| DC 341: W1904 - AceRimmer (Nov 15, 2010, 10:17 am) |
England plops a fleet in Liverpool
Russia summons an army in Warsaw
Italy dismantles an army in Naples
Spring 1905 will be on Friday, November 19th, at 10:00 CST (16:00 GMT).[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 15, 2010, 9:49 am) |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios?[Reply] |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it 
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| dc337 - Summer 1906 Results - z93blom (Nov 15, 2010, 5:13 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC 338 Spring 06 Results - derekthefeared2 (Nov 14, 2010, 8:28 pm) |
No moves from Russia this time. Hopefully they will be around to send moves for the fall. Fall 06 Orders will be due this Friday Nov 19th at 3:00 PM US Eastern time.
The Austrian army in Tus is destroyed. I assumed that the French army will retreat to
BOH. France, please let me know asap if you want to retreat OTB instead.
Let me know if you have any other questions. I think someone had requested a longer deadline over thanksgiving. Please send me an e-mail to refresh me whoever had requested.
thanks,
Austria:
F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea (*Fails*)
A Ankara Hold
A Budapest - Rumania
A Constantinople - Bulgaria
A Greece - Albania
A Silesia Supports A Ukraine - Warsaw
A Trieste - Tyrolia
A Tuscany - Venice (*Disbanded*)
A Ukraine - Warsaw
A Vienna Supports A Trieste - Tyrolia
England:
F Denmark - Helgoland Bight
F Liverpool - Irish Sea (*Bounce*)
F London - English Channel (*Bounce*)
F North Sea Supports F London - English Channel (*Cut*)
A Norway Hold
A St Petersburg - Moscow (*Fails*)
F Sweden - Denmark
France:
F Albania - Trieste
F Brest - English Channel (*Bounce*)
A Burgundy - Munich
F Holland - North Sea (*Fails*)
F Ionian Sea, no move received
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea (*Bounce*)
A Paris - Picardy
A Piedmont Supports A Rome - Tuscany
A Rome - Tuscany
A Ruhr - Kiel
A Tyrolia, no move received (*Dislodged*)
Italy:
A Venice Supports F Albania - Trieste (*Cut*)
Russia:
F Baltic Sea, no move received
F Black Sea, no move received
A Galicia, no move received
A Moscow, no move received
A Sevastopol, no move received[Reply] |
| DC348 - trezdk (Nov 14, 2010, 6:58 pm) |
You are in
DC348 should be underway real soon  [Reply] |
| DC348 - Lane (Nov 14, 2010, 4:03 pm) |
I'd like to join your game if there is still a vacancy
LANE[Reply] |
| DC348 (Open Games) trezdk Nov 14, 06:58 pm |
You are in
DC348 should be underway real soon |
| DC348 - trezdk (Nov 14, 2010, 3:02 pm) |
We need a new player for DC348.
We havent assigned countries yet so everything is open still
The build rules are imperial aka you can build in any start home center you own.
So send me a mail at rk(at)giorsoine.dk asap [Reply] |
| DC348 (Open Games) Lane Nov 14, 04:03 pm |
I'd like to join your game if there is still a vacancy
LANE |
| DC348 (Open Games) trezdk Nov 14, 06:58 pm |
You are in
DC348 should be underway real soon |
| dc330: Wi44 Results! - dknemeyer (Nov 14, 2010, 12:47 pm) |
Hi Everyone,
I am very schedule-driven, and Thursday is my adjudication day. So, with the day shifted to Friday, I plumb forgot about it entirely! Oy vey...
For those who submitted draw votes, remember we only vote for draws on major (spring/fall) seasons. So please do submit (or re-submit) draw votes this season for the following:
IPT
BIPT
DIAS (BIPST)
Upcoming deadlines down at the bottom!
***
PLAYERS
Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de (eliminated Winter 1943)
Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
***
HEADLINES
British vacate former capitol of Germany
Regia Marina bask in Mussolini's latest decisions
Polish army incorporates more mechanized units as horse shortage reaches epidemic levels
Turks consolidate in Balkans, south
Third Republican fleet has breathless Spaniards optimistic about future conquests
***
Britain:
Remove F Berlin
Italy:
Build F Rome(ec)
Build F Naples
Poland:
Build A Latvia
Build A Lithuania
Build A Warsaw
Turkey:
Retreat A Rumania - Dobrujia
Retreat A Serbia - Bulgaria
Republican_Spain:
Retreat A Moscow - Stalingrand
Build F Burgos
***
Ownership of supply centers
Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
France: None.
Germany: None.
Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
USSR: None.
Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
Britain: 7 Supply centers, 7 Units: Remove 0.
France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Italy: 14 Supply centers, 14 Units: Build 0.
Poland: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
Turkey: 11 Supply centers, 11 Units: Build 0.
USSR: 1 Supply center, 1 Units: Remove 0.
Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 5 Units: Build 0.
***
Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
Winter 1945 Adjustments, Thursday November 25
***[Reply] |
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication - bielf11 (Nov 13, 2010, 6:53 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication - FuzzyLogic (Nov 13, 2010, 6:23 pm) |
Is Aetolia not entitled to retreat dislodged units, even despite the NMR?
From: DipCorp Master [mailto:dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:54 PM
To: Charles Welsh (DC327 Attica); Greg Olson (DC327 Aetolia); Jerry Todd (DC327 Boeotia); Matt Barnes (DC327 Messenia); Michael Penner (DC327 Arcolia); Michael Sims; Scott Hickey (DC327 Laconia)
Cc: dc327
Subject: Re: DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication
CORRECTION:
due to an RP error in its .MAP file two Laconian orders failed.
After correction both succeed:
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
New .DPY and .GIF files are attached including the corrected .MAP file that should be copied into the Pericles RP Variants folder.
Once you have done this, restart RP and it should show the right adjudication for THU - MSS.
Frank
2010/11/13 DipCorp Master <dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com>
The DIAS EGP was rejected.
Spring 12
--------------
Aetolia NMRs!
All of the units of Aetolia hold their ground clueless for lack of orders.
As a result of attacks by Arcolia and Laconia 2 of its units are disbanded.
Everyone is wondering is disbelief what has happened to the once so mighty Aetolia.
Is its ruler still alive? Is there a power struggle at the top? Has summer recess started early?
Adjudication
------------------
Aetolia:
A Callium, no move received
F Calydon, no move received
F Cypurissius Sinus, no move received
A Kaphyae, no move received
A Pellea, no move received
A Phocis, no move received
A Pisatis, no move received
A Protilae, no move received (*Disbanded*)
F Sinus Corinthiucus, no move received (*Disbanded*)
A Triphylia, no move received
F Zazynthus Sinus, no move received
Boeotia:
A Helicon Supports A Eleusis - Thebae
Attica:
A Athenae - Phthiotis
F Delion - Corsea
F Euboeius Sinus Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Marathon - Delion
A Opus Supports A Helicon
F Pylos - Cypurissius Sinus (*Fails*)
Arcolia:
A Arcadia Supports A Maniana - Protilae
F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Eleusis - Thebae
F Megara(wc) Supports F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Mycenae - Corinth
A Orchenenus - Pellea (*Fails*)
Laconia:
A Ira Supports A Lycaion
F Khora Supports A Ira
A Lycaion Supports A Maniana - Protilae
A Maniana - Protilae
F Mare Mediterranea Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Megalopolis - Maniana
F Messena Supports F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
F Saronieus Sinus Supports A Mycenae - Corinth
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
Elia:
F Italus Sinus Supports F Cypurissius Sinus
Fall 12 deadline is Thursday Nov 18 at 7pm GMT.
Frank
[Reply] |
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication - bielf11 (Nov 13, 2010, 5:53 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC327 - Another RP error - bielf11 (Nov 13, 2010, 5:35 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication - bielf11 (Nov 13, 2010, 3:46 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication (dc327) bielf11 Nov 13, 05:53 pm |
|
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication (dc327) FuzzyLogic Nov 13, 06:23 pm |
Is Aetolia not entitled to retreat dislodged units, even despite the NMR?
From: DipCorp Master [mailto:dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:54 PM
To: Charles Welsh (DC327 Attica); Greg Olson (DC327 Aetolia); Jerry Todd (DC327 Boeotia); Matt Barnes (DC327 Messenia); Michael Penner (DC327 Arcolia); Michael Sims; Scott Hickey (DC327 Laconia)
Cc: dc327
Subject: Re: DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication
CORRECTION:
due to an RP error in its .MAP file two Laconian orders failed.
After correction both succeed:
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
New .DPY and .GIF files are attached including the corrected .MAP file that should be copied into the Pericles RP Variants folder.
Once you have done this, restart RP and it should show the right adjudication for THU - MSS.
Frank
2010/11/13 DipCorp Master <dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com>
The DIAS EGP was rejected.
Spring 12
--------------
Aetolia NMRs!
All of the units of Aetolia hold their ground clueless for lack of orders.
As a result of attacks by Arcolia and Laconia 2 of its units are disbanded.
Everyone is wondering is disbelief what has happened to the once so mighty Aetolia.
Is its ruler still alive? Is there a power struggle at the top? Has summer recess started early?
Adjudication
------------------
Aetolia:
A Callium, no move received
F Calydon, no move received
F Cypurissius Sinus, no move received
A Kaphyae, no move received
A Pellea, no move received
A Phocis, no move received
A Pisatis, no move received
A Protilae, no move received (*Disbanded*)
F Sinus Corinthiucus, no move received (*Disbanded*)
A Triphylia, no move received
F Zazynthus Sinus, no move received
Boeotia:
A Helicon Supports A Eleusis - Thebae
Attica:
A Athenae - Phthiotis
F Delion - Corsea
F Euboeius Sinus Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Marathon - Delion
A Opus Supports A Helicon
F Pylos - Cypurissius Sinus (*Fails*)
Arcolia:
A Arcadia Supports A Maniana - Protilae
F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Eleusis - Thebae
F Megara(wc) Supports F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Mycenae - Corinth
A Orchenenus - Pellea (*Fails*)
Laconia:
A Ira Supports A Lycaion
F Khora Supports A Ira
A Lycaion Supports A Maniana - Protilae
A Maniana - Protilae
F Mare Mediterranea Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Megalopolis - Maniana
F Messena Supports F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
F Saronieus Sinus Supports A Mycenae - Corinth
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
Elia:
F Italus Sinus Supports F Cypurissius Sinus
Fall 12 deadline is Thursday Nov 18 at 7pm GMT.
Frank
|
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication (dc327) bielf11 Nov 13, 06:53 pm |
|
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication (dc327) evapollo88 Nov 15, 10:21 pm |
|
| DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication (dc327) FuzzyLogic Nov 16, 08:18 am |
Is there any end to this game? Anything ppl want to vote?
From: Gregory Olson [mailto lson.gregoryscott(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 11/15/2010 10:21 PM
To: lequinian(at)gmail.com
Cc: Michael Sims; DipCorp Master; Charles Welsh (DC327 Attica); Jerry Todd (DC327 Boeotia); Michael Penner (DC327 Arcolia); Scott Hickey (DC327 Laconia); dc327
Subject: Re: DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication
Sorry everyone for the sloppy play. I'm fine with the GM rules of a disband for my retreats. My apologies again, and I'm still with us.
Greg
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, <lequinian(at)gmail.com> wrote:
I've seen it both ways depending on the GM.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: "Michael Sims" <mike(at)fuzzylogicllc.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:23:59 -0600
To: DipCorp Master<dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com>; Charles Welsh \(DC327 Attica\)<welsh_stroud(at)msn.com>; Greg Olson \(DC327 Aetolia\)<olson.gregoryscott(at)gmail.com>; Jerry Todd \(DC327 Boeotia\)<sgttodd(at)mainecav.org>; Matt Barnes \(DC327 Messenia\)<mlb767(at)aim.com>; Michael Penner \(DC327 Arcolia\)<mvpenner(at)yahoo.com>; Scott Hickey \(DC327 Laconia\)<thase+dipcorp(at)dalarin.net>
Cc: dc327<dc327(at)diplomaticcorp.com>
Subject: RE: DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication
Is Aetolia not entitled to retreat dislodged units, even despite the NMR?
From: DipCorp Master [mailto:dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:54 PM
To: Charles Welsh (DC327 Attica); Greg Olson (DC327 Aetolia); Jerry Todd (DC327 Boeotia); Matt Barnes (DC327 Messenia); Michael Penner (DC327 Arcolia); Michael Sims; Scott Hickey (DC327 Laconia)
Cc: dc327
Subject: Re: DC327 - Spring 12 adjudication
CORRECTION:
due to an RP error in its .MAP file two Laconian orders failed.
After correction both succeed:
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
New .DPY and .GIF files are attached including the corrected .MAP file that should be copied into the Pericles RP Variants folder.
Once you have done this, restart RP and it should show the right adjudication for THU - MSS.
Frank
2010/11/13 DipCorp Master <dipcorp.master(at)gmail.com>
The DIAS EGP was rejected.
Spring 12
--------------
Aetolia NMRs!
All of the units of Aetolia hold their ground clueless for lack of orders.
As a result of attacks by Arcolia and Laconia 2 of its units are disbanded.
Everyone is wondering is disbelief what has happened to the once so mighty Aetolia.
Is its ruler still alive? Is there a power struggle at the top? Has summer recess started early?
Adjudication
------------------
Aetolia:
A Callium, no move received
F Calydon, no move received
F Cypurissius Sinus, no move received
A Kaphyae, no move received
A Pellea, no move received
A Phocis, no move received
A Pisatis, no move received
A Protilae, no move received (*Disbanded*)
F Sinus Corinthiucus, no move received (*Disbanded*)
A Triphylia, no move received
F Zazynthus Sinus, no move received
Boeotia:
A Helicon Supports A Eleusis - Thebae
Attica:
A Athenae - Phthiotis
F Delion - Corsea
F Euboeius Sinus Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Marathon - Delion
A Opus Supports A Helicon
F Pylos - Cypurissius Sinus (*Fails*)
Arcolia:
A Arcadia Supports A Maniana - Protilae
F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Eleusis - Thebae
F Megara(wc) Supports F Corinth - Sinus Corinthiucus
A Mycenae - Corinth
A Orchenenus - Pellea (*Fails*)
Laconia:
A Ira Supports A Lycaion
F Khora Supports A Ira
A Lycaion Supports A Maniana - Protilae
A Maniana - Protilae
F Mare Mediterranea Convoys A Athenae - Phthiotis
A Megalopolis - Maniana
F Messena Supports F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
F Saronieus Sinus Supports A Mycenae - Corinth
A Sparta - Thuria
F Thuria - Messeniacus Sinus
Elia:
F Italus Sinus Supports F Cypurissius Sinus
Fall 12 deadline is Thursday Nov 18 at 7pm GMT.
Frank
|
| dc334 s06 results! - FuzzyLogic (Nov 13, 2010, 7:46 am) |
The Thessalian fleet retreats to Pag! Map later.
Fall 6 due Friday 11/19, 3pm Central…
From: Michael Sims
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:11 PM
To: welsh_stroud(at)msn.com; madpeters(at)earthlink.net; hurup(at)pc.dk; jm.gilbert(at)tiscali.co.uk; Maxatrest(at)yahoo.co.uk; sscarbrough(at)lujack.com; kmiller(at)lujack.com
Cc: dc334
Subject: dc334 s06 results!
Apathy is the trend for 306 AD as both Thessalia and Boeotia take the turn off. The empire of Boeotia plunges into darkness... abandoned by their leader, the remaning forces retreat from the battlefield leaving a scant force to seek guidance from the Oracle at Delphi. Surely Zeus would not be pleased... but after a years w no communication, Boeotia is out of the game, units will hold, and disband if dislodged.
We have one retreat! Thessalian F Chalcis to retreat by Friday 3pm Central!
Athens:
F Athens Hold
F Delos Hold
A Diacria Hold
F Megara - Aegina
F Thebes Supports F West Aegean Sea - Chalcis
F West Aegean Sea - Chalcis
Boeotia:
A Delphi, no move received
A Locris, no move received
Persia:
F Amphipolis - Olynthus
A Byzantium Supports A Troia - Thracia (*Fails*)
F Carpathian Sea - South Cretan Sea
F Chios - West Aegean Sea
F Cnossos Supports F South Cretan Sea - South Ionian Sea
F Dorian Sea - South Sporades
F Lemnos Supports F Chios - West Aegean Sea
F Lesbos Supports F Chios - West Aegean Sea
A Miletus Hold
F Samos - North Sporades
F South Cretan Sea - South Ionian Sea
A Thracia - Therma (*Fails*)
F Thracian Sea Supports F Amphipolis - Olynthus
A Troia - Thracia (*Fails*)
Sparta:
A Achaia Supports A Naupactus
F Gulf of Patrae - South Ionian Sea (*Fails*)
A Naupactus Hold
F North Ionian Sea - Ithaca
F South Ionian Sea - Gulf of Laconia
F West Cyclades - North Cretan Sea
Thessalia:
A Aetolia, no move received
A Ambracia, no move received
F Chalcis Hold (*Dislodged*)
F Dodona, no move received
A Lamia, no move received
A Odrysae, no move received
F Olynthus Hold (*Disbanded*)
F Pherae, no move received
A Therma, no move received
F Thermaic Gulf, no move received
[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - Blueraider0 (Nov 13, 2010, 12:12 am) |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap.....[Reply] |
| dc342 ~ Imperial 1841 - sgttodd (Nov 12, 2010, 10:53 pm) |
Deadline for Summer 1844 retreats: Monday, November 15th (at) 2359
UTC.
The following units were dislodged:
Spanish A Metz can retreat to Rouen.
Austrian F Tyrrhenian Sea can retreat to Sicily or Salerno or
Rome(wc) or Ionian Sea.
Dutch F Celebes Sea can retreat to Timor Sea or New Guinea or
Celebes.
Unit locations:
Austria: A Venice, A Marseilles, A Holland, F Denmark, A Kiel, A
Stuttgart, A Metz, A Piedmont, A Switzerland, A South Africa, F
Baltic Sea, F Cimbebas Coast, F Tyrrhenian Sea.
Britain: A Paris, A Nantes, F Java, A Caffrabia, A Kasmir, A Ceylon,
A Punjab, A French Guiana, F Haiti, F Barents Sea, F Norwegian Sea,
F Helgoland Bight, F English Channel, F Arabian Sea, F N.E.Indian
Ocean, F N.W.Indian Ocean, F Java Sea, F Celebes Sea.
China: F Guangdong, F Yongmingcheng, F Kagoshima, A Irkutsk, F
Edo, A Hue, A Xining, A Xinjang, A Mongolia, A Nei Mongol, A
Formosa, A Yakutsk, F Eastern Sea.
France: F Loango, A Cape Colony, A Bordeaux, A Bambarra, A Soudan,
F British Guiana, F The Azores, F Mid-Atlantic Ocean, F Roaring
Forties, F Mozabaique Channel, F Bismark Sea.
Holland: F Borneo, F Phillipines, A Sakhurlin, F Coral Sea, F
Celebes Sea.
Ottoman: F Tunisia, A Ethiopia, A Donga, A Hahira, A Somolia, F Ade,
A Afganistan, A Bangalore, A Hadramaut, F Red Sea, F Persian Gulf.
Russia: A St Petersburg, A Orenburg, A Norway, A Tashkent, A Omsk,
A Evenki, A Khiva, A Krasnoyarsk, A Bokhara, F Skagerrak.
Spain: F Madrid, A Columbia, F Algiers, A Mozambique, A Amazona, F
Venezuela, A Vancouver, F Gulf of Lyon, F Tyrrhenian Sea, F Rio de
Plate, F Horn of Africa, F Phillipene Sea, F Izu Sea, F W.Pacific
Ocean, F S.W.Pacific Ocean, F Hawaii, F Chilean Basin, A Metz.
USA: A Bahama Islands, A Washington DC, F Labrador Sea, F
Greenland Sea, F Canaries Seaway, F Gulf of Maine, F Bay of Florida,
F Eastern Carribean, F Sargasso Sea, F Amazon Basin.
Movement results for Spring of 1844.
Austria: F Berlin - Baltic Sea.
Austria: A Venice - Switzerland.
Austria: A Paris - Metz.
Austria: A Marseilles - Catalunia (*Bounce*).
Austria: A Holland Hold.
Austria: A Bavaria - Kiel.
Austria: A Stuttgart Supports A Paris - Metz.
Austria: A Croatia - Venice.
Austria: A Piedmont - Marseilles (*Fails*).
Austria: A Cimbebas - South Africa.
Austria: F Baltic Sea - Denmark.
Austria: F Tyrrhenian Sea - Gulf of Lyon (*Dislodged*).
Austria: F Cimbebas Coast Supports A Cimbebas - South Africa.
Britain: A London - Nantes.
Britain: F Edinburgh - Norwegian Sea.
Britain: F Malaysia - Java Sea.
Britain: A Nantes - Paris.
Britain: F Maldives - N.W.Indian Ocean.
Britain: A Natal - Caffrabia.
Britain: F Java Supports F Malaysia - Java Sea.
Britain: F Cuba - Haiti.
Britain: A Kasmir Supports A Xinjang.
Britain: A Ceylon - Hadramaut (*Fails*).
Britain: A Punjab Supports A Kasmir.
Britain: A French Guiana Hold.
Britain: F Norwegian Sea - Barents Sea.
Britain: F North Sea - Helgoland Bight.
Britain: F English Channel Convoys A London - Nantes.
Britain: F Arabian Sea Convoys A Ceylon - Hadramaut.
Britain: F N.E.Indian Ocean Convoys A Ceylon - Hadramaut.
Britain: F China Sea - Celebes Sea.
China: F Guangdong - China Sea (*Bounce*).
China: F Yongmingcheng - Sakhurlin (*Fails*).
China: F Kagoshima Supports F Phillipene Sea.
China: A Irkutsk Supports A Mongolia.
China: F Edo Supports F Kuril Sea - Izu Sea.
China: A Hue Hold.
China: A Xining Supports A Xinjang.
China: A Xinjang Supports A Kasmir.
China: A Mongolia Supports A Xinjang.
China: A Nei Mongol Supports A Mongolia.
China: A Formosa Hold.
China: A Yakutsk Supports A Irkutsk.
China: F Eastern Sea Supports F Phillipene Sea.
France: F Dutch Guiana - British Guiana.
France: A Bordeaux Supports A Nantes - Paris.
France: A Caffrabia - Cape Colony.
France: F Congo - Loango.
France: A Mongearts - Bambarra.
France: A Soudan Hold.
France: F Marshalls - Bismark Sea.
France: F Bay of Biscay - The Azores.
France: F Gulf of Guinea - Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
France: F Mozabaique Channel - Roaring Forties.
France: F Horn of Africa - Mozabaique Channel.
Holland: F Phillipines - China Sea (*Bounce*).
Holland: A Sakhurlin - Yongmingcheng (*Fails*).
Holland: F Java Sea - Borneo.
Holland: F Celebes Sea Supports F Phillipines - China Sea
(*Dislodged*).
Holland: F Bismark Sea - Coral Sea.
Ottoman: F Egypt(ec) - Red Sea.
Ottoman: A Abyssinia - Donga.
Ottoman: F Tunisia Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea (*Ordered to Move*).
Ottoman: A Ethiopia Supports A Abyssinia - Donga.
Ottoman: A Hahira Hold.
Ottoman: A Somolia - Zanguebar (*Bounce*).
Ottoman: A Ade - Hadramaut.
Ottoman: A Afganistan Hold.
Ottoman: A Bangalore Supports A Afganistan.
Ottoman: F Red Sea - Ade.
Ottoman: F Persian Gulf Supports A Ade - Hadramaut.
Russia: A St Petersburg Supports A Norway.
Russia: A Orenburg - Khiva.
Russia: A Norway Hold.
Russia: F Sweden - Skagerrak.
Russia: A Tashkent Supports A Krasnoyarsk.
Russia: A Omsk Supports A Evenki.
Russia: A Evenki Supports A Krasnoyarsk.
Russia: A Georgia - Orenburg.
Russia: A Krasnoyarsk Supports A Tashkent.
Russia: A Bokhara Supports A Afganistan.
Spain: F Society Islands - S.W.Pacific Ocean.
Spain: F Madrid - Catalunia (*Bounce*).
Spain: A Columbia Supports F Venezuela.
Spain: F Zanguebar - Horn of Africa.
Spain: A Metz, no move received (*Dislodged*).
Spain: F Morocco - Algiers.
Spain: A Mozambique - Zanguebar (*Bounce*).
Spain: A Amazona Hold.
Spain: F Chili - Chilean Basin.
Spain: F Montevideo - Rio de Plate.
Spain: F Venezuela Supports A Columbia.
Spain: A Vancouver Hold.
Spain: F Western Mediterranean - Tyrrhenian Sea.
Spain: F Gulf of Lyon Supports F Western Mediterranean - Tyrrhenian
Sea.
Spain: F Phillipene Sea Supports F China Sea - Celebes Sea.
Spain: F Kuril Sea - Izu Sea.
Spain: F W.Pacific Ocean Supports F Marshalls - Bismark Sea.
Spain: F E.Pacific Ocean - Hawaii.
USA: F Quebec - Labrador Sea.
USA: F Antilles - Amazon Basin.
USA: F Boston - Gulf of Maine.
USA: F Charleston - Bay of Florida.
USA: A Florida - Bahama Islands.
USA: A Washington DC Hold.
USA: F N.Atlantic Ocean - Greenland Sea.
USA: F Bay of Florida - Sargasso Sea.
USA: F Western Carribean - Eastern Carribean.
USA: F Sargasso Sea - Canaries Seaway.
Deadline for Summer 1844 retreats: Monday, November 15th (at) 2359
UTC.
files: http://mainecav.org/diplomacy[Reply] |
| DC 338 Spring 06 Reminder - derekthefeared2 (Nov 12, 2010, 10:18 pm) |
Reminder that spring 06 orders are due this sunday at 3:00 pm US eastern time. If you haven't sent in orders yet, get them in.
Thanks.[Reply] |
| dc342 ~ Imperial 1841 - sgttodd (Nov 12, 2010, 6:03 pm) |
The deadline for Spring 1844 orders is being extended to 0359 UTC
today by request.
[Reply] |
| DC 333, Fall 1906 - alwayshunted (Nov 12, 2010, 6:00 pm) |
Hi folks,
The two way draw.... fails. There is a new proposal now for a three way, FRANCE, TURKEY, RUSSIA draw. Votes for this will be due with the spring 1907 orders.
We have two retreats due (see below), one for France and one for England. They will be due on Monday, November15, 17:00 MST. That being said, I think I mentioned that my internet will be a bit unpredictable for the next two weeks. I will attempt to keep the game going without any hiccups, but bear with me if I'm a bit slow. Someone else is away for a week between the 18th and 24th or thereabouts, so there won't be any deadlines within that time period.
Here is the adjudication:
----------------------------------
England:
A Edinburgh - Yorkshire
F North Sea - Norwegian Sea (*Dislodged*)
France:
A Brest - Gascony
F Gulf of Lyon - Spain(sc) (*Bounce*)
A Picardy - Belgium
F Rome Supports A Apulia - Naples
A Ruhr - Burgundy
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Tunis
A Venice Hold (*Dislodged*)
Italy:
A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Western Mediterranean - Spain(sc) (*Bounce*)
Russia:
A Berlin - Munich
F Denmark Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Holland Hold
A Kiel Hold
F Norway - Norwegian Sea (*Bounce*)
F Sevastopol Hold
A Silesia Supports A Berlin - Munich
F Skagerrak - North Sea
F Sweden - Norway (*Fails*)
A Ukraine Supports F Sevastopol
Turkey:
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Trieste - Venice
F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
A Apulia - Naples
F Black Sea - Sevastopol (*Fails*)
A Budapest Supports A Rumania
F Eastern Mediterranean Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Rumania Supports F Black Sea - Sevastopol
A Trieste - Venice
A Vienna - Tyrolia
RETREATS:
English F North Sea can retreat to Edinburgh or Helgoland Bight
or English Channel or London.
French A Venice can retreat to Tuscany or Piedmont or Apulia.
-------------------------
There you go, maps are attached, check my work. Later....
Warren[Reply] |
| dc307 ~ Orient Express - sgttodd (Nov 12, 2010, 5:57 pm) |
Deadline for Fall 1916 orders; Tuesday, November 16th (at) 2359 UTC.
The following units were dislodged:
Indonesian F Australia retreats to South Indian Ocean.
Unit locations:
India: A Afghanistan, F Australia, F Borneo, A Calcutta, F East
Africa, A Kunlun, A Pakistan, F Persian Gulf, F Sri Lanka, F
Sumatra, A Thailand.
Indonesia: F South Indian Ocean.
Russia: A Arabia, F Barents Sea, F Caspian Sea, F Central Indian
Ocean, A Iran, F Oman, A Sevastopol, F Yemen.
Siberia: F Arctic Sea, F Bay of Bengal, A Cambodia, F Celebes Sea,
A Ekaterinburg, F Jawan Sea, A Kazakhstan, A Laos, A Novosibirsk, F
Sea of Okhotsk, F South China Sea, F Thai Sea, A Tien Shan, A Tibet,
A Urals, A Uzbekistan, A Warsaw, A West Siberia.
Movement results for Spring of 1916.
India: F Arabian Sea - East Africa.
India: A Bangladesh - Calcutta.
India: F Borneo Hold.
India: F Eastern Indian Ocean - Australia.
India: A Kunlun Hold.
India: A Pakistan Supports A Tien Shan - Afghanistan.
India: F Persian Gulf - Iran(sc) (*Fails*).
India: F Sri Lanka Supports F Bay of Bengal - Arabian Sea.
India: F Sumatra - Central Indian Ocean (*Fails*).
India: A Thailand Hold.
India: A Tien Shan - Afghanistan.
Indonesia: F Australia Hold (*Dislodged*).
Russia: A Afghanistan - Uzbekistan (*Disbanded*).
Russia: A Arabia - Iraq (*Bounce*).
Russia: F Barents Sea - St. Petersburg (*Bounce*).
Russia: F Caspian Sea Supports A Afghanistan - Uzbekistan.
Russia: F Central Indian Ocean Hold.
Russia: A Iran - Iraq (*Bounce*).
Russia: F Oman Supports F Yemen - Arabian Sea.
Russia: A Sevastopol - Moscow (*Bounce*).
Russia: F Yemen - Arabian Sea (*Bounce*).
Siberia: F Arctic Sea Convoys A West Siberia - St. Petersburg.
Siberia: F Bay of Bengal - Arabian Sea (*Bounce*).
Siberia: A Cambodia Hold.
Siberia: F Celebes Sea Supports F Jawan Sea.
Siberia: A Ekaterinburg - Urals (*Fails*).
Siberia: A Irkutsk - Novosibirsk.
Siberia: F Jawan Sea Supports F Eastern Indian Ocean - Australia.
Siberia: F Kamchatka - Sea of Okhotsk.
Siberia: A Kazakhstan Supports A Uzbekistan.
Siberia: A Laos Hold.
Siberia: A Mongolia - Tien Shan.
Siberia: A Moscow - Warsaw.
Siberia: F South China Sea Hold.
Siberia: F Thai Sea Hold.
Siberia: A Tibet Hold.
Siberia: A Urals - Moscow (*Bounce*).
Siberia: A Uzbekistan Supports F Persian Gulf - Iran (*Cut*).
Siberia: A West Siberia - St. Petersburg (*Bounce*).
Deadline for Fall 1916 orders; Tuesday, November 16th (at) 2359 UTC.
files: http://mainecav.org/diplomacy[Reply] |
| DC 336 Spring '05 Adjudication - mgsmuhammad (Nov 12, 2010, 2:18 pm) |
Austria
A Rum to Ukr *bounce*
A Bud supports Vie
A Vie to hold
F Tri to Adr
A Rom to hold
F Ven to hold
A Ger to Ser
A Bul to Rum *bounce*
Germany
A Mun-Tyr
A Boh S A Mun - Tyr
A Gal - War *bounce*
A Ber - Mun
A Hol - Kie
F Ska - Den
A Nor H
F Gulf of Bothnia - St.Pete South
France
F(ION)-Tun
F(Mar)-GOL
A(Pie) S German A(Mun)-Tyr
A(Bel)-Bur *bounce*
A(Gas)-Bur *bounce*
A(Lon)-Yor
F(ENG)-NTH
F(Wal)-Lon
Russia
A Moscow - Ukraine *bounce*
F North Sea - Helgoland Bight
A Sevastopol - Ukraine *bounce*
A Silesia ??? Warsaw *bounce*
Next adjudication is on the 19th of November.[Reply] |
| DC 341: A very befuddled F1904 - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 12:04 pm) |
After this season, we may need a clinic on movement orders.
First, the fleet on the east coast of Bulgaria cannot move to Aegean Sea or Greece. Nor can it support units to move to or hold in those provinces. And if it *could* support units in Aegean to hold, it would be strange to also order F Aegean-Greece.
Second, when supporting another player???s fleet to move, ???F Edi support F-Fleet into NTH??? is *barely* legitimate. Fortunately, Nathan verified his intent with me before the deadline. He has already been admonished to name the other fleet???s province of origin.
Third, you cannot order units you do not have. Such as armies in Apulia. It would be much wiser to submit orders for all of the units you do have. Like armies in Naples.
Fourth, ???F Ionian S - Adriatic Sea??? is ugly. Is it a support order, a movement order, or an invalid order? Originally I thought it should support. I???ve changed my mind. It is an invalid order and therefore holds. [Note: this order would be unambiguous if there had been no fleet in Adriatic to begin with; it could only have implied movement].
You lot are definitely not ready for Broadway
Bearing all of that in mind, we somehow have no retreats. That means that Winter adjustments are due on Monday at 10:00 a.m. CST (16:00 GMT). England, Italy, and Russia have decisions to make.
Austria: Supp 2 Unit 2 Build 0
England: Supp 3 Unit 2 Build 1
France: Supp 6 Unit 6 Build 0
Germany: Supp 6 Unit 6 Build 0
Italy: Supp 5 Unit 6 Remove 1
Russia: Supp 8 Unit 7 Build 1
Turkey: Supp 4 Unit 4 Build 0
So, what actually did happen besides a lot of stepping on banana peels? Germany gained the North Sea. French and English units did not move at all. Russia sailed across the Black Sea to Armenia (things do not look good for Turkey). And Austria miraculously lost both his supply centers yet remains at a net zero change for the year. Shawn is no doubt just shaking his head in disbelief.
F1903 Adjudication:
Austria:
F ADR -> VEN
A ALB -> TRI
England:
F Edi support F-Fleet into NTH
A Lon hold
France:
F English Channel -> North Sea (*Fails*)
F North Atlantic -> Norwegian Sea (*Bounce*)
A Belguim -> Holland (*Bounce*)
A Picardy -> Belgium (*Fails*)
A Burgundy -> Ruhr (*Fails*)
A Marseilles Stands
Germany:
F Hol - NTH
F SKA S F Hol - NTH
A Den H
A Kie - Hol (*Bounce*)
A Ruh S A Kie - Hol
A Mu S A Ruh
Italy:
A Piedmont S A Apula - Venice
A Trieste - Vienna
F Greece S F Tyrhennian Sea - Ionian Sea (*Cut*)
F Ionian S - Adriatic Sea (*Unit Holds*)
F Tyrhennian Sea - Ionian Sea (*Bounce*)
A Apula ??? Venice
Russia:
F Barents Sea - Norwegian Sea (*Bounce*)
F Black Sea Convoys A Rumania - Armenia
A Finland - St Petersburg
F Norway Supports F Holland - North Sea
A Rumania - Armenia
A Serbia Supports A Ukraine - Rumania
A Ukraine ??? Rumania
Turkey:
East Med to Ionian (*Bounce*)
Aegean to Greece (*Fails*)
Bulgaria support Aegean (*Fails*)
Constantinople hold[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 10:23 am) |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 10:14 am) |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved [Reply] |
| DC 345: The One Who Will Win Retreats - AceRimmer (Nov 12, 2010, 9:22 am) |
No secret here. F Nwy-Nth. F Den-Hel.
Winter adjustments (due Monday):
DRE: Supp 2 Unit 3 Remove 1
Adaria: Supp 7 Unit 6 Build 1
Itea: Supp 2 Unit 2 Build 0
The_One_Who_Will_Win: Supp 3 Unit 5 Remove 2
Hembria: Supp 6 Unit 5 Build 1
Zonotrichia: Supp 6 Unit 6 Build 0
Trigspor: Supp 5 Unit 4 Build 1
Dulceria: Supp 3 Unit 3 Build 0
So, Itea, Ducleria, and Zonotrichia can nap. Everybody else has work to do.
Due Monday, November 15, at 3:00 p.m. CST (21:00 GMT)[Reply] |
