OK, followup. Turkey NMR in Spring. It does a NMR in Fall, and Russia takes Rum from Turkey in the fall. After the fall move is processed, Turkey rejoins the game. Is Rum disbanded, or can Turkey retreat Rum to an open Sev?

After the fall moves are processed, if there are no other retreats besides Turkey, than the game skips the retreats phase because Turkey has entered into CD. If Turkey came back and there were other retreats, he would be able to retreat to Sev, provided its an option for a retreat.

That was my fear, because that is different from the real rules. If a country is in CD, no retreats are possible. This seems different from the real rules. If you are in CD, you have no possibility of retreat, but here you can.

If you come back, then your country is no longer in CD.

Yeah, but you were in CD at the time of the dislodgment. It should be disbanded immediately. IMHO. Seems like you get a second chance.

The retreat and build/disband phases are handled a bit differently with this online implementation compared to the rules for face to face games. For example, in F2F you are not allowed to diplome during those phases. Here you are. Part of that can be attributed to wanting to keep the game moving in F2F.

But the fact remains that in F2F if two players both have to retreat, they cannot coordinate, they just have to hope the other doesn't retreat to the same location (unless that is what they want of course.) But here they are allowed to coordinate.

So yes, there are differences between the F2F rules and how the game is implemented here.

My real question was when does CD take over for retreats. If you are in CD, you should get disbanded, here, you can be in CD (having been NMR two times) and still retreat

Yes, you can, because the retreats are independent phases. They aren't coded to connect to the preceding seasonal phase. If they were, there'd be auto-disbands for non-CD nations too I assume.

But the retreat in a CD is covered by Diplomacy rules. THERE IS NO RETREAT WHEN A COUNTRY IS IN CD. That is the rule. This game should follow the rule

Except the country comes out of CD, and THEN retreats, AFTER coming out of CD. "This game" follows "the rule".

But that is not what happens.

Look at the sequence of events for the actual game:
12:05pm - Turkey has gone into Civil Disorder.
12:05pm - Game has progerssed to retreats

So at this exact point - Turkey in CD, unit dislodged - the rules say it cannot retreat but is dislodged. It should never be allowed to progress to retreats.
Turkey was later taken over, and allowed to retreat.
You can't go back in time!

I meant to say, "So at this exact point - Turkey in CD, unit dislodged - the rules say it cannot retreat but is disbanded."

steephie22 - This game does not follow the Diplomacy rules, but makes up its own. Diplomacy rules say the unit is disbanded. This game invents a rule - you can come out of CD to retreat. That is not in the rules.

Starside, I already indicated above that this online implementation has some differences from the F2F board game rules. Those rules also state that retreat orders must be submitted immediately with no discussion, whereas here we allow discussion during the retreat phase.

So yes, there are some minor differences. Take it or leave it.

If Turkey goes into CD and it's the only nation with a retreat though, shouldn't the phase automatically progress?

Alderian -
yes, minor differences are to be expected.
But this is not minor, is in direct conflict to the rules, and is easily fixed. In fact, galivrop above thought my view was already in the game logic. It just makes sense to follow the rules as best you can. Some things must be different because of the nature of the game. But when you can follow the rules, why would you not?

I don't understand your 'take it or leave it' attitude to a legitimate question.

There is no logical reason to disagree with my position.
Please answer these questions relative to the example I cited:
1. Was Turkey in CD? yes or no
2. Was Rum dislodged? Yes or no
3. Do the Rules state that a dislodged unit while a country is in CD disbanded? yes or no.
Clearly, yes to all. You just write the code to immediately disband the unit to be true to the rules and the game. It is really that simple. But the current rules in the game here allow a dislodged while the country is in CD to retreat. That is a different game.

Feedback is a gift.

This free online implementation is also a gift.

Ald has pointed out some differences. Here, you cant judge when someone will come back from CD, F2F you probably can. And theres always the random "takeover" of a CD nation There's also a couple of bugs in a map or two.

Suck it up. It's different. Move along.

@Starside - as we've already discussed over email, when a country is in CD, the unit is disbanded. However, countries are allowed to come out of CD, which is probably where you're finding an issue. If someone takes over a CD'd country, that country is allowed retreats.

You consider being able to discuss during the retreat phase to be a minor difference? In my opinion it is a far bigger difference than the one you have brought up.

As for my "take it or leave it" comment, I am generally less harsh in my communications, but am responding to you with what I believe is a similar level of attitude to your own.

You state - "If someone takes over a CD'd country, that country is allowed retreats.

"But why???? That is not what the Diplomacy rules say. The Diplomacy rules say that if a country is in CD, a dislodged unit is disbanded. Your rules here are not the Diplomacy rules

Alderian - Players can discuss potential retreats during Diplomacy discussions. That is why I consider it a minor point. "If I lose, I retreat to B" So it is a very minor and irrelvant point. But allowing a retreat when the unit should be disbanded is big. It is in direct connflict to the Diplomacy rules.

Starside - if a country is taken over, then it is not in CD anymore. It has a new active player.

Let's say a country goes into CD - Turkey for example. However, if England also has a retreat the phase won't progress immediately. During that time another player can take over Turkey's spot. Why should they be denied the option to retreat?

Alderian - I feel I am being very respectful. But I am passionate in my discussions. I mean no disrespect whatsoever. I am just debating the rules. I want to understand why you have rules that are different from the origional Diplomacy rules.

Goldfinger -
"Why should they be denied the option to retreat?" Because that is what the rules state. look at the rules. If a country is in CD, it cannot retreat. It is disbanded. Right then. If a country is taken over AFTER the dislodgment, it should not be given new rights. The rules are clear. if you are in CD, and dislodged, you are disbanded, That is the rule. What you are suggesting is not Diplomacy, but some other game

I completely disagree.

What happens on a CD is minor and irrelevant because I don't play with people who CD. There are other reasons I find it minor and irrelevant which I'll go into in my third paragraph.

Whereas sometimes you unexpectedly have two countries able to retreat to the same territory and being able to discuss that is BIG and can make the difference between stopping a solo or losing.

As for the point you are concerned with, I see this as a difference between F2F and online. For F2F it helps discourage people not getting their orders in on time. Miss the deadline and you are screwed. But Online is a completely different environment. The people that CD here generally don't care about that penalty. All it would do is make it even more unlikely that another player will pick up the position and rescue the game from complete ruination.

So how about another difference on the same topic. F2F you miss one set of orders and you are in civil disorder. Here you are allowed to miss one turn without going into civil disorder. (Unless you have only one unit in which case one missed turn = civil disorder.)

I suggest you look at the board game rules and separate them into two groups. One set is the basic mechanics of the game. How orders are specified and how they are adjudicated. The other set are the mechanics needed to make the game run smoothly and enjoyably. Limits on how much time to negotiate and enter orders and what to do when a player disappears/quits and such. The first set should be followed faithfully for the game to be called Diplomacy still. The second set can be adjusted to fit the environment IMHO.

Goldfinger0303- You say - "Starside - if a country is taken over, then it is not in CD anymore. It has a new active player" Yes That is true. The new country has all rights GOING FORWARD. It cannot go back and make changes to moves. The Diplomacy rules say that if a country is in CD, a dislodged unit is disbanded. If it is later taken over, it should not be allowed to go back. By your logic, if I take over a country, I should be allowed to change the moves of the country in CD.

Alderian

I hate to repeat myself, but you haven’t answered my questions

Please answer these questions relative to the example I cited:
1. Do the Diplomacy Rules state that a dislodged unit while a country is in CD disbanded? yes or no.
2. In my example, was Turkey in CD? yes or no (The game says yes)
3. Was Rum dislodged? Yes or no (The game says yes)
4, Again, do the Diplomacy Rules state that a dislodged unit while a country is in CD disbanded? yes or no. (Check the rules. The answer is yes)
4. Did a new player assume control of Turkey AFTER the unit was dislodged? yes or no (The timeline says yes)
Clearly, yes to all. The code should immediately disband the unit to be true to the rules and the game. It is really that simple. But the current rules in the game here allow a dislodged while the country is in CD to retreat. That is a different game from the original Diplomacy.

I completely disagree.

What happens on a CD is minor and irrelevant because I don't play with people who CD. There are other reasons I find it minor and irrelevant which I'll go into in my third paragraph.

Whereas sometimes you unexpectedly have two countries able to retreat to the same territory and being able to discuss that is BIG and can make the difference between stopping a solo or losing.

As for the point you are concerned with, I see this as a difference between F2F and online. For F2F it helps discourage people not getting their orders in on time. Miss the deadline and you are screwed. But Online is a completely different environment. The people that CD here generally don't care about that penalty. All it would do is make it even more unlikely that another player will pick up the position and rescue the game from complete ruination.

So how about another difference on the same topic. F2F you miss one set of orders and you are in civil disorder. Here you are allowed to miss one turn without going into civil disorder. (Unless you have only one unit in which case one missed turn = civil disorder.)

I suggest you look at the board game rules and separate them into two groups. One set is the basic mechanics of the game. How orders are specified and how they are adjudicated. The other set are the mechanics needed to make the game run smoothly and enjoyably. Limits on how much time to negotiate and enter orders and what to do when a player disappears/quits and such. The first set should be followed faithfully for the game to be called Diplomacy still. The second set can be adjusted to fit the environment IMHO.

None of this is relevant to the Question I ask. It is not F2F vs online. The only issue is whether a country in CD can retreat if dislodged. The rules clearly say no. You are arguing yes.

It is pointless to answer those questions and personally I find it annoying when people demand answers to questions with known answers and ignore what the other people are saying.

I do not dispute what the board game rules state. I have been very clear about that. I have also intended to be very clear with the idea that some rules are okay to have different based on the environment.

The bottom line is that as long as you do not acknowledge that different environments lead to different needs there is no point in further conversation. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is pointless. You'll keep stressing that the rules are the rules and I'll keep pointing out that it makes sense to do things differently.

Have a good evening.