LVN S StP/NC

David E. Cohen wrote:
> Yes, your order is valid. Support may be given to a fleet in a province to
> which the supporting fleet may move, whether or not the supporting fleet may
> move to the particular coast where the supported fleet is located.
That is your inference from the rules? If it is a quote from some
rulebook I would be interested in the source.
Oskar
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

Oskar wrote:
> David E. Cohen wrote:
> > Yes, your order is valid. Support may be given to a fleet in a province to
> > which the supporting fleet may move, whether or not the supporting fleet may
> > move to the particular coast where the supported fleet is located.
> That is your inference from the rules? If it is a quote from some
> rulebook I would be interested in the source.
> Oskar

The current rulebook
(http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf) is very clear
on this. First, in the section "Supporting a Unit" (page 7):

"A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order THAT
ONLY MENTIONS ITS PROVINCE. [emphasis mine] A unit that is ordered to
hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in
holding its position."

Earlier on the same page, under "How to Support", it says:

"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which
the supporting unit could have legally moved during that turn."

The rules here include only the word "province" and say nothing about
coastlines. Since a fleet in Lvn can legally move to the province of
Stp, it can legally support any action in or into Stp, regardless of
coastline. The reverse, however, would not be true; a fleet in Stp/NC
can't support an action in or into Lvn, since a fleet can't move from
Stp/NC to Lvn.

Regards,
Martin
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

Thanks for the explanations. I think it will do as an explanation to
hand on. (Especially since that kind of support is not ruled out
anywhere.)

However, "very clear" is something different.

Martin Moore wrote:
>
> The current rulebook
> (http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf) is very clear
> on this. First, in the section "Supporting a Unit" (page 7):
>
> "A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order THAT
> ONLY MENTIONS ITS PROVINCE. [emphasis mine] A unit that is ordered to
> hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in
> holding its position."

That could be just a technical point. Since there can only be one unit
in that province it is not necessary to include the coast in the
support order.

> Earlier on the same page, under "How to Support", it says:
>
> "The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which
> the supporting unit could have legally moved during that turn."

This can be interpreted as a neccessary condition (being able to move
to the province) but might not be sufficient.

Anyway. I think the argument is settled. Thanks again.

Oskar von dem Hagen
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

You bring up a valid point. There is an problem (one of about 20 or so) in
the rules. The rules state that an order to support a moving unit must
"match" the move which is attempted. So, if Player A orders F MAO-Spa(sc)
and Player B orders A Mar-Supports F MAO-Spa(nc), do they "match"? Some say
yes, some say no.



"Oskar" <garbage.RemoveThis@vondemhagen.de> wrote in message
news:1154859411.232759.302320@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the explanations. I think it will do as an explanation to
> hand on. (Especially since that kind of support is not ruled out
> anywhere.)
>
> However, "very clear" is something different.
>
> Martin Moore wrote:
>>
>> The current rulebook
>> (http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf) is very clear
>> on this. First, in the section "Supporting a Unit" (page 7):
>>
>> "A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order THAT
>> ONLY MENTIONS ITS PROVINCE. [emphasis mine] A unit that is ordered to
>> hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in
>> holding its position."
>
> That could be just a technical point. Since there can only be one unit
> in that province it is not necessary to include the coast in the
> support order.
>
>> Earlier on the same page, under "How to Support", it says:
>>
>> "The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which
>> the supporting unit could have legally moved during that turn."
>
> This can be interpreted as a neccessary condition (being able to move
> to the province) but might not be sufficient.
>
> Anyway. I think the argument is settled. Thanks again.
>
> Oskar von dem Hagen
>
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

> RealPolitik is indeed inaccurate in some unusual cases. One of them is:
>
> Austria:
> A BUD-GAL
> A VIE S A BUD-GAL
>
> Russia:
> A UKR-GAL
> A WAR S A UKR-GAL
>
> Turkey:
> A RUM-BUD
> A GAL S RUM-BUD
>
> RealPolitik has all the moves bounce, but my interpretation is that the
> Turkish move should succeed. Incidentally, this scenario is not on the DATC
> website.

I believe that RealPolitik is correct and everything bounces. Gal's
support for Rum-Bud is not cut by the Austrian Bud-Gal -- but it *is*
cut by the Russian Ukr-Gal.

Martin
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

Oskar wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations. I think it will do as an explanation to
> hand on. (Especially since that kind of support is not ruled out
> anywhere.)
>
> However, "very clear" is something different.

Judge play is very bizarre in this regard. You can't issue F LVN S BAR -
STP/NC or F GAS S POR - SPA/SC, but you can order F LVN S STP and F GAS
S SPA even if you are supporting a fleet in the coast to which you are
unable to move your own fleet or support movement. The judge maintenance
list has a surprising number of people who defend this behavior, based
on rule sets published in the early 80's, but the only thing clear from
the 2000 rules is that an intent to clarify the situation backfired.

From what I found when I mistaken embroiled myself in that
discussion... Edi had a very exacting wording of the rule, Allen
Calhammer wanted it to be a little less "legal" sounding (my word), a
committee worked out the difference. Committees being committees, they
predictably managed to keep what little was wrong in each proposal. Page
7 is the result.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

"Martin Moore" <mooremar.RemoveThis@gmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:1154896388.512782.193490@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> RealPolitik is indeed inaccurate in some unusual cases. One of them is:
>>
>> Austria:
>> A BUD-GAL
>> A VIE S A BUD-GAL
>>
>> Russia:
>> A UKR-GAL
>> A WAR S A UKR-GAL
>>
>> Turkey:
>> A RUM-BUD
>> A GAL S RUM-BUD
>>
>> RealPolitik has all the moves bounce, but my interpretation is that the
>> Turkish move should succeed. Incidentally, this scenario is not on the
>> DATC
>> website.
>
> I believe that RealPolitik is correct and everything bounces. Gal's
> support for Rum-Bud is not cut by the Austrian Bud-Gal -- but it *is*
> cut by the Russian Ukr-Gal.
>
> Martin
>

You're right, thanks for pointing it out! I knew there was a problem, but
remembered incorrectly what it was. Change the Turkish and Russian armies to
be of the same nationality to replicate the problem.
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

"Oskar" wrote:
>I am pretty certain that a fleet in LVN can support a fleet in StP/NC
> in defence. However, I have not been able to locate one (or more)
> phrases in the rule book that prove this.
>
> The closest I came was: "F LVN S BAR-STP" is allowed.
>
> Could anyone help?
In the 1982 rules and older it is explicit allowed. In the 2000 rules it
is a little bit more obscure. Page 3 of 1982 rules:

....
A fleet which may move to one of these provinces may "support" an
action in that province without regard to the separation of the coastline.
Thus, because a fleet in Marseille may move to Spain, althought only
the south coast, it may nevertheless support an action anywhere in Spain,
even if that action is an order to a fleet to move to, or to hold in
Spain (north coast).
....

This has never been disputed, however, it is disputed whether the support
order should contain the coast specified. In the 2000 rules it is on page 7,
but with a wrong example (a fleet in Mid Atlantic can move to both
coasts).

For all disputed items I refer to my DATC:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/

For each disputed item, a summary of discussion is added and my own
preference.
You can use it as basis of your houserules. Where you don't like the
preference,
you can use your own rule.

JDip, DipTool and PalmPolitik have a very accurate adjudiactor. RealPolitik
is also good, but may have some different ruling in theoratical situations.

Regards,

Lucas
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

"Lucas Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk DeleteThis @inter.nl.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:44d62d65$0$15869$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net...
> For all disputed items I refer to my DATC:
>
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/
>
> For each disputed item, a summary of discussion is added and my own
> preference.
> You can use it as basis of your houserules. Where you don't like the
> preference,
> you can use your own rule.
>
> JDip, DipTool and PalmPolitik have a very accurate adjudiactor.
> RealPolitik
> is also good, but may have some different ruling in theoratical
> situations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucas
>

RealPolitik is indeed inaccurate in some unusual cases. One of them is:

Austria:
A BUD-GAL
A VIE S A BUD-GAL

Russia:
A UKR-GAL
A WAR S A UKR-GAL

Turkey:
A RUM-BUD
A GAL S RUM-BUD

RealPolitik has all the moves bounce, but my interpretation is that the
Turkish move should succeed. Incidentally, this scenario is not on the DATC
website.
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

Chris B wrote:

> Judge play is very bizarre in this regard. You can't issue F LVN S BAR -
> STP/NC or F GAS S POR - SPA/SC,

Yes, you can, and they will be valid.

Tomas Ahlstrand
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

I recently recruited 6 friends who never have played Diplomacy (or
played it so many decades ago they forgot how) and had to explain all
the rules to them. There was quite a bit of confusion over the coastal
areas in STP, BUL, and SPA and the associated support, etc.

The best that I could come up with is to simply consider the province
name as the only thing that matters. BAL-STP, MAO-SPA, BLA-BUL, etc.
Now, physically/geographically, there are two coasts in the provinces
and you can't do magic like F1902:BLA-BUL/S1903BUL-AEG. Thus you must
designate the coastal landings.

But as far as support for and by, just look at the province name,
ESPECIALLy when recieving support. Hence LVN S XXX-STP, no matter what
province XXX is. Of course, you do have to consider the coastal
locations when you are giving support (STP(NC) can't give support to
LVN). But as destinations go, it's all just STP/SPA/BUL from the
perspective of the supporting unit.

Also keep in mind that units do not have to border each other to
provide support (combine forces, so to speak). BOH and BUR and both
support KIE-MUN, even though they are all at opposite compass points.

I think of it this way. In a real world scenario, a single army trying
to defend a territory such as STP would be able to do it against a
single fleet. But if a second fleet attacked the opposite coast or an
army also came to bear, even on the opposite side of the province, it
would split the defenders enough that the attacking fleet/army would be
able to succeed.

As far as judges are concerned, I would expect them to accept A LVN S F
BAR-STP(NC), assuming that A LVn and F BAR are in place. If they
don't, I would suggest that there is a problem with the judge.

Hope that helps.



Chris B wrote:
> Oskar wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanations. I think it will do as an explanation to
> > hand on. (Especially since that kind of support is not ruled out
> > anywhere.)
> >
> > However, "very clear" is something different.
>
> Judge play is very bizarre in this regard. You can't issue F LVN S BAR -
> STP/NC or F GAS S POR - SPA/SC, but you can order F LVN S STP and F GAS
> S SPA even if you are supporting a fleet in the coast to which you are
> unable to move your own fleet or support movement. The judge maintenance
> list has a surprising number of people who defend this behavior, based
> on rule sets published in the early 80's, but the only thing clear from
> the 2000 rules is that an intent to clarify the situation backfired.
>
> From what I found when I mistaken embroiled myself in that
> discussion... Edi had a very exacting wording of the rule, Allen
> Calhammer wanted it to be a little less "legal" sounding (my word), a
> committee worked out the difference. Committees being committees, they
> predictably managed to keep what little was wrong in each proposal. Page
> 7 is the result.
>
> Chris
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

> As far as judges are concerned, I would expect them to accept A LVN S F
> BAR-STP(NC), assuming that A LVn and F BAR are in place. If they
> don't, I would suggest that there is a problem with the judge.

I agree. Computer programs, however, do what they are told to do, not
what you think you told them to do. This specific issue has been
documented for 4 years. It is further complicated by the fact that if
you do not assign a coast for the support then an arbitrary coast will
be assigned to the support and that coast that may result in an illegal
order.

Curiously enough, there are people on the judge-maint list who feel that
the current rules are not clear enough to justify rewriting a section of
code written to conform to an early set of rules. I don't agree with
them, but I don't know enough C to debate the matter in the only way
that matters.

Chris
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC 

* wrote, On 12/31/1969 7:00 PM:
> Oskar wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanations. I think it will do as an explanation to
>> hand on. (Especially since that kind of support is not ruled out
>> anywhere.)
>>
>> However, "very clear" is something different.
>
> Judge play is very bizarre in this regard. You can't issue F LVN S BAR -
> STP/NC or F GAS S POR - SPA/SC, but you can order F LVN S STP and F GAS
> S SPA even if you are supporting a fleet in the coast to which you are
> unable to move your own fleet or support movement. The judge maintenance
> list has a surprising number of people who defend this behavior, based
> on rule sets published in the early 80's, but the only thing clear from
> the 2000 rules is that an intent to clarify the situation backfired.

It says on page 8 of the 2000 rules that "[A unit]
must be next to the province into which it is
giving support, and must be able to legally move
there itself." F Lvn-StP/NC is not a legal move,
so it makes sense that F Lvn cannot support a
move to StP/NC. On page 5, it says, "A Fleet
entering [a bi-coastal province] enters along one
coast and can then move to a province adjacent to
that coast only. The Fleet, nonetheless is
considered to be occupying the entire province.",
so, F Lvn S F StP makes perfect sense, too.

Eric.
--
 >> Stay informed about: LVN S StP/NC