Complex conflicting support moves

[DebWiplomacy]

Current map: http://imgur.com/hZ85SBI

New player here; building phase currently. I am France, about to build a fleet in Marseilles. Italy cannot build this turn.

Next turn, Austria's F Ionian Sea is gong to support F Gulf of Lyons into Tyrrhenian Sea; F W. Mediterranean will do the same. F Marseilles is slated to move into Gulf of Lyons unsupported.

If F Tuscany simultaneously supports F Tyrrhenian Sea into Gulf of Lyons, how do orders resolve? Will F Gulf of Lyons and F Tyrrhenian Sea switch places and F Marseilles bounces back into Marseilles? Will F Gulf of Lyons' superior attacking strength of 3 override this and force F Tyrrhenian Sea to retreat? I have yet to come across in the rules (at least ostensibly) anything about uncut, supported troops moving into each other's territories, both with superior attacking strength than the defense of the territory into which they are moving.

[President Eden]

We have:

Player 1+2:
F Marseilles -> Gulf of Lyons
F Gulf of Lyons -> Tyrrhenian Sea
F Western Mediterranean S F Gulf of Lyons -> Tyrrhenian Sea
F Ionian Sea S F Gulf of Lyons -> Tyrrhenian Sea

Player 3:
F Tyrrhenian Sea -> Gulf of Lyons
F Tuscany S F Tyrrhenian Sea -> Gulf of Lyons


The attack on Tyrrhenian Sea resolves because the fleet moving to Tyrrhenian Sea has more support than the fleet moving to Gulf of Lyons (3 v 2). The attack on Gulf of Lyons from Tyrrhenian Sea therefore fails and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged and must retreat to an open province to which no move was ordered this turn. Because the fleet in Gulf of Lyons successfully vacates Gulf of Lyons, the fleet in Marseilles will successfully enter Gulf of Lyons.

[SpaceDip]

Hi,

President Eden, help me with this one, please.
You said (bold is mine):
"The attack on Tyrrhenian Sea resolves because the fleet moving to Tyrrhenian Sea has more support than the fleet moving to Gulf of Lyons (3 v 2). The attack on Gulf of Lyons from Tyrrhenian Sea therefore fails and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged and must retreat to an open province to which no move was ordered this turn. Because the fleet in Gulf of Lyons successfully vacates Gulf of Lyons, the fleet in Marseilles will successfully enter Gulf of Lyons."

What if an unit (Unit 1) is supported from a province (Province A) to other province (Province B) dislodging another unit (Unit 2) that was ordered (without support) to move from Province B to Province A. It's straight from the rules that Unit 2 can not retreat to Province A. But can another unit (Unit C) retreat to Province A?
From your quoted words we could be led to believe that Province A is closed to all retreats because a move to it was ordered (although a failed one). Is that correct or am i misreading your words?

[thamrick]

Hi,

President Eden, help me with this one, please.
You said (bold is mine):
"The attack on Tyrrhenian Sea resolves because the fleet moving to Tyrrhenian Sea has more support than the fleet moving to Gulf of Lyons (3 v 2). The attack on Gulf of Lyons from Tyrrhenian Sea therefore fails and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged and must retreat to an open province to which no move was ordered this turn. Because the fleet in Gulf of Lyons successfully vacates Gulf of Lyons, the fleet in Marseilles will successfully enter Gulf of Lyons."

What if an unit (Unit 1) is supported from a province (Province A) to other province (Province B) dislodging another unit (Unit 2) that was ordered (without support) to move from Province B to Province A. It's straight from the rules that Unit 2 can not retreat to Province A. But can another unit (Unit C) retreat to Province A?
From your quoted words we could be led to believe that Province A is closed to all retreats because a move to it was ordered (although a failed one). Is that correct or am i misreading your words?

Your interpretation of President Eden's words may be correct, but it's not how the rule works.

Here's an example:
France has:
F GoL
F W Med
A Pie

Italy has:
F Tyr
F Tus

Austria has:
A Ven

France orders:
F GoL to Tyr
F W Med support GoL to Tyr
A Pie to Tus

Italy orders:
F Tyr to GoL
F Tus support GoL to Tyr

Austria orders:
A Ven support Pie to Tus

The support Tus was giving Tyr to GoL is cut by the French attack. This unit is dislodged (2 v 1). This causes the Italian attack on GoL to only have a strength of 1 while the French attack on Tyr has a strength of 2. The unit in GoL is dislodged.

Italy has to retreat with both Tyr and Tus.
-Tyr IS NOT able to retreat into the vacant GoL since the attack on Tyr came from there.

-Tus IS able to retreat into the vacant GoL.


Basically, you can retreat to any open center that the unit could normally go, but you cannot go to where the attack on the retreating unit came from (obviously) or to a territory where there was a bounce.

Hope this helps.

[President Eden]

That was careless wording on my part, and I apologize.
I should have said this: "to an open province in which a "standoff" did not occur."
I chose the wording I did, because I didn't want to go into a tangent defining standoff, and thought I had found an intuitive explanation that covered all cases; but I failed to consider the situation you posed, SpaceDip, in which that would be incorrect.


But since I need to, I shall. A standoff occurs when two or more units of equal strength attempt to move to the same province. The armies 'stand each other off' and neither one enters the province, and they stay in their original province (but do not hold, for purposes of support holding). For example:

Burgundy -> Munich
Silesia -> Munich

Neither unit moves into Munich as they have equal strength.

The exception is in the case OP posited, where the province in question has a unit, which moves to one of the provinces containing one of the units involved in the would-be standoff, and does so with more power than the units moving to the standoff in question. For example:

Burgundy -> Munich
Silesia -> Munich
Munich -> Silesia
Berlin S Munich -> Silesia

Munich successfully "overrides" (if you will) Silesia's attack and moves into Silesia. This prevents a standoff from occurring in Munich, which allows Burgundy to move into the now-vacant Munich.

In the first case (just Burgundy and Munich), if we hypothetically had an army in Bohemia that was dislodged in that same turn, the army would not be able to retreat to Munich, as a standoff occurred in Munich; and likewise, if instead of ordering Burgundy -> Munich, the unit in Burgundy held and were dislodged in that same turn, then the unit in Burgundy would be allowed to retreat into Munich, as a standoff did not occur there.


You can see why I sought the quicker wording but it contained an error I didn't notice, so I apologize for any confusion I caused.

[SpaceDip]

President Eden:
thamrick:

Thank you for your explanations. Now it all seems much more clear to me.