Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cad
From: cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul)
Newsgroups: net.games
Subject: What Diplomacy Are You Playing?!?
Message-ID: <1390@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-May-84 10:28:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1390
Posted: Tue May 29 10:28:18 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 22:07:38 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 79

Reynolds game, Fall 1901 moves.

As far as I'm concerned, this will be my last commentary on
the Diplomacy game being run by Mr. Reynolds.  I don't
know what version of the rules he is using to Gamemaster
this game, but they are not the rules of Diplomacy.

There seems to be a horrendous confusion between disposition
of a "failed move" versus disposition of a "dislodged unit".
The rules clearly differentiate these two cases, providing a
separate section to handle "dislodgment".  

In short, when two units move to the same area, with equal
support (including no support), both moves FAIL.  This is clearly
stated in the rules under CONFLICTS.  With such a "failed move"
(commonly known as a "bounce") the pieces "bouncing" return
to their starting places, since their moves have FAILED.  
The "bounced" piece does NOT get to return to another area, as if
it were "dislodged" from the area it failed to move into.
This can, and frequently does, cause a cascade of "bounces" if
the player making the "failed move" does not foresee this.

A unit is only entitled to a RETREAT only following its dislodgment 
from an area it had successfully occupied (in a previous turn).

A unit moving unsupported into an area that is under attack by
a unit with support FAILS to move, since it never successfully
occupied the area under attack.

Admittedly, these rules are a little tricky, but any Diplomat
worth his salt knows them by heart.  Such bizarre things as
Army Bulgaria to Greece (and when that FAILS, wandering into
unoccupied Serbia) are absolutely ridiculous.  If I were the
Austrians in this game, I would feel totally aghast to find
such a poor interpretation of the rules being visited on me.

The actual Fall 1901 moves should have been:

Germany: F Den Holds, A Kie - Hol, A Ber Holds

Italy: A Apu - Ven, A Ven - Tri, F Ion - Tun
	(A Ven FAILS, A Apu FAILS)

England: F Nwg - Bar, F Nrs C A Yor - Nor, A Yor - Nor

Russia: F Sev - Rum, A Gal - Vie, A Ukr - Gal, F Bot - Swe

France: A Pic - Bel, A Spa - Por, F Mid - Spa (sc)

Turkey: A Bul - Gre, A Con - Bul, F Bla S (R) F Sev - Rum
	(A Bul FAILS, A Con FAILS)

Austria: F Alb - Gre, A Bud - Ser, A Bud S A Tri, A Tri S A Bud - Ser
	(A Bud FAILS (two orders))

Fall 1901 positions should then by:

Germany: F Den, A Hol, A Ber     (2 builds)
Italy: A Ven, A Apu, F Tun       (1 build)
England: A Nor, F Bar, F Nrs     (1 build)
Russia: F Rum, A Vie, A Gal, F Swe  (3 builds!)
France: A Bel, A Por, F Spa (sc)    (3 builds!)
Turkey: A Bul, A Con, F Bla      (1 build)
Austria: A Bud, A Tri, F Alb	 (1 removal)

Unfortunately, this game has already advanced under the faulty
ruling, and is now, most likely irreparable.  Turkey will
certainly protest a change now, as may Italy.  I certainly
have no interest in trying to comment on such a game.  I can
only hope the the other Diplomacy game being run by Dave Peak
will not suffer the same fate.  (Dave, if you disagree, or
don't understand all this, please contact me before it is
too late) I feel most sorry for the players of Brian's game,
who may have entered into the game expecting one sort of game
and got another.

			What madness hath been wrought?

			---> Chuck A DeGaul <---