*two retreating units (not 'to').

Sure, why not :P

orathic wrote:

"""*'So, not only the geography of the map is taken into consideration, but also the current situation of the board. This means that a move from York to Holland is only a legal order when the North Sea is occupied by a fleet.'

Which i think raises even more disputes."""

No, it resolves disputes. The author of the DATC (me), wants to avoid a type of orders in twilight. If you do not follow the DATC, you get legal possible orders, illegal orders and something between, "legal, but impossible". The DATC prevents those type of orders. If you do allow those twilight orders and you want the detail out every situation in houserules, you have to precisely define those twilight orders (which are legal and which are illegal). This generates just issues, without any addition to the game.

Note further, that according to the DATC an illegal must be treated as 'non-written' and not as a hold. In most cases this is not a difference, because a unit without an order, is a hold. However, in case a unit gets two orders, an illegal order and a legal order, then according to the DATC the legal order goes on, because the illegal order is treated 'non-written'. In the research prior to the DATC, lots of discussion forums and houserules has been investigated. This particular situation has happened at least once in a real game, because it was mentioned on a forum.

You also wrote:
"""The fact that webdip doesn't allow illegal/invalid orders to be submitted at all (in this case to simplify the interface and learning curve for new players - i assume) means the issue isn't even worth considering for player who have only played here. """

This is incorrect use of terminology. An order can be legal, but invalid (sometimes called 'void'). This is the case when a support order does not match.The term 'invalid' is consistently used in all rulebooks ('illegal' is far more unclear in the rulebooks). WebDip allows to enter non-matching orders (at least with foreign units) and so allows to enter invalid orders.

Lucas

A better clarification is WebDip doesn't allow illegal orders or orders that could never be valid (for instance, a convoy to a part of the map where the fleets can't be connected together).

thanks lucas. I might also mention that webdip allows non-matching order even for your own units. (i'm not sure if it also allows you to enter such impossible orders as fleet black sea supports army Ankara - Rumania)

You're right, i misused 'invalid' there. Draugnar's correction is right.

@lkruijsw: 'No, it resolves disputes. The author of the DATC (me), wants to avoid a type of orders in twilight.' - my point was treating "legal, but impossible" orders differently from legal orders is for me an issue which i would argue about.

Thus raising more arguements, from me :p

now as for the issue of two orders given to the same unit, i think it is fair to treat that with the multiple order rules, i don't have a problem with an illegal order causing a legal order to be ignored.

A point of the game of diplomacy and the rules for processing orders is that it adds an element of confusion and difficult to what is supposed to be warfare, along with the deception implicit in the negotiations.

Adding the possiblilty of mis-ordering your troops on purpose (which webdip lacks) is a certain nuance which is important.

Of course when talking about computer based implementations of the rules there are other considerations, which the DATC deals with rather well.

@ Draugnar: "@Jamiet99uk - you forget that issuing a support or convoy order is not explicitely telling it to hold, but it is considered a hold order."

I didn't forget that. I quoted that rule. It is #2 as quoted in my post. That rule directly implies that ordering a unit to convoy or give support also represents a 'hold order' for the convoying/supporting unit.


"A hold order is any order in which the unit does not attempt to move."

Exactly. And an "illegal" move does NOT satisfy this criteria because it IS an attempt to move. It is a failed attempt, but it IS an attempted move.


"By extension, issuing an illegal and impossible move (like ordering an army into the sea), would presumably mean the unit did not attempt to move (would you order your men to drown just because you were given the orders?), therefore they wouldn't have attempted to move and would fall under the definition of a hold order."

Wrong. For starters, your example only makes sense in the case of an army ordered to move into a sea territory. What would stop them attempting to move in that situation? In any case, you're falling into the common trap of trying to use practical, tactical examples to explain the rules of Diplomacy. Ultimately, that never quite works because Diplomacy is not a wargame. It is not a tactical simulation - it is a highly abstract boardgame. You can't discuss Diplomacy's rules on the basis of asking "what would happen in a real combat situation?"

Clearly then, any order which orders a unit to move - however stupid, illogical or impossible that move might be - is an 'attempted move' in terms of the rules of the game. And if a unit attempts to move, you can't give it support to hold.

ACK! Dammit, I managed to delete an important sentence there. Let me try the last half of that again:

"By extension, issuing an illegal and impossible move (like ordering an army into the sea), would presumably mean the unit did not attempt to move (would you order your men to drown just because you were given the orders?), therefore they wouldn't have attempted to move and would fall under the definition of a hold order."

Wrong. For starters, your example only makes sense in the case of an army ordered to move into a sea territory. What about a fleet ordered to move from Norwegian Sea to Mid Atlantic Ocean? What would stop them attempting to move in that situation? In any case, you're falling into the common trap of trying to use practical, tactical examples to explain the rules of Diplomacy. Ultimately, that never quite works because Diplomacy is not a wargame. It is not a tactical simulation - it is a highly abstract boardgame. You can't discuss Diplomacy's rules on the basis of asking "what would happen in a real combat situation?"

Clearly then, any order which orders a unit to move - however stupid, illogical or impossible that move might be - is an 'attempted move' in terms of the rules of the game. And if a unit attempts to move, you can't give it support to hold.

Draugnar: I'm not sure if I understand your variation. Or, rather, i don't understand your last sentance.

I merely point out that Web Dip won't allow you to do illegal orders (send a fleet to Moscow, for instance) or orders that could not be acheived based on the current configuration of the board (support hold a unit in Edi when there is no unit there or convoy an army from Edi to Den when there is no fleet in Nth).

The DATC version 1.0-1.4 was different on this issue. This was changed, because further detailing out the old preference led to all kinds of new disputes.

Considering that for actual play this is a rather minor issue (as long there is a clear choice), I decided to change the preference in favor of the legislation viewpoint. Defining illegal orders as orders that can not be valid and treating illegal orders as non-written, is the most simple definition, that is absolutely clear in all situations.

Another advantage is that this ruling is compatible with different kind of play, FtF, postal, webbased with moves checked by computer etc., but important also games without communication (no press etc.). In such games it is common not to allow orders that can not be valid. Because, such orders could be used to communicate.

The disadvantage is that computer programs become slightly more complex in correctly implementing the principle. But as in WebDip, this can be done.

Of course, you can give all kinds of other arguments. But I consider the issue too minor for not choosing the principle of simplicity.

Lucas

it is fairly minor, i didn't even think of it for several years of playing dip, but i guess that was because i play most of my games here and don't have to actually resovle the orders myself.

Also a problem with having that many more option for your moves is also that the drop-down lists get very long. It's more work to enter your moves and (probably) more mistakes will be made.

Woah! Did I just hear correctly that you don't like allowing invalid orders in gunboats, Lucas?! I've been doing them for years on the Judges.

spirit of the rules!

@sqrg - you coudl replace the drop-down menus with a predictive typing system, where you enter the first letter of the territory you want to move to and it lists all territories with that first letter.

Of course with a drag and drop graphical interface (i dislike a point and click interface, and think a drag and drop one would be much cooler) this issue goes quickly away...

Draugnar, I never played on the judge, but I did research when I wrote the DATC. As far I understand (I think even that there is an article in the Pouch), that the judge does do a fair amount of checking, but it is not fully complete.

So, if you don't follow the DATC principle, you get discussion like this:
Suppose you order

Holland supports from North Africa to Moscow.

You get the following possibilities for showing this order to the other players (in gunboat):
- The order is always published.
- The order is only published when North Africa contains a unit.
- The order is only published when North Africa contains an army, since Moscow can not hold a fleet.

Then you have also to decide whether a support to Swiss is legal and a support or move to the moon.

So, you get multiple issues, which needs to be detailed out, without any purpose. The DATC ruling is very simple, the order can not be valid, is therefore illegal, and should therefore be considered non-written.

Of course, invalid orders, that could have been valid, are published to the other players. And also, there is no objection whatsoever to play your own variant of rules.

Lucas

Oh yea and then tab-completion please <3

I love the drag and drop idea, but there is multiple ways to implement that, i mean how the interface looks etc. Should be possible to make it pretty and clear.

that last post was @Orathaic

Draugnar: I meant for the comment you adressed to me.

Isn't Draugnar (or anyone else) going to respond to my further comments? I'm sticking to the view that illegal move orders do not convert to holds.