[net.games.pbm] Diplomacy question

electrohome@watcgl.UUCP (electrohome) (05/07/85)

In a diplomacy game that I was in last week, one of the players tried a move
that involved mutual support of units.  I think the actual move was something
like:
       A Smy S A Con
       A Con S A Smy
I don't think that this should be legal, since it gives two supports for the
price of one.  However, when challenged, I couldn't find anything in the rule
book that banned it.  Can anyone help me out?  

Please reply to:
	...!watcgl!electro!carlo.

Thanks.

					-Carlo Sgro

tallman@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Tallman) (05/09/85)

**** eat this line at your conveince ****

As I recall, there is no problem with the mutual support of units.

This is a cheap way of getting to move for the price of one, but it

is more often used when the units have nothing better to do.

myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/09/85)

> 
> In a diplomacy game that I was in last week, one of the players tried a move
> that involved mutual support of units.  I think the actual move was something
> like:
>        A Smy S A Con
>        A Con S A Smy
> I don't think that this should be legal, since it gives two supports for the
> price of one.  However, when challenged, I couldn't find anything in the rule
> book that banned it.  Can anyone help me out?  
> 
> 					-Carlo Sgro

The rules are clear on this case and the case of supporting units not
otherwise ordered (like those in Civil Disorder).  Section IX.6 states

"A unit not ordered to move (i.e., one that is ordered to hold, ordered to
convoly, ordered to support, or not ordered at all) may receive support
in holding."

jeff m

howard@cyb-eng.UUCP (Howard Johnson) (05/10/85)

>	A Smy S A Con
>	A Con S A Smy
>I don't think that this should be legal, since it gives two supports for the
>price of one.  However, when challenged, I couldn't find anything in the rule
>book that banned it.  Can anyone help me out?  

Sure can.  You don't really get two for the price of one.  If any piece
even *attempts* (legally) to move into Smy or Con, the support that piece
was giving the other is neutralized.

The philosophy here is that everyone knows whether or not someone is attacking
them before the decision to actually give support to another is required.

ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (05/17/85)

Sure it's legal, and I think logical too:
there's no reason why two armies in attack should be able to break
two armies in defence.
If there are three armies in attack, that's a different matter,
the defence cardcastles

-NIge Gale


PS. Aren't there any pbms over this side of the British Ocean?
Diplomacy or otherwise (not least Machiavelli)