Support against oneself

[Guest]

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

I recently found myself with an isolated unit sandwiched between opponents.
Desperately trying to make a beleaguered garrison of it, I ordered it to
support a potential enemy move against itself. (Let's say it was "a boh s
gal-boh".) But the judge wouldn't allow it.

Is this because a unit can only support a move to a province it could have
moved to itself, and that no unit can move to where it already is?

Thanks for any enlightenment.
Andy

 

[Guest]

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

Andy Tomlinson wrote:

> I recently found myself with an isolated unit sandwiched between opponents.
> Desperately trying to make a beleaguered garrison of it, I ordered it to
> support a potential enemy move against itself. (Let's say it was "a boh s
> gal-boh".) But the judge wouldn't allow it.
>
> Is this because a unit can only support a move to a province it could have
> moved to itself, and that no unit can move to where it already is?
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
> Andy
>
>
I think it fails on two counts;
1. It is attempted suicide and that is a sin,
2. If the order was allowed the attacker could be prosecuted for
illegally assisting suicide (except is Switzerland where is this legal
under certain carefully monitored situations - Of course as Switzerland
is neutral that is of no help.)

OK being sensible for a second I think your own answer is the right one.

Dan

 

[Guest]

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

"Andy Tomlinson":
> I recently found myself with an isolated unit sandwiched between opponents.
> Desperately trying to make a beleaguered garrison of it, I ordered it to
> support a potential enemy move against itself. (Let's say it was "a boh s
> gal-boh".) But the judge wouldn't allow it.
>
> Is this because a unit can only support a move to a province it could have
> moved to itself, and that no unit can move to where it already is?
Well, it just the rules. You may only support to a province you can normally
move to. You can't move to the place you are already in, so, such support is
also illegal. Furthermore, even if it was legal, the support can not be used
in a smart way, because it would be cut if someone is moving to the province.

Lucas

 

[Guest]

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

"Lucas B. Kruijswijk" <L.B.Kruijswijk@inter.nl.net> writes:

> Furthermore, even if it was legal, the support can not be used
> in a smart way, because it would be cut if someone is moving to the
province.

Ah, good point! Wish I'd spotted that myself. I'm rather glad, in that case,
that the judge saved my embarrassment by not allowing it ...

Thanks,
Andy

 

[Guest]

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

> 1. It is attempted suicide and that is a sin,

Note that he *isn't* trying to suicide; he's trying to survive.

 

[Guest]

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

Dan Marchant <reply.via@forum.please> wrote in message news:<1087478535.90267.0@demeter.uk.clara.net>...
> Andy Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > I recently found myself with an isolated unit sandwiched between opponents.
> > Desperately trying to make a beleaguered garrison of it, I ordered it to
> > support a potential enemy move against itself. (Let's say it was "a boh s
> > gal-boh".) But the judge wouldn't allow it.
> >
> > Is this because a unit can only support a move to a province it could have
> > moved to itself, and that no unit can move to where it already is?
> >
> > Thanks for any enlightenment.
> > Andy
> >
> >
> I think it fails on two counts;
> 1. It is attempted suicide and that is a sin,
> 2. If the order was allowed the attacker could be prosecuted for
> illegally assisting suicide (except is Switzerland where is this legal
> under certain carefully monitored situations - Of course as Switzerland
> is neutral that is of no help.)
>
> OK being sensible for a second I think your own answer is the right one.
>
> Dan

Isn't it legal in the Netherlands under certain conditions, too? (I
could be wrong-- anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.)

Will

 

[hace]

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

On 23 Jun 2004 14:10:40 -0700, Will Abbott <wabbott9@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> illegally assisting suicide (except is Switzerland where is this legal

> Isn't it legal in the Netherlands under certain conditions, too? (I
> could be wrong-- anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me.)

Well, with 'certain conditions' you are putting it about right. Conditions
are not written down, but doctors who want to prevent further suffering of
a sick patient who is going to die anyway and has lots of pain are not
prosecuted if they adhere to the conditions of letting the authorities
know what & why things are going on, and there are more conditions like
that the family and patient must agree etc.


--
http://hace.dyndns.org/

 

[Guest]

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

"Hace" <hace@noway.nl> wrote:
> Well, with 'certain conditions' you are putting it about right. Conditions
> are not written down, but doctors who want to prevent further suffering of
> a sick patient who is going to die anyway and has lots of pain are not
> prosecuted if they adhere to the conditions of letting the authorities
> know what & why things are going on, and there are more conditions like
> that the family and patient must agree etc.
And there must be a second doctor from another area to check whether
all conditions were met.

I don't think the family need to agree. That would be odd, because you
decide on your own life. The family is only important when the patient
can not decide anymore.

Furthermore, don't think this does not happen in other countries. The
difference is that it is legalized in Holland. It is quite a normal treatment
to give an overdosis of morphine. Morphine almost always reduces the
length of life. So, if a doctor gives morphine, then it is in fact
killing the patient.

Whether you should legalize this or leave in the secrecy of the doctor
patient relation, that is indeed a discussion.

Lucas