HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  JNET%"dipl-l@mitvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:48:00 EDT
Reply-To:     "Kenneth J. Hoover" <KEN@PSUEDVAX.BITNET>
From:         "Kenneth J. Hoover" <KEN@PSUEDVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re : Ban on players from Merlin

        I'm also participating in a game on the judge (ulm) which sports a
"merlin" player.  We haven't even had our mfirst orders processed yet, and he's
already resigned and been replaced by another Merlin player!

        What *is* it with this stuff?

                                                - Ken Hoover
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:27:53 EDT
Reply-To:     Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: PP and TAC

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

>JD>> However, Dippers ought to know that there HAS been a significant change
>JD>> in the rules since the 1976 edition.

>The main rule-fix in recent times hs been to outlaw TUC. (*shame*)
>They may have changed PP at the same time.

Oh, I get it.
You consider fixing the PP to be minor and changing the UC rule to
be "main." Vice versa for me.

>   Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
>use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

I don't see anything WRONG with it, either. It just makes more
intuitive sense to me to specify the convoy route. (Just try to
picture those soldiers... "Hm, we weren't expecting the enemy boats
to show up, oh well, just hop on... Oh NO! Disruption!" :-) )

>JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
>JD> of water does not cut that support.

>I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
>always been my understanding of this `problem'.

You mean, you always understood that a convoyed attack won't
cut a support offered to a fleet in a body of water? If so,
you have an awesome talent to read things into the rules. It
never would have occurred to me to read the old rules that way.
Apparently most people read them my way, otherwise there would
have been no Pandin Paradox in the first place.

>I *suspect* that
>PP only existed in the pre-1971 rulebook and was one of the things
>that was fixed in the 1971 rulebook (which fixed a number of problems
>that had been found in the rulebook during postal play in the 1960's).

I have a '76 rule book right here. It says in XII.5 that a convoyed
attack does not protect the convoying fleets, in the sense that
the attack won't cut support of a fleet-which-is-attacking-one-of-
the-convoying fleets. But the Pandin Paradox shows that's not enough.

>I don't think that the 1976 rulebook actually cleared this up.
>(I may be wrong.) I'll reread the 1971 rulebook tonight.

No, it didn't. It wasn't cleared up until the recent rule change.

I'm sure all other readers of the list find this fascinating, huh?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 27 SEP 92 15:57:44 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:50:08 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Youngstown

It sounds as if the Judge game is a *new* version of Youngstown.  Someone
should download a copy of the map and rules and send a copy to the NAVB
so it can be catalogued.

KEN  The fellow that sent me the SWA map gave
KEN  me what he had as the SWA rules for this variant, but I found them
KEN  quite inconsistant and confusing -- particularly when it came to the
KEN  off board box movement.  The rules he gave me indicated that you
KEN  couldn't move from one box to another and paths were not reflective.
KEN  Eg: You could go from NPO-ObL-NAO, but NAO-ObL was not allowed, you
KEN  had to go through ObA.

   Almost all diplomacy variants that have off-board boxes have them as boxes
in two-way directions.  I can't think of any (off-hand) that have them only
on a 1-way direction.  Could the SWA people have got a garbled account
somewhere of how Youngstown boxes work?



KEN  Another problem came up when trying to support
KEN  units.  He tried to tell me you could support a move into another box
KEN  although it wasn't explicitly described in his rules, but that violates
KEN  basic principles of Diplomacy, namely that you can only support a move
KEN  into a space where you can move.  Without being able to do that
KEN  support, though, there were cases where a power could park a unit in an
KEN  offboard box and it could stand off all attempted attacks no matter how
KEN  many units the aggressor had free to throw at it.  Meanwhile, the guy
KEN  with the standing unit could continue to pump units through the one-way
KEN  door.

   I seem to recall that some OBB variants have rules concerning supporting
into and outta the box.  I'd have to look them up.



 Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:39:32 EDT
Reply-To:     LIDHT@GUVM.BITNET
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         LIDHT@GUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Merlin Ban

I haven't had the bad fortune to play with such irresponsible and
unsportsman-like players, but I heartily support a ban. No one who plays with
any kind of responsible action can condone or even tolerate such play.

I do think, however, that if a player from the merlin group makes contact and
explains a good reason for the lifting of the ban, we should be open . . .
dare I say, "diplomatic?"

Todd

                                                  +
Todd M. Lidh                                     { }
Georgetown University                             I
School of Business Administration                /_\
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS;  5 OCT 92 15:15:52 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:13:58 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      NAf/Spa

> There are no other breaks in the land that can be crossed, that are not part
> of a single region (Kiel, Constantinople).  For instance, you can't move
> Spain to North Africa, or Apulia to Albania.  This is pretty much clearly
> marked on the board, as Denmark and Sweden are adjacent, whereas Spain and
> North Africa are separated by a pair of seas.

> Has anyone played any variants with other bridges?  Say Lon/Bel, Spa/NAf?

   The British edition of the game has a very poor map and it almost looks
as if Spa/Naf are touching.  In fact there have been several groups of
British players who assumed that these provinces touched in a similar
way to Den/Swe and so played that A(Spa)-NAf was legal.  The American
map has a much bigger seperation.

   Games which allow A(Spa)-NAf are, of course, variants.  And not
particularly interesting ones at that!

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:24:34 MST
Reply-To:     S9IK9@STARBURST.USCOLO.EDU
From:         S9IK9@STARBURST.USCOLO.EDU
Subject:      new rules

if anyone is interested, i have a copy of the 1982 revised diplomacy rules.
i think that they are the newest, as they came with the game that i ordered
from avalon hill this summer (old board was too ratted out to keep playing on).

I will look for the new convoy rule tonight, and put the exact rule up on the
net tomorrow unless a whole bunch a people tell me not to.

also,

thanks for all the responces to my judge question.  I got a handle on it now.

mike magnuson
s9ik9@starburst.uscolo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 28 SEP 92 16:08:07 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:06:15 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      TUW (the last word! ....well maybe.)

>Well, under the 1971 rulebook (and many of the subsequent ones) it is, of
>course, legitimate.  It is only "illegal" if you use one of the North
>American rulebooks which specifies that convoys must always specify a
>route.

Hal> I use the '71 (actually '76, but what the hell) rulebook.  I think in all
Hal> likelyhood, the UWC is allowed because it wasn't anticipated.
Hal> The fact that
Hal> this has been corrected in later rulebooks is significant (even if they had
Hal> other problems themselves)

Unfortunately I have to agree.  Sinced the revised rulebook hasn't been issued
in the UK (the UK distributors are Gibson's) I'll stick to my nice 71
rulebook.  (Sounds like a wine-tasting, the 71 is more refined, the 87 a
rough number etc)



>   Realism?  Realism?!  REALISM!!  WWI provides an abstract setting for the
>diplomacy mechanism.  Realism goes as far as the names of the 7 powers,
>and ends about there.

Hal> Yes, realism.  If it is only a background for the diplomatic mechanism, why
Hal> even bother with the names of the powers.


   Cause it sells better.


Hal> What makes the UWC legitimate?  The rules.  I believe the rules were
Hal> imperfect
Hal> on this point, just as it is widely held that the `patches' to fix the
Hal> PP are
Hal> imperfect.  And what are any houserules anyway but modifications to the AH
Hal> rules?


   Now there is a school of thought (not a very large one) that claims
that postal/email games are variants because there is more than 15 minutes
between deadlines...

   A more serious school of thought is that all games played to the
American style of separating seasons are variants because they allow
diplomacy to occur after the Autumn adjutication about the Winter
adjustments.  Whilst I sometimes claim that all such games are variants,
in actuality we have to recognise that these are modifications
to adapt diplomacy to postal play.  (I still prefer the International system
of combining seasons, but then I am used to it.)

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 19:40:08 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:38:19 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Denmark (again!)

George has provided a *very* clear answer to this question by referring to
the rule book in considerable detail.  Well done George!

   As it happens I do have a comment, or two, to make...


> Hmm, this is indeed a confusing answer. It is clear that sweden does
> not have two coastlines (because they say so) so bal-swe-ska is legal.
> And bal-den-ska is legal, again because they say it is.

> But it doesn't say *Denmark* does not have two coastlines. And for the
> two other similar looking provinces, kie and con, the rules were
> explicit to mention the internal waterways. But, as has been pointed
> out, it is accepted practice to take this rule, and deduce that Denmark
> does not have two coastlines and thus bal-den-nth is legal.

   It is equally true to say that since the rules specially mention StP
and Bul as having two coasts its failure to mention Den must mean that
Denmark has only one coast.


> Perhaps the only reason Denmark doesn't have two coasts is that there
> wasn't room on the board to print the labels? Maybe. But the real
>logic is if Denmark doesn't seperate Sweden into two coastlines, how
> could Sweden separate Denmark into two coastlines? Or you can use the
> map as part of the rules; the map does not have two coasts labeled for
> Denmark, hence it does not have two coastlines.

  I think that is people look at the map they will soon see why Denmark has
only one coast: the Denmark province includes "water".

   Once again, thanx to George.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:21:40 EDT
Reply-To:     Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: PP and TAC

>From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK

(re unwanted convoy)
>I know.  But it can be such a damned sneaky tactical ploy that when it
>come off I think it *deserves* to be allowed!

Yeah, I'll buy that.

>   The American rules pose some problems for FTF play.  Are you going to insist
>that players list the convoy route for every convoy, and what are you going
>to do if they don't?  NMR the unit becuase it didn't specify a route?

Actually, I don't know what the American rules say about UC. I do know
the JUDGE rules. Sure, you can have players write down the convoy
route face to fact. What's the problem? If they don't, you treat
it according to house rules, same as you treat any ambiguously written
order (eg, f mao - spa).

>Well I have been able to work out why I thought there was a non-problem here,
>and I'm sure you;ll be glad to learn that you were "right" all the time!

Imagine my surprise.
:-)

>The houserule
>fix was that "no units move", this has the same result as the official
>change yo've quoted.

Actually, it doesn't.
For one thing, in the Pandin Paradox, the result with the new
rule would be that the attacked convoying fleet would be dislodged.
For another, there are perfectly unparadoxical situations in which
the new rule still has an important consequence. I like your house
rule better, myself. The new official Dip Rule ruined a really good
solution to a problem I sent to Eric for EP (which no one has responded
to, by the way, <sulk sulk>).

>Can you send me a copy of the new rule please?

No, I don't have it. Sorry. The approximation I gave is the best
I can do. If someone reading this has a recent rule book, send
the new rule to Mark. It would be in section XII.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 26 SEP 92 19:17:44 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:08:00 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: PP and TAC

> Oh, I get it.
> You consider fixing the PP to be minor and changing the UC rule to
> be "main." Vice versa for me.

We seem to have sussed out the bone of contention!  Since I've never seen a
problem resolving PP (see below) I never consider it a problem...


>   Since I see nothing wrong with the UWC the snail mail games I run
>use the 1971 rulebook and hence allow the UWC.

JD> I don't see anything WRONG with it, either. It just makes more
JD> intuitive sense to me to specify the convoy route. (Just try to
JD> picture those soldiers... "Hm, we weren't expecting the enemy boats
JD> to show up, oh well, just hop on... Oh NO! Disruption!" :-) )

I know.  But it can be such a damned sneaky tactical ploy that when it
come off I think it *deserves* to be allowed!

   The American rules pose some problems for FTF play.  Are you going to insist
that players list the convoy route for every convoy, and what are you going
to do if they don't?  NMR the unit becuase it didn't specify a route?




JD> A convoyed attack on a fleet that is supporting an action in a body
JD> of water does not cut that support.

>I'd have to get some old rule books out to check this, but this has
>always been my understanding of this `problem'.

JD> You mean, you always understood that a convoyed attack won't
JD> cut a support offered to a fleet in a body of water? If so,
JD> you have an awesome talent to read things into the rules. It
JD> never would have occurred to me to read the old rules that way.
JD> Apparently most people read them my way, otherwise there would
JD> have been no Pandin Paradox in the first place.

Well I have been able to work out why I thought there was a non-problem here,
and I'm sure you;ll be glad to learn that you were "right" all the time!

   Pandin's paradox was discovered by a postal diplomacy player, and as soon
as it was discovered houserules had to be added to cover this situation.
Houserules were changed to ensure that a convoying army could not protect a
convoying fleet.  (I don't know if this was done in consultation with Calhamer
or not)  So I have always known the "correct" way to adjuticate this problem.
Along the way I must have forgotten that this originated as a postal fix and
may not have been incoperated into the "official" rule-book.  The houserule
fix was that "no units move", this has the same result as the official
change yo've quoted.

So now we know!

Mark

 A PS

JD> No, it didn't. It wasn't cleared up until the recent rule change.

Can you send me a copy of the new rule please?  I've looked in the AZ
file and although PP is there there isn't a mention of the new rule change
and how that effects the adjutication: it should be included.  I've amended
the file and quoted from you above.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"dipl-l@mitvma.mit.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:55:40 TZONE
Reply-To:     DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
From:         DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
Subject:      UWC cont'd

>Well, under the 1971 rulebook (and many of the subsequent ones) it is, of
>course, legitimate.  It is only "illegal" if you use one of the North
>American rulebooks which specifies that convoys must always specify a
>route.

I use the '71 (actually '76, but what the hell) rulebook.  I think in all
likelyhood, the UWC is allowed because it wasn't anticipated.  The fact that
this has been corrected in later rulebooks is significant (even if they had
other problems themselves)


>   Realism?  Realism?!  REALISM!!  WWI provides an abstract setting for the
>diplomacy mechanism.  Realism goes as far as the names of the 7 powers,
>and ends about there.

Yes, realism.  If it is only a background for the diplomatic mechanism, why
even bother with the names of the powers.  Any, as far as tactics are concerned
, we are either representing armies and fleets, or we are representing some
abstract and undefined concept.  I believe they have been called armies and
fleets in every rulebook which has been published.  (Or should I be saying this
to the designer of two `downfall' variants) 8-)


>   Why?  If we are going to disallow a *legitimate* tactical ploy
>(which occurs about once every 1000 or so games...) because we don't like
>the realism why don't we change the movement rules?

What makes the UWC legitimate?  The rules.  I believe the rules were imperfect
on this point, just as it is widely held that the `patches' to fix the PP are
imperfect.  And what are any houserules anyway but modifications to the AH
rules?

	-Hal
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:        UK.AC.LEEDS.GPS; 29 SEP 92 12:32:46 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:25:20 BST
Reply-To:     amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
From:         amt5man@SUN.LEEDS.AC.UK
Subject:      The Paul Thomas Rating System

This originally appeared in the March 1976 issue of
The Mixumau Gazette.

Players score 2% for every sc owned at the end of the game with a
bons of 32% for winning and 32/n% for a n-way draw.

It's a nice, simple system.  I'd make two alterations though before
using it myself:

(a) I think that all wins should score the same, so I'd give the winner
    a total of 36% for sc's (no more);

(b) I think that there should be a bigger differential between a win
    (now scoring 68%) and the best possible draw (a 17-17, scoring
     50%).  Why not give a winner 100% (no sc bonus)? Then a win is
    always at least as good as two good draws.

   Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"DIPL-L@mitvma.mit.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:56:54 TZONE
Reply-To:     DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
From:         DACE@BERTHA.CC.UND.AC.ZA
Subject:      Convoys

Hi all.

To add another voice to the cacophony around Unwanted Convoys:  I disagree with
people who regard it as legitimate.  What is important to remember is that
Diplomacy is basically a board wargame set in a political (diplomatic) context.
Thus I believe we should keep some kind of realism to the tactics.  It is
unreasonable to suppose that WWI soldiers would have jumped on enemy boats when
they had assumed they were driving to the next province.

While Diplomacy does bend historical reality with the amount of stabbing etc.
which can occur, this is strategic and depends entirely on the players.
Permitting something like an unwanted convoy is a different beast altogether.

It is in order to retain this piece of `historical' feel that I think UC's
should be disallowed by forcing specification of convoy routes, and treating
omission of convoy route as an order to move by land (if possible) or as any
other misorder if not.

	-Hal
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:48:17 EDT
Reply-To:     Tony Dugdale <CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
From:         Tony Dugdale <CXAD@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject:      Youngstown Query

I have a few rather random questions about Youngstown.
Anyone out there have any clues?

BTW, I'm refering to Loeb's postscript map of Nov.20, 1991

1.  Why doesn't off-F and off-E touch each other?  Logic
tells me that either Fezzan touches off-D or the above-
mentioned offboards should touch each other.  Is there a
specific strategic or game-tested reason this isn't the
case?  The same holds for Off-I and Off-J.  Either East
Indian touches Off-C, or they touch each other.  Do you
get my point?

2.  Why do the following areas exist?  They seem kinda
useless to me:  Kashmir, Hokkaido (they seem to have no purpose
except allowing another retreat point for fleets/armies), also
Brunie, Hir (this last one only stops certain fleet movements)
Hon (why not let Kyoto touch ECS?), and Shan (why not let
Laos touch Burma?).  Just wondering ...

3.  Why is the Suez as weird as it is?  Why not just make
it a province like any other (like Constantinople)

4.  This is probably the strangest question.  Why is Caspian
Sea impassable?  Why not make it a water province, and let
the ships go up the Volga river and through canals in "Sevastapol"
to Black Sea.  In other words, make Caspian Sea like Baltic Sea,
and make Sevastapol like Kiel:  with waterways that prevent two
differing coasts.  True enough, anyone who would put a fleet
on the Caspian would be kinda dim, but it would allow for
interesting retreats and would allow a fleet in Sevastapol
to touch Iran, not to mention giving Omsk two coasts and making
a fleet built in Moscow possible!!  It's just an idea, and I'm
wondering if it's been done before ...

Tony D
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.dipl-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:52:12 -0400
Reply-To:     George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
From:         George Boyce <george@NR-TECH.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Avalon's 'de-luxe edition' and the 1976 rulebo
              26 Sep 92 12:41:50 EDT."
              <9209261647.AA09126@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu>

> esp. since we who play JUDGE games don't worry about that stuff,
> since we always specify our convoy route. Makes more sense.

Why does it make more sense? If I want to get to Spain to Tunis and I
can lobby the owners of both gol and wes+tyr to convoy me, why can't I
tell the army in Spain to take whichever boat shows up? When fighting
a land battle, you don't have to specify which neighbor is giving
support and you can even get stuck with unwanted support. What would
be really fun is if you got on the boat in wes and they dropped you
off in North Africa instead of Tunis. While *that* isn't allowed, I
see no reason to not leave the convoy route unspecified. Well, except
to make it easier to program the judge.

House rules are house rules, every game should have them. Myself I
miss one very important aspect in the game, which is permitted in the
rules but often not in many games, which is miswritten orders. The
rules are clear that

   4. MECHANICS OF WRITING ORDERS
   ... An illegal order is not followed, and the unit so ordered
   simply stands in its place... An order which admits of
   two meanings is not followed...

It doesn't say illegal orders are not *allowed*, just that they mean
nothing. It doesn't say you have to write orders for all your units.
etc.

I'm in favor of *more* ambiguity in the play of the game, not less.
This isn't a chess game.

George
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU