Esoteric: There Is No Primary Paradox

[Guest]

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

Hi,

This new article is located at

http://www.geocities.com/diplomacy2007/ThereIsNoPrimaryParadox.html

Your comments, suggestions, corrections, and additions, are most
welcome!

Thanks


Here is the article reproduced, but I have taken out any quotes from
the rule
book in this version:

***************************
There is No Primary Paradox
***************************

In
</PRE>
<A
HREF="http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.diplomacy/browse_frm/thread/9db2d7d4dd7ec7e8/12c3be1a69068c2e?_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.games.diplomacy%3F&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&_doneTitle=Back&&d#12c3be1a69068c2e">this</A>
<PRE>
posting to rec.games.diplomacy,
David E. Cohen,
http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/id7.html
http://diplomiscellany.tripod.com/
the editor of Model House Rules for Non-Judge E-Mail Diplomacy,
version 3.5,

brought up a very interesting point:
QUOTE
[Please note that some people believe that a certain reading of the
latest
rules eliminates all or virtually all paradoxes, ...]
UNQUOTE

This article explores whether or not virtually all paradoxes no longer
exist.
This article is an exploration to attempt to understand the belief that
virtually all paradoxes no longer exist. This article is not a debate
or an
attempt to persuade one to adopt one view or another. If upon reading
this
article you notice any errors in logic or reasoning, your comments
would be most
appreciated. At the same time, I certainly would like to understand
from those
who do believe that paradoxes exist, why they hold their beliefs or
what
advantages accrue from these beliefs or assumptions, and what concrete
examples
of paradoxical positions they recognize (and how they resolve them).

When I read David E. Cohen's comments above, I was strongly motivated
to
understand how virtually all paradoxes may be considered by some not to
exist
within the game of Diplomacy. For, if one is to investigate
paradoxical
positions, one should surely be aware of the reasoning used by those
who believe
that the vast majority, if not all paradoxes within Diplomacy no longer
exist
based upon the "rule book."

I've placed the "rule book" in quotes because in understanding this
situation
I will need to refer to different versions of the rule book.

Again, if there are errors in my logic or reasoning, your comments
would be most
appreciated.

So, we wish to explore whether virtually all paradoxes have been
eliminated from
the game of Diplomacy. Let's first specify which items we will not be
discussing in this article (though these items probably will be
addressed
separately at a future time). We will not at this time be interested
in
paradoxical situations and rule book ambiguities and inconsistencies
dealing
with the following topics:
* What the actual operational order is for a military unit and whether
or not
it is valid and how this effects other support orders given to other
units. For
instance, we will not be concerned about whether a unit in Norway can
or cannot
be supported by other units if the unit in Norway is ordered to move to
the
planet Mars (the planet Mars is not a province on the Diplomacy map).
* Situations where an army can be convoyed by more than one convoy
will not be
discussed at this time.
* Situations where an army can be convoyed to a province that it could
also
legally walk to will not be discussed at this time.
* Situations where an army might be kidnapped by one fleet or another
will not
be discussed at this time.
* Situations involving issues related to self-dislodgement, dislodging
military
units that are of your country, supporting the dislodgement of military
units
that are of your country, and convoying in troops not of your country
which
attack a province either held by a unit of your country, supported by a
unit of
your country, or attacked by a unit of your country.

In short, this is why the title of this article concerns "Primary"
paradoxical
situations. This is not to say that the above issues are not
important, for
they are; however, I have arbitratily decided that they are not the
primary
concern and focus of my current research (though some of these topics
may be
researched in the future).

Let's begin!

Concerning the topic of this discussion, the 1971 rule book adds the
following
new rule that the 1961 edition did not have:
QUOTE
[Quote removed from this communication medium, please see my web site.]
UNQUOTE

One might be lead to believe that the above rule would mean that the
French
army being convoyed would cut the support of the Italian unit in Naples
if that
unit in Naples were supporting an attack against any other convoying
fleet but
the one carrying the French army from Spain. Under this reading, a
reading
which seems quite reasonable to me, the following situation would
result in a
paradox:
England:
Fleet Mid-Atlantic Ocean to Western Mediterranean.
Fleet Spain (south coast) supports Fleet Mid-Atlanic Ocean to Western
Mediterranean.
France:
Army North Africa to Tuscany.
Fleet Western Mediterranean convoys Army North Africa to Tuscany.
Fleet Gulf of Lyon convoys Army North Africa to Tuscany.
Fleet Tunis supports Fleet Western Mediterranean.
Italy:
Army Rome holds.
Fleet Tyrrhenian Sea holds.
Fleet Tuscany supports Fleet Tyrrhenian Sea.

Okay, let's stop for one moment and go through an intellectual
exercise: is
there currently a paradox? I believe the answer is no. Let's step
through it.
The English fleet does not dislodge the French convoy which inturn
assists in
the convoyed attack upon Tuscany with the result that the Italian fleet
in
Tuscany has the support that it is offering cut, resulting in this army
holding
instead of supporting.

However, even though there is no paradox per say, when we change
Italy's orders
and create a paradox, this also suggests, though I'm not a logician,
that there
was something at least inconsistent about the rules.

So, let's now change all the orders for Italy and rewrite them thus:
Italy:
Army Rome to Tunis.
Fleet Tyrrhenian Sea convoys Army Rome to Tunis.
Fleet Tuscany supports Fleet Tyrrhenian Sea.

Now we do have a paradox (or if you like, we have a situation that the
rules
failed to cover). If in figuring out what happens we decide to start
with
France's convoy we get one result. If in figuring out what happens we
decide
to start with Italy's convoy we get another result. And if we decide
that
we will figure out what happens by moving all the units simultaneously,
we find
ourselves in a paradox.

If we start moving France first, then the convoy succeeds, the support
offered
by Tuscany is broken, and the Italian convoy is dislodged.

If we start moving Italy first, then the convoy succeeds, the support
offered by
Tunis is broken, and the French convoy is dislodged.

If we move all the units simultaneously, then both convoys succeed,
both convoys
cut support to the other convoy because the army attacked its
destination, but
then we realize that the very convoy used in the attacked is dislodged
because
it is not sufficiently supported.

In the 1982 second edition of the rule book, the particular rule we are
focusing
on was rewritten thus:
QUOTE
[Quote removed from this communication medium, please see my web site.]
UNQUOTE

It appears that a reasonable reading of this rule clearly and
unambiguously
removes the paradox that was just discussed above which in turn
resulted from
the previous edition of the rule book.

The 1992 third edition of the rule book does not in any significant way
modify
the rule we are discussing. However, the 1992 third edition has this
under
section XIII instead of section XII. So, the 1982 second edition has
this
particular rule as section XII.5, while the 1992 third edition has this
particular rule as section XIII.5.

Now we come to an important question which I hope people will verify
one way
or the other as I have not at this time had a chance to review all
possible
paradoxical situations. Is the following statement true: if either
the 1982
second edition or the 1992 third edition of the rule book is used, then
all
"primary" paradoxes (as defined in this article) no longer exist. That
is the
question.

My initial guess is that all primary paradoxes (as defined in this
article) no
longer exist. So, let's assume that my initial guess is true (until I
find out
otherwise or until someone demonstrates otherwise). Now we come to the
year
2000 fourth edition of the rule book which, concerning this particular
rule,
states:
QUOTE
[Quote removed from this communication medium, please see my web site.]
[A different example is given, though it is similar to the examples
given in
the previous editions.]
UNQUOTE

This is a rewording of the 1971 edition! The 1971 edition reads, in
part,
"[Quote removed from this communication medium, please see my web
site.]"

So, the year 2000 fourth edition reverts back to the 1971 edition
rules, thus
opening up the paradox that was discussed above and allowing the
paradox to
occur.

Let's review the history one more time.

1959 rule book by the creator of the game. Does not address the
elementary
paradox given as examples in the rule book, much less the more
complicated
paradox given above in this article you are now reading. Presumably
these
issues were not addressed because the paradox had not yet been
discovered.

1961 rule book by Games Research, Inc. Does not address the elementary
paradox
given as examples in the rule book, much less the more complicated
paradox given
above in this article that you are now reading. Presumably these
issues were
not addressed because the paradox had not yet been discovered.

1971 rule book by Games Research, Inc. Does address the elementary
paradox
given as examples in the rule book and eliminates it. Does not address
the more
complicated paradox given above in this article that you are now
reading.

1982 second edition rule book by Avalon Hill. Addresses both the
elementary
paradox given as examples in the rule book and eliminates it; also
addresses
the more complicated paradox given above in this article and eliminates
it.

1992 third edition rule book by Avalon Hill. Same as 1982 second
edition for
the points under discussion here.

2000 fourth edition rule book by Avalon Hill. Reverts back to the
wording of
the 1971 rule book; so, addresses the elementary paradox given as
examples in
the rule book and eliminates it, but does not address the more
complicated
paradox given above in this article that you are now reading.

If we assume that it is true that primary paradoxes (as defined in this
article) are eliminated by the 1982 and 1992 editions of the rule book,
and if
we assume that those who believe that there are no primay paradoxes (as
defined
in this article) do so with some reasoning, then that reasoning could
be any
combination of the following:
* The 2000 fourth edition rule book made an honest mistake when it
reverted
back to the 1971 rule book for the points under discussion in this
article.

Of course, we are now in January of 2005, and it is my understanding
that
Avalon Hill has never addressed this particular issue (please correct
me if I am
wrong).

So, the following reasoning would also be used:
* Avalon Hill has not addressed this issue because they do not
consider it in
their financial best interest to expend time and energy on it or they
simply
don't care.

Now, consider the following hypothetical cases:
* The 2000 fourth edition rule book is not a mistake and said exactly
what it
intended.
* And, to add another hypothetical instance, the creator of the game
agrees
with this particular aspect of the 2000 fourth edition of the rule
book.

The above two cases are considered hypothetical because I don't know if
they are
true or not, but let's consider the case that they are true; then, the
reasoning would be:
* Even though the 2000 fourth edition stated the intent of the
publisher or
stated the intent of the game creator or both, there is nothing
sufficiently to
be gained by this rule change given that it introduces primary
paradoxes (as
defined within this article) back into the game.

I hope I have been successful in answering the following question: why
do there
exist a community of Diplomacy gamers who believe that all primary
paradoxes
(as defined in this article) do not exist.

Please remember that this article is not a debate and is not attempting
to make
anyone take one side or the other, but is my attempt to understand
issues
related to paradoxical situations that can or cannot arise in the game
of
Diplomacy.

Interestingly enough, when I began this article, I did not understand
how anyone
could believe that primary paradoxes do not exist in Diplomacy (of
course, that
is the intention of my research, to understand). Now that I have
completed the
first draft of this article (on January 12, 2005), I feel that I do
understand
(assuming that my underlying assumptions are correct), and I now find
myself
asking the opposite question: why do people believe that primary
paradoxes
exist in Diplomacy; this will be the issue of subsequent research.

In contradiction to the above (somewhat), my apetite is whetted to find
out what
is to be gained by following the year 2000 fourth edition (same as 1971
edition
concerning the points of this specific article you are now reading) of
the rule
book which allow the creation of primary paradoxes (as defined in this
article).

Thanks

 

[Guest]

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

Hi,

Your review so far of the situation regarding Diplomacy
convoy paradoxes is reasonably accurate, but there is one
important point that evidently has not been communicated
to you yet:

Rule XII.5 of the 1982 rulebook (or, equivalently, rule
XIII.5 of the 1992 rulebook) eliminates all primary
paradoxes, but at the cost of introducing undesirable
adjudications that are more likely to occur in actual play
than the paradoxes themselves. For example:

France:
Army Pic -> Lon
Fleet Eng convoys Army Pic -> Lon
Army Wal supports Army Pic -> Lon

England:
Army Yor -> Bel
Fleet Nth convoys Army Yor -> Bel
Fleet Lon supports Fleet Nth

Germany:
Fleet Hel -> Nth
Fleet Ska supports Fleet Hel -> Nth

The French army in Picardy succeeds in convoying to London
and dislodges (and eliminates) the English fleet in London.
However, the 1982/1992 rule states that the support being
given by the English fleet in London is not cut because that
unit is "a fleet which is supporting an action in a body of
water, and that body of water contains a convoying fleet".
Therefore, the English fleet in the North Sea is not
dislodged by the German attack, and the English convoy to
Belgium succeeds.

Now, it could be argued that the 1982/1992 rule should not
be applied here because the more significant rule about a
dislodged (or eliminated) unit not being able to provide
support (rule X of the 1982 rulebook or rule XI of the 1992
rulebook) might take precedence. Taking this as a working
assumption, the English support from London would be cut,
the German attack would dislodge the English fleet from the
North Sea, and the English convoy to Belgium would fail.
However, this working assumption would lead to the following
disaster:

France:
Army Pic -> Lon
Fleet Eng convoys Army Pic -> Lon
Army Wal supports Army Pic -> Lon
Fleet Bel supports Fleet Eng

England:
Army Yor -> Bel
Fleet Nth convoys Army Yor -> Bel
Army Hol supports Army Yor -> Bel
Fleet Lon supports Fleet Nth

Germany:
Fleet Hel -> Nth
Fleet Ska supports Fleet Hel -> Nth

Italy:
Fleet Mid -> Eng
Fleet Iri supports Fleet Mid -> Eng

If the French convoy succeeds, then it dislodges (and
eliminates) the English fleet in London, which cuts its
support (by our working assumption). This allows the
German attack to dislodge the English fleet in the North
Sea, which causes the English convoy to fail. This, in
turn, means the French fleet in Belgium is not attacked,
allowing it to provide support for the French fleet in
the English Channel, thwarting the Italian attack, and
allowing the French convoy to succeed. Everything is
self-consistent. However, if we start by assuming that
the English convoy succeeds, then we will end up with a
different self-consistent situation, because the entire
arrangement of units is symmetric. We have a primary
paradox. So, our working assumption that the 1982/1992
rule might defer to a more significant rule about a
dislodged (or eliminated) unit not being able to provide
support must be false (otherwise the 1982/1992 rule
would not be fulfilling its goal of eliminating primary
paradoxes), and we are left with the original
adjudication of the first example above. Thus, the
1982/1992 rule forces us to accept the fact that a
dislodged (or eliminated) unit must be allowed to provide
support in some situations, and, moreover, such
situations are more likely to occur in actual play than
any of the primary paradoxes would occur using the
1971/2000 rule.

The inescapable conclusion is that the cure provided by
the 1982 and 1992 rulebooks was worse than the disease.

The tragedy is that, because this flawed cure ended up in
the official rulebooks, it has attracted its own group of
followers.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

I'm not the biggest fan of the 2000 Hasbro rules, but be
assured they knew EXACTLY what they were writing regarding
the fleet paradoxes you're talking about and the wording
and outcome were entirely intentional. So you don't have
to make that a supposition.

Jim-Bob

 

[Guest]

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

Hi,

This article is out of date; since writing it I have learned that if
you are
attempting to play by the standard rules of Diplomacy, there exists not
one or
two different algorithms which would treat the adjudication of a
position in
different ways, but there could be four or five algorithms out there.
And
each algorithm represents its own way of adjucating a position. Now,
concerning
the topic of this article, at this time I know of only one way to
eliminate all
primary paradoxes from Diplomacy (and I personally am not suggesting
that any
one do it this way): carry out a strick interpretation of the 1982 or
1992
rule book as concerns those issues bearing upon primary paradoxes;
but, if you
do this, you will allow a dislodged fleet under some circumstances to
have still
given support instead of having that support broken or cut.

I'll leave this article in this news group (that is, not remove it)
since people took
the time to read it and to offer me very valuable feedback. Thank you
very much!
Also, another reader commented that he enjoyed reading it.

Thanks