And to be honest that is only one of many examples where I totally do not agree with Szykman - his understanding of the rules is absolutely abitrary

Easy, the support is effectively being cut by the convoying fleet as the army has to move through that sea zone to get there.

In short, a unit can't cut support directed at itself and the fleet is required to cut that support therefore it can't do it.

I don't understand how that is relevant. The rules we curently play by say that the support from London is not cut, and Wales move into British Channel

But it doesn't cut the support, the army does

This is indeed a very common scenario, and much more common than the true paradoxical situations discussed by Szykman: http://www.diplom.org/Zine/F1999R/Debate/paradox.html

So, leaving philosophical discussions on paradoxes aside, what is the most logical way to adjucate the move? Both explanations are internally consistent, but I find the one employed here the most intuitive. If you're going to fight for the seas, you need fleets. In a way, it's the same as moving Eng-Lon. Your fleet cannot cut support against itself, or convoy armies to do that job :)

I'm on the phone in a restaurant. Lay out all the details of how is attacking and who is supporting and I'll give you a logical reason why the paradox should resolve the way it does.

Not to mention - why do we play by "convoy passes unless all possible routes are disrupted", UNLESS it's the paradox situation? Doesn't make any sense

it's not philosophical at all. op's example is explained very clearly in the rulebook:
"A convoyed Army does not cut the support of a unit supporting an attack against one of the Fleets necessary for the Army to convoy."
https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/diplomacy.pdf ; p.16

The official rule as a unit cannot have am effect on the support directed against it. The convoy is required to cut the support. Allowing it to do so would have the convoying fleet affecting the support directed against it.

I still do not agree that this case falls into the "cannot cut support against itself" reasoning. It should be an all-hold, not even because I believe paradoxes should be resolved by all-hold, because I think that the "simple convoy paradox" is not even a paradox, Bre cut support from Lon, Wales fail, convoy fails, everything holds

Oh, now that is something that absolutely changed my mind, good to know that : )

Thank you kasimax for giving the source, and with that my main question is closed.
However, any thoughts on the multiple routes scenario?

do you mean the actual paradox?

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#6.F.20

And now that I posted it I do understand, never mind then and let's forget this post ever existed : )

well i do not, to be honest, so an explanation would be appreciated.

okay, i do now, forget about it :)

ok, so I know that it was quite some time, but that:
"The official rule as a unit cannot have am effect on the support directed against it. The convoy is required to cut the support. Allowing it to do so would have the convoying fleet affecting the support directed against it." by Draugnar got me thinking.

How "deep" does it go? Is it only a direct cut, or is it that an action of a unit cannot have an influence on the support against it, like AT ALL?

Consider the following situation.
GERMANY
F Bel-Eng

FRANE
Ruh-Bel
Hol S Ruh-Bel
F Eng S Nwg-Nth
F Nwg-Nth

ENGLAND
Yor-Bel
F Nth C Yor-Bel.

Now fleet in Belgium, by cutting support from Eng enables England to cut support from Hol against itself.

Does anyone have any opinions as to what should happen in such case? Also? Is there any sandbox for dip? I had to draw that in my notebook : D

You can download a program called Realpolitik. It's incredibly useful for inputting moves and seeing what happens.

The confusing part when it comes to convoys and paradoxes is that they aren't really processed the way the game suggests all orders are processed. The rules state that all orders process simultaneously. When in fact, regarding convoys, the game effectively checks whether a convoying fleet was dislodged before anything else.

So, once you check that, everything else becomes incredibly simpler to understand. The situation you described where English F Belgium moves to the Channel is a fun one. It cuts the support so F North Sea doesn't get dislodged and allows the convoy order to be executed.

So, while you're saying that it's cutting a support into itself, that isn't totally accurate. It's just a piece of the puzzle that culminates with a different set of orders failing. Belgium cuts the support from the English Channel which allows North Sea to not be dislodged. Thus allowing Yorkshire to move to Holland, which cuts the support to Belgium.

That is an interesting piece of information that convoys are checked first, but I take that's just the mechanics of the game we play for example here, not the rules of the game.
But the main thing - a unit cannot have only direct influence on the support against itself, but it can have an indirect impact.

Did you know the knew site www.backstabbr.com has a Sandbox mode where you can try out knew moves?

As much as I appriciate the advertisement, I actually checked it out, and it is not that much of a sandbox as just a way to check out possible moves in the game you play. I mean a sandbox where you put your units where you want etc. I found jDip and it looks good. Also - it is really annoying - the whole "backstabbr.com" something, I really like webdiplomacy and I don't see a reason to change the site

Just think of a convoy as an attack by the last fleet in the convoy chain on the destination province and every alleged paradox should work itself out.

yassem:
http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Politics/Judge

You can turn it into a sandbox by hitting the "Clear board" hyperlink under "Other:" and then dragging and dropping units from the white box wherever you want them

There are other programs besides Realpolitik, but I find using a web-based judge more useful.

oh that is perfect, thank you very much.
however, I still am not convienced by the argument that convoy is like an attack of the last fleet. I mean, it makes sense and I do get that this is how the game works, but I don't see how this would originate in the rules

How does the army get there? It is delivered to the coast. How does the ay get delivered to the coast to cut the support if the fleet is being sieged and dislodged? It's not like the army, still on the ships, could attack the other fleets that move I to the sector or support the move into the sector. Think of it as the fleets move first (they are faster after all) and the armies second (they gotta get off them boats!) and then it males complete sense.

And it doesn't originate, that's why it is a paradox of the original rules.