Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (
More info?)
NewsGroupUser wrote:
> Randy Hudson wrote:
> > In article <1106534993.050317.206220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > NewsGroupUser <Google2007@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the new scenario. I have changed the scenario so that
> there is an
> > > option for a convoy which may, perhaps, stimulate my thinking
> process.
> >
> > I don't see any unit ordered to convoy here. Did you mean Adr to
be
> ordered
> > to convoy? As ordered here, the result is the same as before;
3-on-3
> > bounces between Ven and Tri, and bounces for Pie and Ser due to
> superior
> > force.
>
> Hi Randy, The fleet is not convoying, it is holding, and thus has no
> effect on
> the particular scenario at hand; what I mean is that the fleet is
> there so that
> if we play "what if" games with the scenario, and want to introduce a
> convoy,
> the fleet is there to have its orders changed.
>
> >
> > If Adr were ordered to convoy Tri-Ven (or vice-versa), then the
> Tri-Ven and
> > Ven-Tri orders wuld both succeed, and Ser and Pie would still both
> fail.
> >
> > If Adr were ordered to support Tri-Ven, then that move succeeds,
> 4-on-3;
> > Ven-Tri is defeated by superior force, fails, and Ven is dislodged;
> Ser-Tri
> > succeeds (as Ven is dislodged by a unit coming from Tri, its move
> does not
> > have any effect on Tri, so Ser is moving 2-on-0). Pie-Ven fails,
> 2-on-4.
> >
> > > Scenario 1:
> > > France:
> > > Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
> > > Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
> > > Italy:
> > > Army in Trieste to Venezia.
> > > Army in Roma supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
> > > Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venzia.
> > > Fleet in Adriatic Sea holds.
> > > Austria:
> > > Army in Venezia to Trieste.
> > > Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
> > > Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
> > > Turkey:
> > > Army in Serbia to Trieste.
> > > Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
> > >
> > > We should keep in mind that we are all reasonable people; thus,
if
> we
> > > actually had hard facts in front of us, then presumably we would
> agree
> > > with each other completely. But, instead of hard facts, we have
a
> rule
> > > book (or even rule books); and, apparently, since there exists a
> minority
> > > opinion (presumably even if I personally held the majority
> opinion), the
> > > rule book would then not be considered completely unambiguous,
> because the
> > > rule book left open the possibility that a small minority might
> interpret
> > > it differently.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any minority opinion on this one. Nor,
apparently,
> is
> > Lucas; his DATC documents cases where there is divergence of
opinion.
> In
> > this case, though the DPTG generates a different outcome, that's
not
> noted
> > as a controversy but as an error.
> >
> > > As long as there are no hard facts about, then my statements in
> this
> > > article can only be opinion. Let it be known that my opinion may
> > > represent a very small minority; let it also be known that it is
> not my
> > > intention to attempt to persuade anyone to accept my opinion.
> >
> > If you think the commonly accepted adjudication is wrong, this is a
> good
> > place to argue that. Just stating your opinion without evidence
> won't have
> > much effect, however. If you accept the principle that the rules
> should be
> > deterministic, and there is exactly one correct adjudication for a
> set of
> > orders, then we should all try to make sure we agree on what that
> > adjudication should be in this case. I believe I know what that
is,
> but I'm
> > able to change my mind if there's a good reason.
>
> I'm exploring this topic; though, it is true that I have my own
> opinion. One
> aspect of this topic that we can explore, and that I'd like to
explore
> is
> this: what rules are governing this particular scenario.
>
> Keep in mind, please, that I'm not presenting my view point as a
> gospel.
>
> The first exciting aspect of this is why there are two opinions.
> Exactly
> which rule or rules are we looking at differently. This would be a
> good
> place to start, but I'm not sure, reallly, which rule or rules we are
> looking
> at differently. What I think is exciting is that we would probably
> agree
> with each other 99% of the time concerning other scenarios or
> positions, but when we get to this position, the
> rules we have been using all along, don't unamimously convince us
> anymore.
>
> >
> > > I am essentially exploring this topic. It is like arguing about
> how many
> > > angels can dance on a head of a pin! Who can say, because we
don't
> know
> > > how big an angel is: that is, we have no hard facts.
> >
> > Which is why the discussion of that matter at the Diet of Worms was
> > important: not the literal answer to the number of angels, but the
> analysis
> > of what facts were known about angels, and how those facts should
be
> > interpreted.
> >
> > > But, when the day is over, and I say that for Scenario 1, that
the
> French
> > > took Venezia, that's how you'll know that I hold the minority
> opinion.
> > > But, if at the end of the day I say that no units moved, then you
> know
> > > that I hold the majority opinion.
> >
> > Or perhaps you'll share with us the evidence that convinced you
that
> the
> > French take Venezia, and convince us, and we'll all hold the
majority
> > opinion.
>
> I am not writing to gospelize. Though you are correct. Do I know
> which
> rule or rules pretain to the scenario under discussion and which rule
> or rules bear upon this scenario and convince me one way or
> another? I'm not sure I do. Do you know which rule or
> rules convince you; if so, please state them, because they are a
valid
> and very important part of the discussion. Similarly, your opinion
as
> to
> which rule or rules I'm ignoring in this particular scenario, is also
> very important.
>
> >
> > But, at end of day, this is just a game, and it plays best if we
all
> agree
> > on the rules, and their interpretation. So, even if you feel that
> it's
> > unrealistic for a bouncing unit to still be able to repel a force
> invading
> > the same territory, once you decide that the other players in your
> game (or
> > the master, if you have one) take that as correct, you would be
> reckless to
> > not play as though that would be the adjudication.
> >
> > > how is it that a unit can be given attack orders, be bounced back
> because
> > > this movement or attack failed, then have this unit changed to
> hold?
> >
> > It isn't changed to hold. A unit which bounces, remains in place
> unless t
> > is dislodged, but it does not hold. It cannot be supported in
place,
> for
> > example, while units not ordered to move can be.
> >
> > > In short, how can a unit attack and hold simultaneously? If a
unit
> was
> > > allowed to attack and hold simultaneously, then why could not
other
> units
> > > follow valid orders to support this attacking army to its
attacked
> > > location AND support this attacking army in its original location
> in case
> > > it got bounced back?
> >
> > Units often have multiple effects within the same turn. A unit can
> cut a
> > support yet bounce an attempted move from elsewhere. Or, it can
cut
> a
> > support, be dislodged, and move during the retreat phase. A fleet
> can
> > convoy an army while also standing off an attack.
>
> I agree with you. My comments were related to "philosophy" of pure,
> simultaneous movement. It's not that I don't personally understand
> the mechanics of movement.
>
> >
> > But in the position above, the weakly supported move Pie-Ven is
> bounced, not
> > by the unit which remains in Venice, but by the superior force of
the
> attack
> > on Venice from Trieste. The rules are explicit that the effect of
> such a
> > move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified *if the
> unit is
> > dislodged by a move from that space*. Thus, it is not nullified by
a
> bounce
> > at that space. That seems to clearly cover the situation. Arguing
> that it
> > isn't the way real armies work isn't convincing; this is a game,
and
> there
> > are many unrealistic features.
>
> Okay, what you say in the paragraph just above is very important. As
> it
> uses a game rule to decide. "The rules are explicit that the effect
of
> such a move on the space it is attempting to move to is nullified
> *if the unit is dislodged by a move from that space*."
> Then you say, also equally important, "Thus, it is not nullified by a
> bounce at that space."
>
> So, let's take Figure 13 or 14 in the year 2000, fourth edition rule
> book.
> What if that power wasn't dislodged? The reason that the army
furthest
> north would not move south is that it would be in a traffic jam with
> the army already in its location.
>
> I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am making my first suggestion
> that the arguments over Figures 13 and 14 may not be correctly
> extrapolated. I am not saying that I know this with any kind of
> certainty.
> I would like to explore these figures further, and the logic that you
> all are extrapolating from what does not occur in these figures.
>
> In other words, we know that the many members of the Diplomacy
> community are highly intelligent and logical. Let me take the
> role of "student" here. And, please walk me through the steps,
> so that I completely understand how Figures 13 and 14 bear
> on the scenario at hand.
>
> >
> > > does the game dynamic or the movement dynamcis change based upon
> the
> > > presence of an army within a contested region, or based upon the
> orders
> > > given to an army present within the contested region?
> >
> > It depends on the orders given to all the units. But you're still
> > misunderstanding the bounce, I think.
> >
>
> I have not yet had a chance to re-read your comments, get the board
> out,
> set this up, and go through it. Thank you very much for your ideas
and
> your kind, level headed writing! I will look at the following
comments
> shortly.
>
> Thanks!
>
Okay, I've now set up my Diplomacy board and will review the next
section of this article.
> > Let's make a few small changes to your scenario 1).
> >
> > First, take away Rome. Now, if we left things there, Venice would
> succeed
> > in its force-three attack on Trieste, though it is opposed by both
> the
> > force-two attack from Trieste and by the force-two attack on
Trieste
> from
> > Serbia. The forces don't combine, however unrealistic that may be.
> In the
> > wake of the move, Piedmont would succeed in moving into Venice, of
> course.
I agree. But, I can't say with certainty that I agree with the
mechanics
or our reasoning of what happened. It is always possible that two
people
have different adjudication mechanics which result in an adjudication
which is identical except for that 1 out of 100th scenario. Note that
in
your new "what if" scenario here, it DOES NOT matter with respect to
the final result that your adjudication reasoning and mine our
different:
to be consistent, let us assume that my adjudication reasoning is:
the Army in Venezia moves into Triest with a force of 3 to 2; the
Austrain army now in Venezia is not dislodged because this attack
is supported with a total strength of 3 against the Italian 2; in a
certain sense, the Italians in Trieste are not overly relevant since
they only have a power of 2 for attack into Venezia, and only a
holding power of 1 in Trieste. Once the Italians are out of the
picture (yes, I know that this adjudication process is not purely
simultaneous, of course), the Austrians from Venezia are still
"entering" Trieste being challanged by the attacking Turks who
also are attempting to enter into Trieste. The Austrian attack
into Trieste is stronger by 3 to 2, thus the Austrians from
Venezia enter Trieste.
Note that our adjudication reasoning differs, but our results
our the same. In the above 'what if' scenario you presented,
I often reason about it "purely simultaneously" just like you
do, because sometimes
it is faster, and often (almost always?) these two ways of
adjucational reasoning yield identical results.
> >
> > Next, have Adriatic support Serbia's move: Adr s Ser-Tri.
I take it Roma is still out of the picture and there is no army there.
Le't also say that the fleet in the Adriatic is Turkish.
> Now, the
> Ven-Tri
> > move bounces, because it is opposed by an equally supported attack
on
> > Trieste, coming from Serbia.
I agree.
> > The bounce has nothing to do with
> Trieste's
> > own orders; it is the opposing forces which bounce each other.
In this scenario, Triestes orders are not very relevant and are
inconsequential due to the over-powering forces in the neighborhood.
> > So,
> what
> > about Pie-Ven? Well, Tri-Ven isn't cancelled just because the move
> fails;
> > and Tri wasn't dislodged by the move from Ven, so its effect on Ven
> is
> > unaltered: it bounces the move from Pie.
Okay, to make sure we are on the same example, here is the "what if"
scenario that the above text refers to:
What if:
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Vienna supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Army in Budapest supports Army in Venezia to Trieste.
Turkey:
Army in Serbia to Trieste.
Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
And, the same question holds: what happens in Venezia.
I like the richness of your "what if" scenario I have detailed
above. I can see in my head everything unfolding
in pure simultaneity and, of course, under this form of
adjudicational reasoning, no unit would move. And,
to see your point, under this form of reasoning, the minority
view should particularly note that the Italian army in Trieste
did have an influence in Venezia in keeping the French
out of Venezia.
I might speculate, that if the minority view were to be consistent,
it would say that the French did dislodge the Austrian's from
Venezia. In effect, the minority view might say that the Italians
in Trieste never had any real effect in Venezia because they
could not "get past" the fast, hard, brick wall of a force of
three that was counter-attacking them. Any while its true
that the Austrians attacking from Venezia did not fail in their
attack due to Italians, their attack certainly failed due to the
Turks; so, Austrians can only muster a defensive holding
strength of 1 and are dislodged by the French attack.
So, let's modify you what if scenario slightly, and see if the
minority view runs into a contradiction.
Next What If:
France:
Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Army in Tuscany supports Army in Piemonte to Venezia.
Italy:
Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Army in Apulia supports Army in Trieste to Venezia.
Austria:
Army in Venezia holds.
Army in Vienna supports holds.
Army in Budapest supports holds.
Turkey:
Army in Serbia to Trieste.
Army in Albania supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
Fleet in Adriatic Sea supports Army in Serbia to Trieste.
the only change with respect to the previous what if scenario is that
the Austrian army in Venezia is holding, and the other two Austrian
units are out to lunch, holding, and not really related to this
scenario.
The minority view NOW would say that the Italians and the French
met in Venezia and bounced each other away, resulting in the
Austrian army in Venezia NOT being dislodged.
Also, given for completeness, the Italians in Trieste would be
dislodged
by the Turkish attacking force of 3.
In summary, the minority view is not saying much beside this:
the influence that a particular unit has on a province does
depend upon whether there exists another unit in that
province and what that unit's orders are. This is not a proof,
of course, but a mind set, or more particularly, a very
minority opinion.
Now, and this will have to be discussed in another thread,
it will be noted that I have been trying to "explain" the
"reasoning" of the minority view. But, really, this
"explanation" is attempting to come to terms with
the "fuzzy simultaneity" result that a sequence
based adjudication algorithm reaches. The question
is this, perhaps, can we find an example where the
"explaining" I have given and the "fuzzy simultaneity"
result of a sequenced based adjudication algorithm
breach! Such as DATC test cases 6.E.4 and
6.E.5. In these examples, the "fuzzy simultaneity"
algorithm matches the DATC results, but does the
"explanation" I have given of the minority viewpoint
breach from the underling algorithm? That would need
to be investigated.
> >
> > Finally, take away Apulia.
Okay, so at this stage in this "what if" scenario, there is no unit
in Roma and no unit in Apulia.
> > Ser and Ven, each twice-supported, still
> bounce
> > over Trieste without dislodging it, though it doesn't have any
> support
> > itself.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the "what if" scenario is
here any more, as my assumption of the "what if" scenario
under consideration does not seem to match your text
given just above.
For instance, the Austrian movement from Venezia moves
into Trieste with a force of 3, not 2, right?
Therefore, unfortunately, I believe that I don't have your
given 'what if' scenario set up on my Diplomacy board
correctly.
So that your text makes sense, let's also remove the unit in
Vienna. Okay, let's assume that the "what if" scenario you
are presenting is this: it is Scenario 1 with the following
units removed from the board: Roma, Apulia, Vienna,
and the Adriatic Sea.
Now indeed, the lone, Italian army in Trieste, even though
ordered to Venezia, is inconsequential. Whether the
adjudicator's mind uses a purely simultaneous algorithm
or a hot-spot-based fuzzy simultaneity algorithm, there
is no question that the Italians in Trieste have little
impact on the adjudication result. The real issue in
Trieste is the attacking Austrians with a force of 2
verse the attacking Turks with a force of 2.
> >But now, there is not enough support for Trieste's move to
> Venice
> > to bounce Piedmont's supported move to Venice. Venice, bounced in
> its
> > attempt to move to Trieste by the equally-supported Ser-Tri, is
> dislodged by
> > the once-supported Pie-Ven.
I agree. The Austrians failed to successfully take Trieste, and this
same army is over-run by the attacking French; the French attack
Venezia with a force of 2 and the Austrian army in Venezia is
dislodged as its holding strength was only 1.
> >
> > Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do with Venice's
> support for
> > its move, but rather was due to Trieste's opposing move to Venice
> with
> > superior force.
I'm not sure what bounce I object to; keep in mind that this is very
tricky because in 99 out of 100 adjudications, you and I will agree!
That is what is so interesting about this Scenario 1. When you
simplify Scenario 1, you and I agree 100 percent. Can we determine
what
aspects contribute to this break of opinion for this one particular
Scenario 1?
Now I will attempt to understand your conclusion. If I reason
incorrectly
about your conclusion, then please clarify. Obviously I want to be
exposed to your reasoning and make sure I am processing it correctly.
Now I have set up Scenario 1 again on my board. Now I read your
conclusion: "Thus, the bounce you object to has nothing to do
with Venice's support for its move, but rather was due to Trieste's
opposing move to Venice with superior force."
Unfortunately, I don't fully understand how to process your conclusion.
Please clarify, since I obviously would be missing something if I
don't at least understand your argument. I think part of the confusion
may be I'm not sure what the different phrases in the conclusion
are referring to, such as which scenario or "what if" scenario.
I suspect that your logic can be abstracted like this: in some "what
if"
scenario we see dynamic X at work, but in the Scenario 1 which
encompasses dynamic X, you argue that I am inconsistent in that
I then ignore dynamic X.
This is an important vein of argument and a good approach.
Unfortunately, I did not fully understand which dynamic X
I was allowing in the "what if" scenario and then disallowing
in the Scenario 1.
So, let me think a minute and see if I can figure it out myself.
Okay, let's set up Scenario 1 again on the playing board.
I think I understand your argument and will now attempt to
express it: The minority view is faulty in that it is inconsistent
in its evaluation of the effect of the Italian army moving into
Venezia from Trieste. The majority view holds that this is a
constant force of 3 ALWAYS. Yet, the minority view holds that
there do exist at least one example formation, such as Scenario 1,
where the strength and total effect of the Italian attack is
moderated by the orders given to and the counter-attacking
strength currently resident in Venezia. This results in what
the majority consider a very peculiar adjucation, wherein the
French with only a strength of 2 end up marching into
Venezia.
Thanks for your comments, Randy.
> >
> > --
> > Randy Hudson
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram