"Mistake" in the rules?

Question about the rules of the game? Experienced Diplomacy veterans will help you! There is also a Common Questions section.
Forum rules
In addition to the general Forum Guidelines (see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 30&t=15441), there are additional rules for posting in this forum.
1. Members should not refer directly to a specific situation in an active game. It is usually possible to provide an example of a similar situation elsewhere on the board.
2. It follows that links, images, game name and/or number should not be added to a post if the game is active.
3. Questions should only request rules be clarified and not request advice about how to resolve a situation.
4. When answering a question, members should restrict themselves to answering the question and not give advice on how to get around the situation.
Posts which break these rules will be subject to editing or removal; see here: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 13&t=42845

"Mistake" in the rules?

Postby Alexander the Biggest » 13 Nov 2019, 23:33

Dear all,

I'm fairly new to the forum, so forgive me when this topic has been brought up before.

However, I have been playing the game for quite a while, and I think there is an issue with how the rules are implemented when support is cut. Let me give an example:

GERMANY
Munich MOVE Silesia -> Bounced
Berlin SUPPORT Munich to Silesia -> Support cut by 'f bal - ber'
Kiel SUPPORT Berlin to HOLD -> resolved

RUSSIA
Silesia HOLD -> resolved
Baltic Sea MOVE Berlin -> Bounced

The rules say that support is cut when another unit moves to the area of the supporting unit, no matter whether or not the supporting unit receives support itself. I think that in the example above the support of Berlin shouldn't have been cut, because Kiel supported Berlin to hold.

What do you think of this? Is there an explanation of why the rules are as they are? I'm very curious to hear your opinion!
Alexander the Biggest
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 14:49
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 938
All-game rating: 1046
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby Strategus » 13 Nov 2019, 23:46

Why would baltic not cut berlin support? It moves there, so the support is cut.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
 
Posts: 1871
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1583
All-game rating: 1692
Timezone: GMT

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Nov 2019, 00:15

The answer is in the question. Emphasis mine:

The rules say that support is cut when another unit moves to the area of the supporting unit, no matter whether or not the supporting unit receives support itself. I think that in the example above the support of Berlin shouldn't have been cut, because Kiel supported Berlin to hold.


Berlin being supported to hold has no bearing on whether Berlin's support order is cut or not.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of WitA 7, WitA 8.

Come play face to face!

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod (but I'm normally not talking as one)
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9930
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1209
All-game rating: 1413
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby Alexander the Biggest » 14 Nov 2019, 00:22

I recognize that the rules are as they are, and that they are applied correctly in the example.

Just as a thought experiment, what would happen when we change the rules, so that we do take into account whether or not the supporting unit receives support itself.

I don't know if that would be a good idea, but I'm curious to hear what you think

Edit: removed a contradicting statement
Alexander the Biggest
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 14:49
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 938
All-game rating: 1046
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby asudevil » 14 Nov 2019, 05:19

I think it would be much harder to stop someone since it’s easy to have a back unit support which makes support uncutable
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 16582
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1351
All-game rating: 1437
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Nov 2019, 05:36

Yeah it would pretty much just favor countries with more units, and make defense that much harder. Essentially it would remove a sizable chunk of the strategy and tactical element of the game.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of WitA 7, WitA 8.

Come play face to face!

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!

Mod (but I'm normally not talking as one)
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9930
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1209
All-game rating: 1413
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby AardvarkArmy » 14 Nov 2019, 07:39

Think of it this way - think of real life human combat

The unit in Berlin is ordered to send artillery fire and other "support" to assist in the invasion of Silesia

But just at 5:00am when the attack is supposed to commence, the Berlin unit finds itself receiving heavy incoming fire from an enemy armada offshore in the Baltic

Are those guys gonna ignore the incoming blasts and carry out their original orders?

Or is it more realistic that they will take cover and/or turn their guns to fire back at the Baltic ships?

And it doesn't matter if they know they have "reinforcements" (support) in a nearby town. They are under fire right now and must respond appropriately
SOLOS
ICE&FIRE.1-Martell/EXCALIBUR.1-Angles/EXCALIBUR.2-Scots/EMERALD-Sno/MOD.4-Italy/SENGOKU.1-OdaNobu/S.AMERICA.1-Peru

DRAWS
1930-China/BattleIsleA-Winterfell/S&S-Turkey/WORLD INFL-Venezuela/LECRAE-Dublin/WWIV.2-Cali/IMPERIAL1861.1-Trky/YNGSTWN.1-Grmny/AMERICAS.2-Mex/AFRICAN.2-S.Arabia
User avatar
AardvarkArmy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: 27 Feb 2009, 04:37
Location: Oakland, California, USA (San Francisco Bay Area)
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1057
All-game rating: 1234
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby Figital » 14 Nov 2019, 19:19

Is the OP possibly confusing 'moves to' with 'occupies'?

It is a slightly confusing use of the word (Though not ambiguous in this context). 'Moves to' means 'is ordered to attack' and cuts the support regardless of whether the attack is successful.
Figital
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2012, 18:16
Location: S.W. UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1014
All-game rating: 1018
Timezone: GMT

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Nov 2019, 20:24

Figital wrote:Is the OP possibly confusing 'moves to' with 'occupies'?

It is a slightly confusing use of the word (Though not ambiguous in this context). 'Moves to' means 'is ordered to attack' and cuts the support regardless of whether the attack is successful.


He understands the rules. His argument is that the rules should have prevented support from being cut unless the attacker of the supporter has at least as much attacking power as the defense of the supporter.

As for my own opinion on this: cutting support is partly about distracting the unit in question from its original mission. Berlin can't help with the move to Silesia if they're dealing with an attack from Baltic Sea.

But let's say it was this instead:

GERMANY
F Berlin S Kiel - Baltic
F Kiel - Baltic

RUSSIA
F Baltic - Berlin

Per the rules, Berlin's support is not cut. This also makes sense from a distraction standpoint because the support Berlin is providing is directly related to the unit attacking it. Berlin's fleet isn't distracted by the Russians coming in from the Baltic because Berlin's mission was specifically to assist Kiel in removing the Russians from the Baltic.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1451
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: "Mistake" in the rules?

Postby Figital » 15 Nov 2019, 16:48

His complaint is over 'how the rules are implemented' not over the structure of the rules.

That is why I wondered whether he interprets 'moves to' as meaning 'successfully occupies'

The rules are clear and unambiguous so I believe he is misunderstanding them.
Figital
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2012, 18:16
Location: S.W. UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1014
All-game rating: 1018
Timezone: GMT


Return to Diplomacy Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest