ok so in your example

fleet eng channel convoys brest to london.

london supports wales to english channel?

north sea supports belgium to england?

well the convoy doesnt go through because eng channel is taken by belgium and anyway theres a unit in london already and no support so bounced to begin with.

but i think i am confused about what you said

Oh, interesting. Do you have an answer for us?

With just the first part we would say that Wales-Eng would succeed thus preventing the convoyed army from cutting London's support of Wales-Eng.

But with NS S Bel-Eng, there is now a bounce, and therefore the convoyed army can make it to London and cut the support with the convoying fleet being a beleaguered unit. So that means that Wales-Eng only counts as one and therefore Belgium does make it into EC and therefore the convoy doesn't happen and the support isn't cut and therefore.....

Hrmm. What does the DATC say?

Ah, these are tests 6.F.16 and 6.F.17 with some other paradoxes that follow them. webdip appears to say that the support cut can only happen if there is a bounce so by the time the army gets there to cut support, the bounce has already happened so it is too late to cut support so doesn't.

Think about it... In the real world, the naval attack would happen Mich sooner than the unit could be picked up and delivered to battle, so it really does make sense.

Orathaic needs something along the lines of an army in Yorkshire supporting the convoy in order for it to really be the paradox, but I remember reading somewhere that while every outcome violates some rule, having everything just bounce violates the fewest number of rules, so I vote that.

@KnightGeneral, that is 6.F.17, Pandin's Extended Paradox.

You can read about both here:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#6.F.16

@Draugnar, not just that, but for the army to get to London, London's support has to have already succeeded, so by the time the army gets there, it is too late.

My preference for resolving this kind of paradox is to imagine the fleet in english channel is attacking london (rather than the army in brest)

In this case the convoy succeeds but the support isn't cut because you can't cut support which is support a move into the territory you are in.

And while this is a perfectly good way to resolve this paradox, i believe it leads to several other paradoxes if you apply it consistantly.

(aside, england controls wales and london, germany controls north sea and bel, and france controls EC and brest)

According to DATC, the support of London is not cut, and therefore everything bounces.

All modern adjudicators, including this site, follow the Szykman rule. The best formulation of that rule is that the convoying fleet(s), part of the paradox, fail to participate in the convoy. Or in other words, treat the convoying fleet(s), part of the paradox, as hold orders. Adjudicate the other orders as normal.

The 'All Hold' rule, also puts other orders of the paradox on hold. But the Szykman rule has better compatibility with the official rules and there is less room for misinterpretation (putting too many orders on hold). Therefore, the Szykman rule has now broad acceptance.

Lucas

whose pandin is he knew whys he paradox

Pandin is not new - he's old. The "Pandin" of Pandin's Paradox fame is a player named Tony Pandin, from the Cleveland area of the USA. He was apparently the first player to highlight this paradox. Tony Pandin (and the paradox) is mentioned in this article by our old friend Edi Birsan:

http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S2007M/Birsan/firstgame.html

So now you know!

And knowing is half the battle!

thx jmaiet this comunity is besst always helpfull and everything

ur welcum uatylu