House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

This is the home for suggestions for site improvements, changes to house rules, and new variants.
Forum rules
It's okay to suggest new rules variants in this forum, but proposing new *maps* should be done in the linked "New Map Variant Proposals & Voting" subforum.

Do we want to eliminate "via convoy" by way of a House Rule?

I like the rule as written in the OP
3
50%
I like the alternate rule taking out condition (b), equivalent to what NoPun cited
2
33%
I like the "via convoy" rule and actively want to keep it in place
1
17%
 
Total votes : 6

House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 11 Jun 2019, 20:58

This is a spin-off of another thread dealing with the "via convoy" rule, for when an army has both an overland and convoy route to its destination. This is spun off because it's more than just a suggested UI change--it's a suggested rule change.

The other thread contains a bunch of discussion about the overland-and-convoy rule and about how its purpose was not really to prevent "kidnap convoys", but instead to settle contradictions in older versions of the rules. For a list of some of those contradictions, this article is good: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resour ... lebook.htm

When I organized FtF games (it's been long enough since I've done it that I feel obligated to use past tense), I had two house rules that settled all these contradictions. One of them is not relevant to this discussion (and in fact PD already covered that ground in a different way with the paradox resolution rule). The other is basically exactly designed for the situation we were discussing there. It is based on the same principle stated by NoPun in the other thread:
NoPunIn10Did wrote:the principle of not having to specify an exact convoy path: if more than one path exists, but one path is broken by a dislodge, then the convoy still succeeds.

It’s just in this case that the alternate path happens to be a normal move.

along with the simple idea that when there is an overland path, it is always valid. So I'll state my rule first, then I'll try to show how it is mostly similar to the 2000 rule, but (in my opinion) the differences all make it better:

If an army is ordered to an adjacent province, and there is an otherwise valid convoy path for the army, the convoy orders are invalidated unless both of the following conditions are met: a) there is a unit ordered from the army's destination province to its origin province, and b) the army's move would succeed if the convoy is used.


So here are some scenarios of interest for this house rule:

Berch's Scenario A:
France: A Bel-Hol
England: F Nth C Bel-Hol
Germany: F Den-Nth, F Hel S Den-Nth

Under the old rules, this is a contradiction (around whether the army moves).
Under the 2000 rules, the army would move unless France specifies "via convoy", in which case it would hold. (If the English fleet were French, it would also hold.)
Under my rule, the army always moves.

It seems intuitive that the army should always move.

Berch's Scenario B:
France: A Bel-Hol
England: F Nth C Bel-Hol
Germany: F Den-Nth, F Hol S Den-Nth

Under the old rules, this is a contradiction (around whether the support is cut).
Under the 2000 rules, the support is cut, and F Nth is not dislodged, unless France specifies "via convoy" (or the fleet is French), in which case Nth is dislodged and the army does not move.
Under my rule, the support is always cut, and F Nth is never dislodged.

I think having the outcome depend on the nationality of the fleet in this way is counter to the spirit of the rules--France could write a convoy order that causes the fleet to be dislodged and the army's move to be cancelled, that wouldn't have happened if the fleet were foreign. (This is true for Scenario A too.) My rule avoids this hitch.

A non-contradiction:
France: A Bel-Hol
England: F Nth C Bel-Hol
Germany: A Hol-Bel

Under the old rules, the armies switch places.
Under the 2000 rules, unless France writes "via convoy", this is a bounce.
Under my rule, the armies switch places.

Under the 2000 rules, whether this is a bounce depends on the nationality of the convoying fleet. Why should it?

Non-contradiction 2:
France: A Bel-Hol
England: F Nth C Bel-Hol, F Hel S Bel-Hol
Germany: A Hol-Bel

Under the 2000 rules, if France did not specify "via convoy", the German army cannot move and is dislodged.
Under my rule, the armies switch places. The "if" in the second condition is not an "if and only if"; the convoyed move would succeed, so the army takes the convoy and switches places with the German army. If the convoying fleet were dislodged, then the army would not have a valid convoy route and would default to the land route, still moving but dislodging the German army instead of switching places with it.

Of interest for PD:
England: A Bel-Hol, F Nth C Bel-Hol, F Hel S Bel-Hol
Germany: A Hol-Bel, A Bur S Hol-Bel, A Kie-Hol, A Ruh S Kie-Hol

Under the rules, if there were no convoying fleet, this would all be a bounce.
Under PD House Rule 12, the convoyed army bounces with Kie-Hol and then is dislodged by A Hol-Bel.
Under my rule, this is a bounce. Since the convoyed move would not succeed anyway, the convoy order is invalidated.

I personally think this makes more sense; under Rule 12, England is basically being penalized for writing a convoy order. Similarly to how a support that would dislodge your own army is automatically refused, shouldn't this convoy that causes the army to be dislodged also be refused? However, if the PD high-ups were interested in having my convoy rule but not making this kind of situation a bounce, then condition (b) could just be eliminated.

Another contradiction with PD House Rule 12:
England: A Bel-Hol, F Nth C Bel-Hol
Germany: A Hol-Bel, A Kie-Hol, A Ruh S Hol-Bel

Under PD House Rule 12, the army in Kiel does not move, even though the Belgium army is dislodged by an army coming from Holland.
Under my rule, Kie-Hol succeeds. Since the convoyed move would not succeed, the convoy is invalidated.

Again, if PD doesn't like this aspect of the implementation, eliminating condition (b) would take care of that.

Thoughts? Other scenarios of interest that I may have overlooked?
Last edited by jay65536 on 17 Jun 2019, 17:49, edited 1 time in total.
jay65536
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby Woolgie » 11 Jun 2019, 23:13

This is very well thought out to be honest. It took me a while to get my head around NC2, and I resorted to depicting it on my table.

I am with you 100% up to NC2 but then I’m not sure. I first thought that Hol - Bel should succeed and Belgium is dislodged. The reason being that the convoy is not disrupted and so Bel - Hol is attempted and bounces with Kie - Hol. Even though the space is occupied (See Support in Standoffs, page 8 of the official rules). Bel then stays where it is and meanwhile Hol moves to Bel with support and dislodges Bel.

Now, the difficulty comes in that if the fleet did not order a convoy then Bel would not be dislodged and so the Power is penalised for attempting to use a convoy. Well, tough.

The is the point of the convoy rules.

Units cannot trade places without the use of Convoy


Ergo, Units DO trade places if a convoy is used, even with both having a support. The Bel - Hol move then bounces with Kie - Hol and is undone. Hol must then dislodge Bel.

The question people will pose is Does this constitute a 2 v 2 direct standoff between Hol and Bel? Just because Kie was involved? My answer is no, Kie is irrelevant to the power/force of Hol or Bel and so we must revert solely to the rule that the armies switch places via the use of a convoy.

Looking to be persuaded otherwise, but the above surely must be the correct interpretation of the rules.

Edit: thought of a good way of looking at it. Bel is supported to move to Nth not to Hol directly and so it isn’t a 2 v 2 standoff, it’s 2 v 1.
Jon Stark in Diplomacy of Ice and Fire III - Winter is coming
GMing my Star Wars variant
Still proud of my solo in Versailles Fog Chaos
Woolgie
Premium Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: 15 Feb 2016, 19:43
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1028
All-game rating: 920
Timezone: GMT

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 12 Jun 2019, 18:13

Woolgie wrote:I first thought that Hol - Bel should succeed and Belgium is dislodged. The reason being that the convoy is not disrupted and so Bel - Hol is attempted and bounces with Kie - Hol. Even though the space is occupied (See Support in Standoffs, page 8 of the official rules). Bel then stays where it is and meanwhile Hol moves to Bel with support and dislodges Bel.

Now, the difficulty comes in that if the fleet did not order a convoy then Bel would not be dislodged and so the Power is penalised for attempting to use a convoy. Well, tough.

The is the point of the convoy rules.

Units cannot trade places without the use of Convoy


Ergo, Units DO trade places if a convoy is used, even with both having a support. The Bel - Hol move then bounces with Kie - Hol and is undone. Hol must then dislodge Bel.

The question people will pose is Does this constitute a 2 v 2 direct standoff between Hol and Bel? Just because Kie was involved? My answer is no, Kie is irrelevant to the power/force of Hol or Bel and so we must revert solely to the rule that the armies switch places via the use of a convoy.

Looking to be persuaded otherwise, but the above surely must be the correct interpretation of the rules.

Edit: thought of a good way of looking at it. Bel is supported to move to Nth not to Hol directly and so it isn’t a 2 v 2 standoff, it’s 2 v 1.


So the point here, and specifically about the bolded, is just to lay out the differences between the different house rules. PD already has a house rule covering this, and the question is whether we want to supersede it with this rule (also just to raise attention to the fact that there is a conflict). I even specifically said that there is an alternate version of my rule that does not conflict with the PD Rule. Again, to lay out the different possibilities here:

Conflict with PD House Rule 12:
England: A Bel-Hol, F Nth C Bel-Hol, F Hel S Bel-Hol
France: A Hol-Bel, A Bur S Hol-Bel
Germany: A Kie-Hol, A Ruh S Kie-Hol

Under the straight 2000 rulebook: Both of the French/German moves succeed, and Belgium is dislodged. This is potentially a controversial interpretation of the rules, which is why PD12 exists, but if you want to spin this off into a rules thread and debate it I am happy to argue that my interpretation is the correct one (under the 2000 rules--not necessarily "correct" in the sense that it's what we want to have happen).

To me, the single most counter-intuitive thing about this adjudication is not that the army is dislodged, but instead that if the convoying fleet were a different nationality--or if the army simply took the land route--it would all be a bounce instead of the army being dislodged. Essentially, England wrote a convoy that caused her own army to be dislodged--and that ONLY happens BECAUSE the fleet is the same nationality as the army.

Under the 2000 rulebook with PD12: Belgium is still dislodged by Holland, but Kiel does not move. Essentially, PD12 is carving out an exception to the written rule that a dislodged unit has no effect on the province from which the attack came, but otherwise keeps the 2000 rules intact.

One thing of note here is that as with the first ruling, because we are using the 2000 rules as our base, the dislodgement of the English army depends on the nationality of the fleet that wrote the convoy; if it is English, the army IS dislodged, but if it is not English, and the English player didn't write "via convoy", then the army is NOT dislodged and gets to stay in place.

Under the 2000 rulebook with my house rule as written in the OP: Nothing moves; the army in Belgium ignores the convoy. To me, when I wrote the rule, the point was that it ignores the convoy regardless of the fleet's nationality, so the result is the same regardless of whether the fleet is English or foreign. This is the main reason why I included condition (b) in the rule.

Under the 2000 rulebook with my house rule minus condition (b) and also with PD12: Holland dislodges Belgium, regardless of the fleet's nationality, and Kiel does not move because of the exception in PD12.

The reason why I personally like my house rule with condition (b) is that the rules already have exceptions in them basically nullifying any support orders that would dislodge your own units. If support orders that would dislodge your own units are nullified, my opinion is that convoy orders that would dislodge your own units should also be nullified. However, I also think taking condition (b) out of my house rule so that it is compatible with PD12 would still create a rule set that is far better than the silly "via convoy" rule in the straight 2000 rulebook. Then my house rule would read like this:

[Alternative to the OP Rule]. If an army is ordered to an adjacent province, and there is an otherwise valid convoy path for the army, the convoy orders are invalidated unless [EDIT: the convoy is not disrupted and] there is a unit ordered from the army's destination province to its origin province.


I believe that every scenario other than the final two in the OP, where the OP rule conflicts with PD12, are unaltered by the alternative rule. And the last two scenarios under this version would simply be governed by PD12 as they are now.
jay65536
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby Woolgie » 12 Jun 2019, 21:24

My head hurts.

Can we simply this to:
1. Nothing moves
2. Bel is dislodged but Kie doesn’t move
3. Bel is dislodged and Kie moves to Hol

To me number 3 is abhorrent because Bel bounced it.

2 is the outcome of the current house rules. And 1 is what you are proposing.

I agree. I think 1 is fairer. It does not allow for different rules depending on nationality.
Jon Stark in Diplomacy of Ice and Fire III - Winter is coming
GMing my Star Wars variant
Still proud of my solo in Versailles Fog Chaos
Woolgie
Premium Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: 15 Feb 2016, 19:43
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1028
All-game rating: 920
Timezone: GMT

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 12 Jun 2019, 22:42

1 would be the outcome if we put in my rule with condition (b).

But then we have the following problem, the second conflict. And I'll try to keep it simple this time:
England: A Bel-Hol, F Nth C Bel-Hol
Germany: A Hol-Bel, A Kie-Hol, A Ruh S Hol-Bel

Under the written rules from 2000, both German moves succeed. (Again, we can spin this off into a different rule thread if you disagree.)
Under PD12, without my rule, Kiel doesn't move but Holland dislodges Belgium.
Under my rule with condition (b), both German moves succeed.
Under my rule without condition (b), but with PD12, Kiel doesn't move but Holland dislodges Belgium.

The issue is that the same rule that gave you the outcome you liked in the first case is giving you an outcome that I'm guessing you don't like in this case. But your reasoning should actually suggest that you like condition (b) here too. If the English fleet were French, under the 2000 rules the army would not take the convoy and then both German moves would work.

So...it's a mess, basically. I think it traces back to the fact that the rules themselves are extremely counter-intuitive about this entire type of situation, not just with respect to the convoy. If you took the convoy out of the scenario in Post #3, the correct adjudication according to the rules (nothing moves) is STILL counter-intuitive.
jay65536
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 13 Jun 2019, 20:29

For further reading, and some quick examples, I suggest these sections of the Diplomacy Adjudicator Test Cases (DATC).

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.A.3
Section 4.A.3 lists multiple ways to interpret and adjudicate adjacent convoys. I believe that the proposed house rule represents option (c):
"The land route is taken except when the unit in the target area moves in opposite direction and there is an undisrupted convoy route."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#6.G
Section 6.G contains several concrete examples along with all of the ways that they can hypotethetically be adjudicated.

In 6.G.1, these units would be swapped.
Code: Select all
England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway


In 6.G.2, under the proposed house rule, these units would also be swapped. This would be a change from today.
Code: Select all
England:
A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
F Sweden - Norway

Germany:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden


In 6.G.3, the move from Picardy to Belgium would succeed.
Code: Select all
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Picardy - Belgium
A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel
 
England:
F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium


In 6.G.4, the move from Picardy to Belgium would succeed.
Code: Select all
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Picardy - Belgium
A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel
 
England:
F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium
A Belgium - Picardy


In 6.G.5, the units would swap places.
Code: Select all
Italy:
A Rome - Apulia
F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome

Turkey: 
A Apulia - Rome
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome


In 6.G.6, the units would swap places.
Code: Select all
England:
A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F English Channel Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh

Germany:
A Edinburgh - Liverpool

France:
F Irish Sea Hold
F North Sea Hold

Russia:
F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh



In 6.G.7, the units would swap places.
Code: Select all
England:
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
F Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A Sweden - Norway


In 6.G.9, the units would swap places.
Code: Select all
England:
A Norway - Sweden
F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden
F Finland Supports A Norway - Sweden

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway


In 6.G.11, the fleet in Norway would be dislodged, and the fleet in Skagerrak would not.
Code: Select all
England:
F Norway Supports F North Sea - Skagerrak
F North Sea - Skagerrak

Russia:
A Sweden - Norway
F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway
F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway


In 6.G.18, the units would change places. This is uncontroversial.
Code: Select all
England:
F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium
A Holland Supports A London - Belgium
A Yorkshire - London
A London - Belgium
A Ruhr Supports A London - Belgium

France:
F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London
A Belgium - London
A Wales Supports A Belgium - London


These examples would become irrelevant, as it would not be possible to enter "via convoy" at all:
6.G.8
6.G.10
6.G.12
6.G.13
6.G.14
6.G.15
6.G.16
6.G.17
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1451
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby ColonelApricot » 14 Jun 2019, 02:11

I believe there is a strong consensus on the principle that the nationality of the convoying fleet should not matter. Also there is consensus on Nopun's principle that any valid path is used without the need to specify which. Therefore I will assume that there is agreement on these and ignore related considerations.

That leaves us with Jay's rule part (b). WRT to the most recently discussed scenarios I am with Woolgie. In these scenarios where the destination of the convoyed army is bounced IMO the convoy order is successfully resolved but the move order fails. The reason for failure is not the failure of the convoy but the failure of the move order due to the bounce.

I am uncomfortable with the "invalidation" of the convoy. I am thinking about the analogy with support orders - the failure of the supported unit does not in itself invalidate a support order that is otherwise successfully resolved. WRT to the outcome in the destination province I would like the rule to enable the move order to behave in the same manner when it is convoyed as when it moves without convoy. This would be the behaviour that is currently implemented by PD if the above principles were in effect.

On that basis I think a new rule is unnecessary as long as the agreed principles are incorporated into the existing house rules so that:

1) The nationality of the convoying fleet does not affect the outcome (therefore negating the need for the "via convoy" appendage); and
2) If an army is ordered to move to an adjacent province and there is at least one valid path available then the order is resolved in accordance with that path being utilised for the move order.

Comments on part 2):

- My use of the term "available" is intended to allow for the possibility that if a unit in the destination province is being ordered to the origin province by means of a non-convoy order then the land route is not available to the army.
- Any valid convoy orders would be successfully resolved despite the success or otherwise of the move order. I like the function of the convoy order to be to provide a pathway for the army; it is the move order that causes the army to transfer.

..CA
Dog of War in ToS
GRU of the Despicables in TTT
User avatar
ColonelApricot
Premium Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: 06 Oct 2013, 11:48
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1010
All-game rating: 1400
Timezone: GMT

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 17 Jun 2019, 18:03

Sorry I have been so long in replying to this.

I think in the debate about the minutia of the two different house rules, we have lost the forest for the trees.

To get back to the main idea, the big question for this thread was supposed to be, do we like EITHER of the two proposed house rules enough to change PD's rules, taking out the "via convoy" option?

I added a poll, so you don't have to post in this thread to vote for anything. I made it an "approval vote", i.e. you can vote for up to two out of the three options, so we can get a feel for what voters like *at all* instead of what they like best. For example, I am going to be voting for both of the house rule options. I think either of the two proposed rules--my original rule or the alternate without condition (b)--is superior to what happens now, where different nationalities of convoying fleets matters and you may or may not have to write "via convoy" on an army's order for it to work.

As far as NoPun's post, what he describes as option (c) on the other site is equivalent to the second of the two poll options--my "alternate" house rule, the one without condition (b). For an example of where my original rule differs from that, see Post #3--my original rule has the army taking the land route, which avoids the army being dislodged, while the alternate rule does have the army dislodged. The final scenario of the OP (also described in Post #5) would change as well, in terms of whether the trailing army moves. PD House Rule 12--and the alternate rule, which is compatible with PD12--would have the trailing army not move, while both my original house rule and the original written rules would have the trailing army move.

I am not sure what CA is trying to say there--it seems like his only issue with the proposal is semantic? CA, which of the test cases from my OP do you not like in terms of how they end up being adjudicated?
jay65536
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 17 Jun 2019, 18:31

I think this will be useful as a straw poll, but before any more significant change is made, I'd want to formalize the rule into something very concise. This is going to be controversial once awareness of the possibility of the change goes wider than our verbose discussion here.

I think the text that the DATC provides some guidance there. Is this concise enough?

When an army is ordered to move to an adjacent location and could move there either by land or by convoy, the army will take the land route except when a unit in the target area moves in the opposite direction and there is an undisrupted convoy route.


Below the proposal, we would add some additional notes that the "via convoy" modifier for move orders would be entirely removed going forward, and I'd link to the discussion on the DATC so that people so inclined can read up on the examples where this matters.
Lead Volunteer Developer & Forum Admin

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1451
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: House Rule that Eliminates "via convoy"

Postby jay65536 » 17 Jun 2019, 18:49

NoPunIn10Did wrote:I think the text that the DATC provides some guidance there. Is this concise enough?

When an army is ordered to move to an adjacent location and could move there either by land or by convoy, the army will take the land route except when a unit in the target area moves in the opposite direction and there is an undisrupted convoy route.


I think that is concise, but not clear enough. What does "could move" mean? Does it mean simply that there exists a convoy path, or does it mean that the army's move would be successful? I think WE want to say "there exists a convoy path", right? This is part of why I chose my words the way I did in the proposal. (By the way, this is a problem in the written rules too.)
jay65536
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1120
All-game rating: 1126
Timezone: GMT-5

Next

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest