I will be changing destination

[ElmoTheElk]

O damn! I am so sorry. I just forgot to send orders in the hurry I had this week. This was of course not my intension. But whatsoever I had planned to hold both units, so it won't make any differnce.

As you said my elimination was only a matter of time, and the time has now come. I had a great time playing the game. Thanks Kroeze for being our gamemaster.

And that the best may win. Elmo

[amjayee]

Hehe, our little game is turning interesting. I think role-playing these kinds of things add lots of spice to the game. VetLegion flavored the game with lots of spice with his public announcement. I recognize the response as to belong to his role, he has been saying lots of things like that earlier. Of course the message had some foul language and insults, and I can't say that it didn't move me at all, but I will consider it as part of this game. And I admit I have been quite a back-stabber, so it's all justified. But not in real life, though... I wish the game will remain interesting for those still involved.

[S. Kroeze]

> Hi!
>
> I have an objection though; the timestamp on the message says July
> 23rd, Saturday, 22.55. So it was sent on time. In all official
> situations, where you have to send mail to a specific location
> until certain date, the date on postal stamp decides. So my orders
> were on time. My situation is not decisively worse now, but my
> current strategy would demand the situation after the new orders.
> These kinds of things should not be let affect the game; since
> there was two similar incidents, the problem was in your email
> account and not mine or VetLegion's. So my sense for justice would
> demand you correcting the game report, but of course it's entirely
> up to you.
>
> I hope this incident can be settled, and nothing like this will
> happen in future.
>
> sincerely, amjayee
>
> > ----- Origineel Bericht -----
> > Van: Matti Eskelinen
> > Datum: Zaterdag 23 Juni 2001 22:55
> > Onderwerp: Diplomacy: my corrected moves
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I have made some minor corrections to my orders.
> > >
> > > These orders replace the old ones.
> > > Corrected moves of England for Spring 1905:



> > Dear Amjayee,
> >
> > As you see, your moves have finally -on Monday morning- arrived.
> Too
> > late, I am sorry to say! VetLegion had also sent in moves, which
> did
> > arrive simultaneously. I am sorry for his NMR, yet am satisfied
> he has
> > sent in at least some moves.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sander Kroeze


Dear Amjayee,

Are you a lawyer?
I can understand very well your desire to have the game report changed,
yet I will not do so. I think I have two convincing reasons in their
own right:

"I. IMPORTANT: Please do not send your orders on the last minute! When
they arrive too late -whatever the cause- your units will hold. When
you foresee problems with a deadline, please inform me as soon as
possible and NOT afterwards. It is allowed to send in temporary orders
and to change them later, sending a new list of orders. In that case,
please make it clear that those new orders do replace the original set."

Perhaps it is useful to remind you of my original statement on this
issue: Whatever the cause, when orders arrive too late, this GM -and I
might add most other GM's too- will not accept the orders. I think one
should always follows one's own laws and rulings. It would be most
inconsistent to admit exceptions on one's own original rules. It is not
because a GM likes to punish people that he refuses orders arriving too
late. And I certainly do not doubt that you did send these moves in
time.

You will have learnt by now that players who like to win this game will
try to exploit every opportunity to help their fortune a bit. In some
situations they will argue one way, yet they will argue the other way
when this would suit them better. So the decisions of the GM should be
completely predictable and as consistent as humanly possible. A GM who
can be influenced by public opinion shouldn't manage a Diplomacy game!
(To be honest, I have changed one earlier decision in Spring 1902, and
I am still not absolutely sure whether that was the right thing to do)

A second most compelling reason is, that it would hold up the progress
of the game in a most irritating way. I could no longer send you the
game report on Sunday, but had to wait at least one -or several- day(s)
before sending you the game report. Or perhaps I should send you a
preliminary report, but with an added note that the final report will
arrive some days later. This would create an unworkable situation. And
it would give players additional information: they would discover that
originally their trusted ally, France, stabbed them most ferociously,
though he changed his mind in the end.
Because players are not sure about the report they cannot make accurate
decisions: all negotiation would be founded on assumptions . And when
the final report would be different, every decision could be subjected
to discussions, lawsuits etc. The progress of the game would be
seriously in danger.

I think that by now all players should know they have to send their
orders in time, while they can change their orders till the last
minute, but they do so at their own risk! Of course one could make a
rule that people should just send in their moves before a deadline, but
this is definitely not the established practice in the Diplomacy
community! The GM chooses a deadline of arrival and everyone -the GM
included- should abide by it. Did you know that one of your orders for
Diplomacy is dated: 01-01-1999!? So this system -trusting the date of
dispatchment- would be rather sensitive to fraud.

You will probably not like this decision, but I am adamant about it. It
is a most consistent ruling and players should at least be able to
trust their GM!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[The Joker]

I am back.

Is this good? Yeah, perhabs it is. No, absolutely not.

On one hand this means the end of what is undoubtably one of the greatest times of my life. I have done so much immensely cool stuff, learned so much. And equally, or perhabs much more important, lived with a lot of truly great people, of whom I will only see few of regularly from now on. So today, all in all, has to be considered not only the strangest, but also one of the sadest days of my entire life.

But then again coming home will allow me to do a lot of things that I have missed terribly. Work on GGS, which I will look forward to work on the following days. Hang out with my friends from home, some of which I have not seen in months.

I will be active again from now on. Just one thing. Two weeks from now I am going to Bali, Indonesia () for two weeks. During that time I will be completely unavailable for GGS as well as Diplomacy.

So I humbly ask you, if it could be possible, to accept delaying the deadline for sending in our moves for the turn four weeks from now from sunday morning to monday morning. This will allow me to send my moves in time, and so I will only lose one turn, in stead of two.

If you can not accept this then it will, of cause, be absolutely allright with me. After all, I can not expect you to change a lot of things just because I am going on vacation. So in that case I will just lose those two moves (Since I am saying it now I hope this will not mean me being thrown out of the game, S. Kroeze?), and continue playing after that.

But enough about this. What is important for me now is that I am back.

Can we arrange a meeting any time soon? I will propably spend a lot of time with my family and friends the next days, but this will not stop me from attending a meeting, if we arrange one.

And who are the new people I see on the board?

It's good to be back.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by The Joker

I will be active again from now on. Just one thing. Two weeks from now I am going to Bali, Indonesia () for two weeks. During that time I will be completely unavailable for GGS as well as Diplomacy.

So I humbly ask you, if it could be possible, to accept delaying the deadline for sending in our moves for the turn four weeks from now from sunday morning to monday morning. This will allow me to send my moves in time, and so I will only lose one turn, in stead of two.

If you can not accept this then it will, of cause, be absolutely allright with me. After all, I can not expect you to change a lot of things just because I am going on vacation. So in that case I will just lose those two moves (Since I am saying it now I hope this will not mean me being thrown out of the game, S. Kroeze?), and continue playing after that.

Dear Joker,

Welcome back!
Of course we could arrange some delay in our Diplomacy deadlines during your holiday, that seems perfectly reasonable to me -and I think to all other players too. But could you please go more into particulars! So far it is not clear to me when you will go on holiday, when you will come back and what you are exactly proposing. Could you please give both an explicit and detailed proposal! All remaining players can give their opinion on this issue, yet I am sure everyone will agree with me that avoiding NMRs and allowing time for negotiations is worth a lot of trouble. And for me it hardly makes a difference on which day the deadline passes. It is only most important that everyone knows in advance exactly when the next deadline will pass. Though there are less players left by now, I think the game is still interesting. Everyone can give his opinion on this issue. Please do!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[S. Kroeze]

So I come home, and I read the game report. Unfortunately it did not satisfy
me. I apologize if this sounds arrogant, but are you sure you didn't make a
mistake regarding Rumania?

Let's look at the situation:

My unit in Rumania is holding it's position, and it is supported by my unit in
Sevastopol. Furthermore the unit in sevastopol is supported by a unit in
Moscow. Then the unit in Rumania is attacked, and the attack is supported by
another unit. On top of this my unit in Sevastopol is attacked by a third
unit.

You have chosen to let the third unit cut the support from Sevastopol, and so
dispand the unit in Rumania due to the fact that it is attacked by a superior
force.

But the way I see it the unit in Moscow takes the hit from the attack on
Sevastopol, which lets the unit there continue it's support, since it is
supported by a unit that can fight it's own battle. So I am pretty sure that
the result should be a stand still, and NOT a dispansion of my unit in
Rumania.

Please inform me if I am completely mistaken here. That is just what I believe
is correct.


First let's quote the rule on 'cutting' support (Section X, page 6):
'If a unit ordered to support in a given space is attacked from a space different from the one into which it is giving support, or is dislodged by an attack from any space, including the one into which it is giving support, then its support is "cut". The unit that was to have received that support then does not receive it.'

So I think it is important to note that nowhere in this rule is the possibility of support given by other units mentioned. So this implies it is completely irrelevant for deciding if the support of your army in Sevastopol is cut or not, whether this supporting unit is supported once, twice or thrice.
Actually the rules impose only one restriction on the cutting of support: Support can not be cut by an attack coming from the province into which it is giving support. In this situation this affects an attack coming from Rumenia, the province into which your A Sev was ordered to give support. Yet the 'cutting' attacks originates from Armenia. The only logical conclusion should be that the support order A Sev S F Rum is cut indeed by this attack from Armenia, sadly enough.

Of course your alternative reasoning makes sense in some way.
Actually you argue that because A Mos S A Sev, this support will protect the support given by A Sev to F Rum. Nice try, but this rule is nowhere to be found in the rules! I am sorry...

By the way, you can always ask questions like this one about the rules of the game and their application. They are quite simple, but sometimes resolving conflicts can be rather complicated. I truly admire those game rules.

Some time ago in the middle of May, Amjayee asked more or less the same question, which TempLeland and I answered:

Originally posted by TempLeland
In the first situation you described, both B and C would succeed (if nothing else is going on, for instance someone else attacking B) and A would be dislodged. Also, I think that the support is cut even if the attack itself fails, and you cannot "cut" an attack, so there is really nothing that could stop B from cutting A from supporting another unit. (Wow.. a triple negative! ) Unless, of course, the support was given to an attack that was directed at B. In other words, if

A S C->B, B->A, C->B

Then B->A would fail and B would be dislodged (unless we are still assuming that B's attack is better supported than A's defense, in which case A would be dislodged). But however, if

A S X-Y, B->A, C->B

Then A's support would be cut regardless of whether B->A succeeds or not. Right?

Let's continue with some technical questions:
Then a game move question: if a unit in B attacks a unit in A, and meanwhile a unit in C attacks the unit in B, does the attack of the unit in B fail? Let's assume the attack frim B is better supported than the defense in A.

So we have A/F B-A with support, so it succeeds and the unit in A is dislodged
and A/F C-B which also succeeds since province B is empty (unless a stand-off occurs with an order A/F D-B)

What if the unit in A is giving support, unit in B tries to cut the support given by A by attacking A, and C attacks B to prevent the cutting of support, what happens? I know this is a complicated explanation, but this is a complex game in all its simplicity.

Now we have A/F A S some unit, A/F B-A and A/F C-B
Normally the support of the unit in A will be cut, unless this unit is not dislodged and giving support into province B, from where the attack originated. Normally when A/F B-A succeeds, A/F C-B would succeed too.

I think, TempLeland has answered your question perfectly:
'You cannot "cut" an attack'
I quite agree!

S.Kroeze

PS: I think we should, during your stay in Indonesia, at least halt this game for one entire week. My hatred of NMRs will by now be sufficiently known to justify this! In my opinion, all NMRs are unneccessary!

[ElmoTheElk]

Welcome back Joker!

I just wanted to say that my computer crashed yesterday so I won't be able to post a lot untill it's made. That will be about Thuesday. And I can't come to the meeting too, sadly. I just made the time and then this...

'till later. Elmo

[TempLeland]

I have to agree with S. Kroeze that no NMRs are necessary. I'm sure we can skip one week and rig the dealines so that Joker need not miss his turns. During the game, I've noticed that single turns have tremendous effect on the game, and I don't think that simply delaying the game with one week is worse than an NMR. If I was playing chess and my telephone rang, I wouldn't tell my opponent: "Gosh, excuse me for a minute... but feel free to move your own pieces around so you don't get bored!"

By the way, I'll be having my own vacation in August, lasting a little over three weeks. I hope I can access internet somehow so that we need not skip any more weeks, but for my convenience I might ask an alteration in the deadlines... I'll let you know more when I can figure out my schedule.

L

[The Joker]

Thanks for the support, guys.

My last message was mostly just to introduce you to the idea. The correct dates are as follows:

Monday the 16th is my date of departure. This means that we might as well have a deadline sunday the 15th.

And monday the 30th I will be back.

So the ideal situation for me (in which I would not loose any moves at all) is having a deadline sunday the 15th, and the next tuesday the 31st.

Is this acceptable?


Sad about the lack of succes I had with my complain. Well, you can't blame a guy for trying, right?

And of cause I am ok with delaying the deadline so you wont miss any moves, Leland.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by The Joker
Sad about the lack of succes I had with my complain. Well, you can't blame a guy for trying, right?

Of course I don't blame you!
Far more important is this question: do you truly understand by now why your complaint was unfounded?

I know from experience that the tactics of this game sometimes cause problems. And even a most experienced GM can make a mistake. So you should remain critical! I do not have a problem with questions/discussions about rules. It just takes time to grasp all tactical niceties.

The sooner Leland can produce accurate information about his holiday, the easier it will be to deal with the matter. Please do!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

[amjayee]

The delay proposed by Joker is completely ok with me. I don't have any hurry with this game, and perhaps a vacation from Diplomacy would be quite ok.

It seems that S.Kroeze is shooting down all our complaints. But well, I think it's ok. So far they have all been for good reasons.

[The Joker]

Yeah, I understand your reason.

I still, however, think that my analysis is as good as the rules of the game. But of cause we have to play with the rules given to us by the game.

[TempLeland]

Diplomacy has been played for decades, during which most alterations to rules have been tried out (I've seen rule proposals even for one player diplomacy!). Thus, I believe the current rules are more or less optimal. I'd imagine that ff it was possible to take an attack on behalf of another unit, it would make defensive play a lot easier and enabling boring deadlocks. With currrent rules, you can always defend two units against an attack from other two units, but you cannot do the same with three vs. three... but in some cases (when a third unit is not adjacent to enemy units), if you could prevent the enemy from cutting your support then it would allow you to hold your position regardless of what the enemy does, which in turn makes the game less interesting and predictable.

Nay, I think the current rules are just fine. But it's always nice to speculate, especially since we have to come up with rules as good as those ourselves.

L

[amjayee]

Damn my connection, a double post...

[amjayee]

Heh, it seems I'm tasting my own medicine in our little game. Well, you get what you deserve.

I agree that the rules of the game are quite optimal. But, the game has one great flaw, that many of us have already experienced : you cannot trust anyone; since everyone just tries to win, promises mean nothing. I know I would have needed to be on guard for the Russians, but then I could not have been able to win the Austrians. But I admit my strategy was bad, I would have needed to go for North Europe and not endeavour the south. I just played on too high bets, but that's what I do always. But, no excuses, I tried to bluff with too weak a hand and lost.

Thank you, mr Untrustworthy, you made my day. But beware, the King of England will return. And anyway, my war is not at all over.

I think this has been quite an exciting game, especially for me who has taken far too much unnecessary risks.