myers@uwmacc.UUCP (06/12/85)
> > Picture this: > > ENGLAND > A Lon -> Brest > F Eng.Ch CON A Lon -> Brest > A Pic SUP A Lon -> Brest > > FRANCE > F M.A.O -> Eng.Ch > F Brest SUP F M.A.O. -> Eng.Ch > > We ruled that England got Brest - Supply fails before convoy, > but it's by no means obvious. There were tears from Napoleon, for one thing. > Oops, it often pays to read the rules. Page 8, Section XII.8, titled ``A CONVOYED ARMY DOES NOT PROTECT THE CONVOYING FLEETS''. LL
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (06/16/85)
Picture this: ENGLAND A Lon -> Brest F Eng.Ch CON A Lon -> Brest A Pic SUP A Lon -> Brest FRANCE F M.A.O -> Eng.Ch F Brest SUP F M.A.O. -> Eng.Ch Now, is F Brest's supply cut because it has been dislodged, so that France's orders do not work, and A Lon captures Brest? Or does England's convoy fail because F Eng.Ch has been dislodged, so that England's orders do not work, and F M.A.O. captures the Channel? We ruled that England got Brest - Supply fails before convoy, but it's by no means obvious. There were tears from Napoleon, for one thing. -Emperor Nige Hapsburg of Austria (not for long, mind. Damn those treacherous Ivans)
msj@gitpyr.UUCP (Mike St. Johns) (06/17/85)
In article <5225@ukc.UUCP> ncg@ukc.UUCP (Nige Gale) writes: > >Picture this: > >ENGLAND >A Lon -> Brest >F Eng.Ch CON A Lon -> Brest >A Pic SUP A Lon -> Brest > >FRANCE >F M.A.O -> Eng.Ch >F Brest SUP F M.A.O. -> Eng.Ch > >Now, is F Brest's supply cut because it has been dislodged, so that >France's orders do not work, and A Lon captures Brest? >Or does England's convoy fail because F Eng.Ch has been dislodged, >so that England's orders do not work, and F M.A.O. captures the Channel? > >We ruled that England got Brest - Supply fails before convoy, Rule XII.5 A convoyed attack does not protect the convoying fleet. "If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking one of the convoying fleets, that support is not cut." I.e. France got into the english channel, or should have. -- Mike St. Johns Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!msj StJohns@MIT-Multics.ARPA (404) 982-0035
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (06/28/85)
In article <477@gitpyr.UUCP> msj@gitpyr.UUCP (Mike St. Johns) writes: > >Rule XII.5 A convoyed attack does not protect the convoying fleet. "If a >convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking >one of the convoying fleets, that support is not cut." > I saw that Now does that mean: A) If an unsupported convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting a fleet which is attacking one of the convying fleets, that support is not cut. or ~~ B) If a convoyed army with sufficient support to dislodge the fleet... (etc) It could be either, the rules are a bit vague. It didn't help to read the rules sometimes. So we made our own ruling. B. -Nige Gale Now look what you made me do. I've swallowed my contact lens.
cad@cbosgd.UUCP (Chuck A DeGaul) (07/01/85)
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I'm sorry but those persons out there claiming
that rule XII.5 allows an unsupported fleet to convoy an army with
support into a province occupied by a fleet supporting an attack on
the convoying fleet have missed the point of the rule.
(We are talking Diplomacy here, in case anyone missed this)
When trying to decide if convoyed attacks succeed, remember that all
the convoy orders must be successful before the convoyed unit's move
is considered. Therefore, in the scenario below, the convoy order
fails and the army never arrives, despite all of ITS support.
Example:
England:
A Lon -> Bel, A Eng C A Lon -> Bel, A Hol S A Lon -> Bel
France:
F Bel S F Bre -> Eng, F Bre -> Eng
English F Eng must retreat, so the convoy order is negated and
the convoyed army never hits the beaches in Belgium regardless
of the support it received from A Hol.
Remember, convoy order happens sequentially -- first determine if the convoy
will work, then determine if the "landing" will work. This is the true
meaning of rule XII.5, and is very clear given Example 13 and the subsequent
discussion.
Sorry to be so didactic, but when someone butchers the elegant and simple
rules of Diplomacy, I get a little hot under the collar.
---> Chuck A DeGaul <---