Can a disrupted convoy cut support?

[Spinoza]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Another rules question from a relative newbie.

I understand that, when a convoy is disrupted, the army doesn't move. Does
this mean that any support given by a unit in the destination province
remains uncut?

For example:

GERMANY
A Den - Pru
F Bal c Den - Pru

RUSSIA
F Swe s F Gob - Bal
F Gob - Bal
A Pru s A Sil - Ber
A Sil - Ber

Does Sil still attack Ber with support from Pru?
Thanks for your help.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Spinoza" <deus@natu.ra> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c5dp70$9ab$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> Another rules question from a relative newbie.
>
> I understand that, when a convoy is disrupted, the army doesn't move. Does
> this mean that any support given by a unit in the destination province
> remains uncut?
>

Yes. For support to be cut, the army or fleet giving the support must be
attacked.

> For example:
>
> GERMANY
> A Den - Pru
> F Bal c Den - Pru
>
> RUSSIA
> F Swe s F Gob - Bal
> F Gob - Bal
> A Pru s A Sil - Ber
> A Sil - Ber
>
> Does Sil still attack Ber with support from Pru?
> Thanks for your help.
>
>

In this case, the army from Den is not able to move to Pru, as the convoy
has been disrupted. Therefor it cannot cut support given from A Pru, and the
move A Sil-Ber succeeds with support from A Pru.

- Thomas

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I am afraid it is not so straightforward as that. One plausible way of
interpreting the rules (and one which eliminates either all or nearly
all convoy paradoxes) would have certain disrupted convoys cutting
support at their destination provinces.


"Thomas Helvard" <helvard@fdf.dk> wrote in message news:<407a7bcb$0$5943$ba624c82@nntp03.dk.telia.net>...
> "Spinoza" <deus@natu.ra> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:c5dp70$9ab$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
> > Another rules question from a relative newbie.
> >
> > I understand that, when a convoy is disrupted, the army doesn't move. Does
> > this mean that any support given by a unit in the destination province
> > remains uncut?
> >
>
> Yes. For support to be cut, the army or fleet giving the support must be
> attacked.
>
> > For example:
> >
> > GERMANY
> > A Den - Pru
> > F Bal c Den - Pru
> >
> > RUSSIA
> > F Swe s F Gob - Bal
> > F Gob - Bal
> > A Pru s A Sil - Ber
> > A Sil - Ber
> >
> > Does Sil still attack Ber with support from Pru?
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> >
>
> In this case, the army from Den is not able to move to Pru, as the convoy
> has been disrupted. Therefor it cannot cut support given from A Pru, and the
> move A Sil-Ber succeeds with support from A Pru.
>
> - Thomas

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I dont have a rulebook in front of me, but I seem to recall a rule
specifically about an army being convoyed NOT cutting a support against the
convoying fleet. I'm not sure this is really an issue at all.

Furthermore, I think there's a generally accepted rule, albeit maybe not
written, that any set of orders that leads to a paradox results in all
respective units holding.

-Adam

> I am afraid it is not so straightforward as that. One plausible way of
> interpreting the rules (and one which eliminates either all or nearly
> all convoy paradoxes) would have certain disrupted convoys cutting
> support at their destination provinces.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:f08a3e93.0404121013.63a59931@posting.google.com...
> I am afraid it is not so straightforward as that. One plausible way of
> interpreting the rules (and one which eliminates either all or nearly
> all convoy paradoxes) would have certain disrupted convoys cutting
> support at their destination provinces.
To my opinion there is only a small minority that thinks this way.

All adjudicator programs adjudicate that in the example the support
of Pru is not cut. The 2000 rules can be interpreted a little bit
different, but there are very clear indications that the 2000 rules
must be interpreted just as the older rules.

Lucas Kruijswijk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

I really don't care too much about how all the present adjudicator
programs come out on the question, as they are only as good as the
programming that went into them. There are also clear indications
that the new rules should be interpreted differently, especially when
paradoxes would otherwise occur. That said, the interpretation I
mentioned certainly is counterintuitive on the first run through.

This is, by the way, yet another example of the poor draftsmanship
prevalent in the 99/00 rules, in which at least as many items were
broken as were fixed. I think that no matter how any of us come out
on this particular issue, we all wish fervently that the next
iteration of the rules would have a clear rule resolving all convoy
paradoxes, as well as several other additions to fix the
inconsistensies and omissions prevalent in the latest rule set.

P.S. Convoy paradoxes always give me a headache when I think about
them, and I feel another coming on now. :^(


"Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> wrote in message news:<407ae3b0$0$6566$19deed1b@news.inter.NL.net>...
> "David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:f08a3e93.0404121013.63a59931@posting.google.com...
> > I am afraid it is not so straightforward as that. One plausible way of
> > interpreting the rules (and one which eliminates either all or nearly
> > all convoy paradoxes) would have certain disrupted convoys cutting
> > support at their destination provinces.
> To my opinion there is only a small minority that thinks this way.
>
> All adjudicator programs adjudicate that in the example the support
> of Pru is not cut. The 2000 rules can be interpreted a little bit
> different, but there are very clear indications that the 2000 rules
> must be interpreted just as the older rules.
>
> Lucas Kruijswijk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Spinoza wrote:

>Another rules question from a relative newbie.
>
>I understand that, when a convoy is disrupted, the army doesn't move. Does
>this mean that any support given by a unit in the destination province
>remains uncut?

Yes (assuming, of course, it is not cut by another unit). The newer
Hasbro rules are not clear on this, but older rules make it quite
clear that an army ordered to attack by a convoy which is dislodged
has no effect on its destination, which includes cutting support.

-- Don

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Don Del Grande" writes:

> The newer Hasbro rules are not clear on this

-- which, I guess, is why I felt the need to get clarification. I have the
2000 rules, in which the phrase "remains in its original province" is
woefully problematic. After all, units that bounce remain in their original
provinces, but they CAN cut support.

My thanks to everyone who's replied; I now have the understanding I need to
submit my next orders...

 

[Spinoza]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Who's Andy Tomlinson?

(Seriously, my apologies to all those concerned if any cunning sleuth can
work out from this gaffe which game I'm playing in. I guess this must be
Spinoza's last post...)