens of Trieste "sometime in the near future."  Reports from that
city indicate that sales of insect repellent have tripled since the
French occupation began.

Autumn '02 of the game MAELSTROM (BNC number 1989AA)

Austria disbanded GRE.
Russia disbands SER

Winter '02 of the game MAELSTROM (BNC number 1989AA)

England builds A LON
Germany builds A MUN
Italy builds A VEN, F ROM
Russia disbands F GOB
Turkey builds F SMY
Albania disbands A ALB

Press:

The right way to handle this depends on circumstances.

Spring '03 of the game RED STORM (BNC number 1989AB)
(GM is MaryFW@cup.portal.com)

Due next Sunday, both standies thought the deadline was next Sunday
so we will give them some more negotiating time.

Summer '03 of the game PEARL HARBOR (BNC number not known)
(GM is Adams@multiflow.com/Steve Adams)

==============================================================================

Retreats :

RUSSIA  :  Retreat F Armenia to Black Sea

==============================================================================
Unit Locations :
   AUSTRIA : A Vienna, A Budapest, A Serbia
   ENGLAND : F North Atlantic, F English Channel, F North Sea, F Norway,
             A Sweden, F St. Petersburg
   FRANCE  : F Spain(sc), A Brest, A Paris, A Burgandy, A Picardy
   GERMANY : F Denmark, A Belgium, A Ruhr, A Munich, A Silesia,
             A Piedmont
   ITALY   : A Bohemia, A Trieste, A Venice, F Adriatic, F Ionian
   RUSSIA  : F Skagarak, A Ukraine, A Bulgaria, F Ankara, F Black Sea
   TURKEY  : A Greece, F Aegean, A Smyrna, F Armenia

==============================================================================

Fall 1903 moves are due Sunday, May 14, at 10PM EDT.   Happy Diplomacy!

-Steve (gm)

Summer '02 of D-DAY (BNC number not known)
(GM is MaryFW@Cup.portal.com)

Turkey disbanded BLA.

Spring '01 of NAVARONE (BNC number not known)
(GM is Pwoodruf@orion.cf.uci.edu)

RUSSIA:

F StP-Bot
F Sev-Rum
A Mos-Ukr
A War-Gal

TURKEY:

A Con-Bul
A Smy Holds
F Ank-Con

AUSTRIA

F Tri-Alb
A Vie-Tri
A Bud-Ser

ITALY

F Nap-Ion
A Ven-Tyr
A Rom-Ven

FRANCE

F Bre-Mid
A Par-Bur
A Mar S Par-Bur

ENGLAND

F Edi-Nwg
F Lon-Nth
A Liv-Yor

GERMANY

F Kie-Den
A Ber-Kie
A Mun-Ruh

Final Positions

Austria: A Tri, A Ser, F Alb
England: F Nwg, F Nth, A Yor
France:  A Mar, A Bur, F Mid
Germany: F Den, A Kie, A Ruh
Italy:   F Ion, A Tyr, A Ven
Russia:  F Bot, A Ukr, A Gal, F Rum
Turkey:  A Bul, F Con, A Smy

PRESS:

AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION MARRED BY POSTAL STRIKE

Vienna (AP) - In a surprise move this week, the current king of
Austria-Hungary stepped down, offering the throne to a relatively unknown
relative, Franz Vick. Citing mental fatigue and overwork, the former king told
a multitude of citizens that he was "going someplace safe - like America.
Things are just getting too dangerous here." The monarch also said that he
might consider returning to Europe if offered the English monarchy instead.
     Immediately following his coronation, Emperor Vick announced a complete
reorganization of the Austrian monarchy. "Two crowns? Too much trouble to keep
up with. Let's just make it one and call it even.", he told reporters at a
press conference in the new royal condo. "Personally, I think the previous
Austrian kings just didn't know how to have a good time. From now on, Austria-
Hungary will become known as the country with the best sense of humor. Even if
we get pounded on by everybody else."
     Trouble quickly broke out, however, as the postal workers of Austria-
Hungary declared a strike, citing "insufficient funds" as their principle
grievance. "I don't know what the problem is," Emperor Vick replied, "our
records show that their paychecks were mailed to them a month ago. If it hasn't
reached them, that's their problem, not ours." As of today, all incoming mail
service from Europe has resumed, although there are still disruptions in
outgoing mail from the capital.

******************************************
Pete's Points:
        All very peaceful so far, but there's trouble brewing in the Balkans.
We were delayed a bit this time because a message sent at noon on Sunday didn't
get to me 'til 9:00 am Monday.  Let's aim for Saturday night if possible, to
give me some slack. The official deadline for Fall '01 remains 10 pm EDT,
Sunday, May 14, 1989.  Please submit press as the spirit moves you; thanks to
King Franz the 1st of the house of Vick for the above.

GM comments:

I am now using a mailing list to directly mail this zine to all
players, let me know if you are not getting it directly!

I would like some old copies of the rulebook.  I only have the '82
edition.  If anyone can send me xeroxes of old copies, I would be
much obliged.

Maryfw@cup.portal.com is now an archiver just as
john_e_murray@cup.portal.com, and bruce_eric_bowers@cup.portal.com
are.

There have been some great comments about the rules change.  Here
they are:

From Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu:

In article <17824@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup writes:
>Rule XII.5 says the following:  "A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT CUT
>CERTAIN SUPPORTS.  If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is
>supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water
>contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut."

This seems highly bogus to me.  The whole idea of cutting support is
that the supporting unit has to "turn and face its attacker."  Hence
you do not cut support for an attack into your own province.  It is
irrelevant whether support is given into a body of water; the fleet
must still beat off the attacking marines.

In any game that I run, the convoyed attack will cut the support.

From yaj@wdl1.uucp:

That's a good one.  I'll have to remember that in the back of my mind,
just like the backstab where you agree to support English F Nth-Bel
but instead order A Hol S French F Nth-Bel.....

-Yaj
"the evil"

From steveb@ihlpy.att.com:

In article <59207@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu (Charles M>
>In article <17824@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup writes:
>>Rule XII.5 says the following:  "A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT CUT
>>CERTAIN SUPPORTS.  If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is
>>supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water
>>contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut."

>This seems highly bogus to me.  The whole idea of cutting support is
>that the supporting unit has to "turn and face its attacker."  Hence
>you do not cut support for an attack into your own province.  It is
>irrelevant whether support is given into a body of water; the fleet
>must still beat off the attacking marines.

Ummmmmm... not quite.  See below.

The wording of Rule XII.5 that Eric quoted above is presumably
from an Avalon Hill version of "Diplomacy".  I do not own the AH
product and so cannot verify this.  The rules governing the
conduct of any game should be specifically noted prior to play.
In the case of a play-by-(E)mail game the particular rules to be
used is best left to the discretion of the Game Master.  In view
of this, it should be noted that there exist subtle differences
in rule wording among the various versions of "Diplomacy"
marketed over the history of the game.  These differences can
and do lead to distinct changes in the circumstances under which
a rule may apply.  This appears to be the case here.

Avalon Hill apparently chose to reword Rule XII.5 for some
unknown reason, and in the process wound up allowing what was
specifically disallowed in versions of "Diplomacy" available
prior to AH's purchase of the game.  This rewrite does more to
obscure what is being talked about in this rule and opens the
situation up again to the argument that the rule was originally
intended to settle.  The following is Rule XII.5 as worded in the
version of "Diplomacy" I own, published by Games Research Inc.
and copyright 1971:

"5. A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT PROTECT THE CONVOYING FLEETS.  If
  a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet
  which is attacking one of the convoying fleets, that support is
  not cut.

"Example 13.  FRANCE: A Spa-Nap, F Lyo C A Spa-Nap, F Tyr C A
  Spa-Nap;  ITALY: F Ion-Tyr, F Nap S F Ion-Tyr.  Without this
  rule, France could argue that the army cut the support of the
  fleet in Naples, thus protecting the convoying fleet from
  dislodgement, while Italy could argue that dislodgement of the
  fleet disrupted the convoy so that the army could not arrive at
  Naples to cut the support."

Clearly, this rule has to do with interdiction *at sea*.  The
correct result of example 13 above is the disruption of the
convoy by the dislodgement of the French fleet in the Tyrrhenian
Sea by the Italian attack from the Ionian Sea with support from
the Italian fleet in Naples.  The rule also limits the support
*not* cut to that given to a *fleet* which is attacking one of the
steps the convoyed army must pass through in order to attack the
*supporting* fleet.  Any OTHER attack against the supporting
fleet WILL cut its support.

Unfortunately, the rule as Avalon Hill revised it can now apply
to the support given to a wholly unrelated convoying action,
i.e. one not involving an attack upon a fleet convoying the army
that is attacking it, but allowing the fleet's support of a
second convoy to another destination stand uncut in spite of the
attack upon itself.  To allow such an occurrance is insane.

From ordania-dm@cup.portal.com:

-----------------------------
In article <17824@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup writes:
>Rule XII.5 says the following:  "A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT CUT
>CERTAIN SUPPORTS.  If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is
>supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water
>contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut."

In any game that I run, the convoyed attack will cut the support.

Charles
-----------------------------

Highly bogus or not, it is a rule of diplomacy.  It should be amended but
until it is, you should make sure everyone who plays in a game you run knows
that you have made the change.
  Can we call it "Ord's obfuscation"? :)

From pwoodruf@orion.cf.uci.edu:

In article <12661@ihlpy.ATT.COM> steveb@ihlpy.UUCP (S.R. Bodenstab) writes:
>In article <59207@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu (Charles >
>>In article <17824@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup writes:
>>>Rule XII.5 says the following:  "A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT CUT
>>>CERTAIN SUPPORTS.  If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is
>>>supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water
>>>contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut."
[Martin's objections]
[Bodenstab adds his objections and says:]
>The following is Rule XII.5 as worded in the version of "Diplomacy" I own,
>published by Games Research Inc. and copyright 1971:
>
>  "5. A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT PROTECT THE CONVOYING FLEETS.  If
>  a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet
>  which is attacking one of the convoying fleets, that support is
>  not cut.
[More Bodenstab stuff]

The 1976 A-H rules reproduce exactly the wording of 1971.  Klien informed me
in correspondence that he uses the 1981 rules.  My guess is that somebody
figured the revision makes the game more "realistic" [it may also simply have
been a botched attempt at clarification].  The basis for the claim of realism
would be that an army could not really interfere with a fleet that was at sea
(hence the "supporting an action in a body of water" clause).  But this is
clearly misguided.  Dippy was not intended to be realistic, and any attempt to
make it so is a slippery slope.  For instance, one could with equal justifica-
tion argue that a fleet in Wes could not affect a fleet on Spa(NC), and hence
should not be able to cut the latter's support of an action in Mid.  Leave a
classic alone, says I.  I use the 1976 rules in my games.

From jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk:

In article <17824@cup.portal.com> Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
>Rule XII.5 says the following:  "A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT CUT
>CERTAIN SUPPORTS.  If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is
>supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water
>contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut."

Well, in *my* version of the rules, XII.5 is the one saying
"A CONVOYED ATTACK DOES NOT PROTECT THE CONVOYING FLEETS.  If a
convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which
is attacking one of the convoying fleets, that support is not
cut." This rule is necessary because it's the only case in which
the other rules could be applied with more than one result.
With this version, the quiz question proceeds as everyone expected.

I suspect that the other version was *intended* to mean
this, but is ambiguous.  The last occurrence of "convoying
fleet" should be "fleet convoying the attacking army".  Do I
have a newer version, which clears up the ambiguity?

--Jamie.

From ricochet@cup.portal.com:

The new rule seems pretty ridiculous.  Why did Avalon Hill change it?
Maybe they changed it to resolve Pandin's Paradox.  Below is an example
of Pandin's Paradox from the Gamer's Guide to Diplomacy:

England:  A Wal-Bel, F Eng C A Wal-Bel, F Lon S F Eng
France:   F Bre-Eng, F Mid S F Bre-Eng
Germany:  F Hol-Nth, F Bel S F Hol-Nth
Russia:   A Nwy-Lon, F Nth C A Nwy-Lon

The paradox is that if either convoy succeeds, then the convoying fleet
becomes dislodged meaning the convoy actually fails.  The Gamer's Guide
explains that most GMs rule this situation as a standoff.  But under the
new rule, neither convoy cuts support because they are both attacking fleets
which are supporting actions in bodies of water containing convoying fleets.
This means that the example above would no longer be ruled as a standoff,
but instead the German move Hol-Nth would succeed and the Russian fleet
would be dislodged.

From carroll@odin.ucsd.edu:

In the various replies I've seen, I don't think anyone has mentioned
why the rule exists (and indeed makes sense).  Say two fleets D & E
along a coast are teaming up to dislodge an adjacent fleet C which is at
sea, and the victim fleet C has no adjacent fleets to support it
in place.  If the two coastal fleets D & E have no enemies *adjacent*
to them, there should be no way to thwart the dislodging of the
lone fleet C.  But wait! If C was adjacent to some army A on another
continent, convoying A toward D or E has a 50% chance of preventing
C's dislodgement if Rule XII.5 is not followed.

Were C to attack D or E, it would run the risk of being dislodged if D & E
attempt to displace it; the intent of Rule XII.5 is to ensure thattzat C
runs the same risk if it undertakes the even more tenuous task of convoying.

I don't suppose any argument can convince everyone that one scheme is better
than the other, but I hope the above discussion illustrates how some people
might passionately regard the absense of Rule XII.5 as highly bogus, too.
Variants of "pure" diplomacy can be great things, as long as the new rules
are clearly outlined; small changes like this hardly seem worth the overhead,
though.

Taken from Diplomacy Digest #112:

MY FINEST HOURS
By Mark L. Berch

Some of the time, in the wheeling and dealing of postal Diplomacy,
things go right for you.  Some of the time they go sadly wrong.  On
very rare occasions you manage to pull off a coup which is either
daring, imaginative, complex, or so unexpected that the memory of it
stays with you over the years.  In my fifteen or so postal games I
can recall but a handful of such events where fate smiled kindly on
me but each one is memorable for different reasons.  This will, I
hope, be the first article on each of these events.  If you are
interested in the strategy and tactics of Diplomacy then I would
advise you to get out the board and set it up to follow the play --
if you are not then I suggest you turn the page.

This first episode concerns the events of just one season.  This was
Autumn 1903 and it proved to be the crucial point of the whole game.
The game was 76AL (Godot) run in the now defunct BRUCE by the still
very active Paul Simpkins.  The situation after Spring 1903 was as
follows:

Austria (Paul Willis) F(Gre) (1 centre-Gre)
England (John Blakesmith) F(Den), F(Hel), F(Hol), F(Nth), A(Lon),
        A(Yor) (6 centres - Lon, Lpl, Edi, Nor, Hol, Den)
France  (John Hicks) F(Bel), A(Bur), A(Par), A(Gas), F(Mao) (5
        centres - Bre, Par, Mar, Spa, Por)
Germany (Steve Scarlett) A(Kie), A(Ruh) (4 centres - Ber, Kie, Mun,
        Bel)
Italy   (Robert Sturges) A(Ven), A(Ser), A(Alb), F(Ion), F(Aeg),
        F(Eme) (6 centres - Rom, Nap, Ven, Tun, Tri, Ser)
Russia  (Myself) A(Nor), F(Swe), A(War), A(Gal), A(Bud), A(Ukr),
        A(Rum), F(Sev) (8 centres - Stp, Mos, War, Sev, Swe, Rum,
        Bud, Vie)
Turkey  (Peter Kaufmann) A(Bul), A(Con), F(Bla) (4 centres - Con,
        Ank, Smy, Bul)

In order to appreciate the diplomacy of this vital season and the
subsequent moves it is necessary to outline how the game had
developed.  My Russia was on a healthy 8 units, I had a very good
alliance with Italy -- a very good allinace indeed.  With Turkey's
help we had smashed Austria down to one unit by A02 and in that same
season launched a joint attack on Turkey.  The south appeared
straightforward for me as long as the Italian alliance held, and I
believed it would hold for a while yet as Italy had much to gain.  In
turn, Italy had a strong non-aggression pact with France and they had
both kept to the letter of their agreement.

France was a strange player -- not the kind of person I am endeared
to in this hobby and I felt I could hope for little or no cooperation
from him.  A typical personality clash.  England and France had
agreed to attack Germany and had been fairly successful in this.
Spring 1903 had seen England supporting a French fleet into Bel and
so they were working fairly well together.  England was a very sound
player and we had exchanged many long letters and I had wrung an
agreement out of him whereby he let me have Nor in 1903 for
assistance for him against Germany.  Hence my A(Nor) which had moved
there in S03.  Germany was totally incompetent and he can best be
summed up by quoting from a letter he sent me ONE DAY after the game
lineup.  "France and Italy will be fighting it out, I've seen to
that."  I repeat, ONE DAY!  I had humoured him -- non-agression
pacts, promise of support against English and French attacks etc --
and it had allowed me to get established in Scandinavia.  He had not
surprisingly NMR'd in Spring 1903.

Although my position at this time was healthy, I had a problem.  As
long as I continued by alliance with Italy, France and England must
stick together and they would take Germany between them.  My
prospects for gains in the north would be almost nil and I would be
having to fend them off.  Once Turkey was eliminated, Italy would not
be in a position to attack France and I could find myself fighting
him as well.  This I didn't want.  My aims were to continue the
Italian alliance and push on in the north against first England, and
then Germany.  But how to do it?

From the placing of the units it was obvious that England was going
to attack Kie to offset the arranged lost of Nor.  France was already
sitting in German Bel from where Germany could not disloge him.  In
addition, France could take Mun if all went well (or if Germany NMR'd
again!).  As I didn't want to attack Italy I HAD to do something to
ensure that I could advance in the north THAT SEASON.  Next year
would be too late as they would be too well established.

My first move was to ring directory enquiries.  Hooray -- Steve
Scarlett was on the 'phone!  Our letters had not exactly been
numerous and for this season I knew a letter would not suffice.
Having contacted him I soon realized that his NMR was the result of
disinterest so I tried to jolly him up.  It's a great hobby -- we're
not dead yet -- you can figure in a multi-player draw, and so on.
Having got his interest up a little, I suggested he order A(Kie)-Mun
to stand off possible French attacks on Mun, and A(Ruh)-Hol to cut
English support for an attack on Kie.  If I in turn ordered to Den it
was possible that Kie would be retained and that Germany could
retrain his home centres and get a build.  (He had lost two units the
previous Spring).  In addition I agreed to send units to Pru and Sil
to help him defend in 1904!  Germany believed that my move to Nor was
a stab on England and not pre-arranged.  So far so good.

Then came a long letter from England.  He was worried about my rapid
build up, but more worried about the French fleet in MAO.  He knew
France had a good alliance with Italy and so was a little wary of a
French stab.  As expected he said he intended taking Kie.  My reply
was that he should take Kie from Hel supported by Den.  I confirmed
that Italy had a good alliance with France and I suspected a stab.
Why then didn't he get in first with A(Lon)-Bel via Nth and supported
by F(Hol)?  He could then build F(Lon), polish off Germany at his
leisure as Germany dropped out (heh heh) while taking on Frnace,
while I stabbed Italy!

The next communication was one from France.  Although it sounded odd
in view of our failure to get on well previously, his proposals were
interesting.  He wanted to keep his Italian alliance and if I were to
attack Den he would order to Ech.  I believed the part about keeping
friendly with Italy but was not too sure about the rest.  However, I
replied in agreement and suggested he order A(Bur)-Mun also as
Germany looked like he was dropping out.  (Heh heh heh).  It was all
falling into place!

Then Italy wrote.  Our campaign against Turkey was being conducted by
Telephone but the reason for his letter was to send me a photocopy of
a letter he had received from France.  It was clearly genuine and
proposed an English/French/Italian attack on myself.  Before I had a
chance to reply I had another letter from England which enclosed a
letter he had received from France!  Both of these letters forwarded
to me were almost identical.  England, however, could not see the
French proposals coming about.  This was mainly because he was
convinced that France would not move against Italy so the F(Mao)
would go in his direction.  I replied saying that France had asked
for my help in attacking England and suggested he took Bel while he
could, in addition to Kie.

A final letter (and a prayer) to Germany to keep to the moves we had
agreedand it was time to submit orders.  The result of the season
was:

A: (F Gre-H) (Disbanding)
E: (F Hel-Kie) (F Den SF Hel-Kie), (A Lon-Bel), F Nth CA Lon-Bel
   (F Hol SA Lon-Bel), A Yor-H
F: (A Bur-Mun), A Par-Pic, (A Gas-Bur), F Mao-Ech, (F Bel SF Mao-Ech)
G: (A Ruh-Hol), (A Kie-Mun)
I:  F Aeg and A Ser SA RUSSIAN Rum-Bul, F Eme-Smy, A Alb-Gre
    F Ion SA Alb-Gre, A Ven-Pie!
R: (F Sev-Bla), A Rum-Bul, A Ukr-Rum, A Bud-Vie, A Gal-Sil, A War-Pru
   (F Swe-Den), A Nor-H
T:  NMR A Con, F Bla, (A Bul) disbands

I built F Stp(sc), A Mos, Germany built A Mun, France built A Par.
England didn't even bother ordering a disbandment so the GM removed F
Hel.

The rest of the game was easy.  England and France were never able to
patch up their differences, and France even forced his way into Nth.
I was able to take out Germany quite comfortably as he dropped out in
1905.  I could have won by grinding along in the north against
England and France but I couldn't resist stabbing Italy as he turned
away to attack France later in the game.  I still feel a pang of
conscience about the stab on Italy although I would have won without
it and Italy still finished second.

However, it was that Autumn 1903 season that was the real crunch.
Every move went as I hoped, as I planned, and as I arranged.  Sheer
poetry!

I am enjoying moderating this zine, keep that mail coming!

Eric Klien