I don't think you're allowed to do that in the first place?

Uhh... I'm racking my brain trying to figure out why you would even want to do that if it were possible.

I just re-read my post and I think it sounds more rude than I intended. I just seriously do not understand.

As the rules state:

Support” Can't be Convoyed Only Armies can be convoyed. “Support” can't be transported from one Army via a convoy to another unit. For example, the orders shown below in bold are illegal and clearly fail.

England: A Pic–Bre, A Lon S A Pic–Bre F Eng C A Lon S A Pic–Bre France: F Bre–Holds

Oops no bold in webdiplomcy
All orders above exept the first and the last fail.

@Shevek - do you mean you can't figure out how to support the convoying fleet? How to support an army being convoyed? Or how to support by *using* a convoy? The first two are easily done but the last isn't just not part of webDip, it isn't part of the game of Diplomacy. And you could just have the fleet issue the support. Anywhere that could be reached via convoy can also be reached by the fleet and therefore supported by the fleet.

@thatwasawkward - I could actually see a very rare case where it could be useful. If the fleet is liable to be attacked but not dislodged, then it's support would be cut, but the convoyed support, in theory, would not.

@thatwasawkward, Here is a situation where it might be useful
Relevant units:
Italy has F Ionian, F Tyrrhenian, A Rome
France has F Tunis, F Gulf of Lyon
Italy moves Ionian - Tunis with convoyed support across Tyrrhenian
France moves Gulf of Lyon to Tyrrhenian. This would cut Tyrrhenian support, but does not cut the theoretical Roman support.

I suppose that would work, then... if somehow convoying "support" made sense as a concept :D

Right, agreed with thatwasawkward...it doesn't make sense that an army would get convoyed, be able to give support, and return to base in one turn, and that only getting off the boat would use up the turn somehow.

Assuming one could convoy support one would have to make a new rule about the status of the support if the fleet is attacked. The rule would have to the support is only cut if the fleet is dislodged (otherwise there would be no point to convoying support, it would be simpler just to use the fleet for support). This would be powerful tactic if it were allowed.

typo... the rule would have to *be the support is only cut if the fleet is *dislodged

At the same time, if the rules were changed, they would have to include that when an army is supporting via convoy, any unit may occupy its port of origin without support, thereby leaving the army stranded on the ship and having to retreat to an adjacent port/get destroyed.

"ava2790 (791 )
06:49 PM
Right, agreed with thatwasawkward...it doesn't make sense that an army would get convoyed, be able to give support, and return to base in one turn, and that only getting off the boat would use up the turn somehow."

You are right. That would not make any sense. But then nor does being able to convoy across multiple seas in a single turn. Which makes me wonder... I wonder what the game would be like if armies could only traverse one sea per turn? Thus Lon to Brest via Eng would be one turn but Lon to Spa via Eng and MAO would be two turns.

"any unit may occupy its port of origin without support, thereby leaving the army stranded on the ship and having to retreat to an adjacent port/get destroyed."

That would be an interesting rule.

a thought...

why would you want to convoy support? why not support with the fleet that would otherwise be convoying?

^This was addressed earlier. Perhaps the fleet will have it's support broken (but will not be dislodged).

@Eden - read the posts...

If a fleet is attacked, the support is but, but a convoyed support would only be cut if the convoying fleet were dislodged just as the move is only cut if the convoying fleet is dislodged.

*the support is cut

no... webdiplomacy does not SUPPORT this sytem.

We covered that. We were just discussing where it *could* be useful if available. None of the real implementations of Diplomacy support it because it isn't in the rules of the boardgame. But it could be done as part of a variant.

... that was a pun. get it? SUPPORT?

Worst. Pun. Ever.

Iceray +1. Gotta groan at that one, mongoose.

... people say that about every pun. name one pun where u do not groan then giggle, then shame yourself for giggling.

Not true. Some creative puns that actually poke at multiple aspects at once (like the entire Myth Inc and Xanth book series) are really quite good. But that one was particularly un-punny.

I dunno, by about book four or five Xanth was getting weak on the puns even. But the thing is: if you have to say "get it?" your joke already failed.

Yeah, if you have to point it out, you probably shouldn't...

I liked the Xanth series, but the puns did get tiresome after awhile.

OK, this thread has taken a turn for the weird.

When does a thread on here not support weirdness?

what is this Xanth series? is it about puns? i must read this punny book!

Alright, I laughed at that one.

THERE WASNT EVEN A PUN IN THERE!!!!

sigh*

Oh my gosh, do you realy have to say that ? Like i said , i doent care about punctuation.!

I laughed regardless.