Rank: Admin
Site Administrator
Ottawa, Canada

# of Posts: 1173

1) VII.3.b - When a fleet can move to two coasts and the coast is not specified, the adjudicator will mark the order as ambiguous and the unit will not move.

2) IX.1 - Do not specify owners of units in support and convoy orders. This redundant specification would unnecessarily complicate the parser. The movement results will indicate the alternate power on support and convoy orders.

3) IX.7 - Based on the second statement after XIV.5, IX.7 does not apply if either or both of the dislodged or dislodging unit is convoyed.

4) XII.5 To be updated - see Convoy Paradox posting
- a) This rule when taken literally can have some unintended results. For example:
England: F Iri-Mid, F Eng S F Iri-Mid
France: F Spa(nc) S F Mid, F Mid Convoy A Por-Bre, A Por-Mid-Bre
Italy: F Gulf of Lyon Convoy A Tus-Spa, A Tus-GoL-Spa

What happens in the Mid-Atlantic ocean? What about if the additional order:
Italy: A Mar S A Tus-Spa
is entered? With literal interpretation of the rules, the fleet in Spain would be dislodged, but its support to the fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean (of an action in a body of water containing a convoying fleet) would not be cut.

a) Normal non-convoyed movement cuts support.
b) Any armies being convoyed by fleets that would be dislodged without further support cuts are flagged "maybe no convoy".
c) Any convoyed armies without the "maybe no convoy" status cut support provided by units in their destination provinces.
d) Any armies being convoyed by fleets that still would be dislodged are flagged "definitely no convoy".
e) Any armies still flagged "maybe no convoy" status cut support of units in their destination provinces. The "maybe no convoy" status is cleared.

Using this algorithm, Spain's support above would be cut in pass three. The Mid-Atlantic Ocean's dislodgement would be detected in pass four. Portugal would be given the "no convoy" status and thus would have no effect on any unit in Brest in pass five.

5) XIII.2 - The rule reads as follows:
"BUILDING AND REMOVING UNITS (ADJUSTMENTS). After the Fall moves have been played, and the retreats (if any) made, each player's number of units must be adjusted to equal the number of supply centers his Great Power controls. If he has fewer centers than units, he must disband the excess units only, by removing them from the board. The units removed may be any of his units he choses. If he has more centers than units, he may build units by placing them..." (Emphasis on must and may is not in the original.)
This is vague. Is the rulebook saying that he must disband units and may build units because he can always disband units but is not always able to build units? If not, why is the rulebook saying that he must adjust his units to be equal to the number of supply centers that he controls?

Here is the replacement rule: You don't have to accept all possible builds. Possible builds not being used will simply be held for future use.

6) XIV.4 - If a power is required to remove a unit and no valid order is received, A UNIT WILL BE SELECTED RANDOMLY from ALL available units INCLUDING those on supply centers. This may have adverse consequences and therefore should be avoided by all players by ensuring orders are entered on time.

7) Coastal Designations for Fleet Support Orders
The judge requires that an order for a unit supporting a fleet movement to a bi-coastal province specify the correct coast, otherwise the support will be void.

Rank: Admin
Site Administrator
Ottawa, Canada

# of Posts: 1173

• Change of Email Address:
  The GM is not responsible for problems caused by you changing your e-mail address without notifying the GM. The user profile options allows you to change this information as often as is required. Be sure to view the list of blocked domain names though as many of the 'free' email site are blocked due to unreliabitility and spam. We encourage players to use gmail.com whenever possible.
  
  

Rank: Admin
Site Administrator
Ottawa, Canada

# of Posts: 1173

Official abbreviation list used on this site (not particularly useful due to the automated interface, but nonetheless here it is):

• Provinces
  ADR- Adriatic Sea
  AEG- Aegean Sea
  ALB- Albania
  ANK- Ankara
  APU- Apulia
  ARM- Armenia
  BAL- Baltic Sea
  BAR- Barents Sea
  BEL- Belgium
  BER- Berlin
  BLA- Black Sea
  BOH- Bohemia
  BRE- Brest
  BUD- Budapest
  BUL- Bulgaria
  BUR- Burgundy
  CLY- Clyde
  CON- Constantinople
  DEN- Denmark
  ECH- English Channel
  EDI- Edinburgh
  EME- Eastern Med
  FIN- Finland
  GAL- Galicia
  GAS- Gascony
  GOB- Gulf of Bothnia
  GOL- Gulf of Lyon
  GRE- Greece
  HEL- Helgoland Bight
  HOL- Holland
  ION- Ionian Sea
  IRI- Irish Sea
  KIE- Kiel
  LIV- Livonia
  LON- London
  LVP- Liverpool
  MAO-Mid-Atlantic Ocean
  MAR- Marseilles
  MOS- Moscow
  MUN- Munich
  NAF- North Africa
  NAO- North Atlantic
  NAP- Naples
  NOR- Norway
  NTS- North Sea
  NWS- Norwegian Sea
  PAR- Paris
  PIC- Picardy
  PIE- Piedmont
  POR- Portugal
  PRU- Prussia
  ROM- Rome
  RUH- Ruhr
  RUM- Rumania
  SER- Serbia
  SEV- Sevastopol
  SIL- Silesia
  SKA- Skagerrak
  SMY- Smyrna
  SPA- Spain
  STP- St. Petersburg
  SWE- Sweden
  SYR- Syria
  TRI- Trieste
  TUN- Tunis
  TUS- Tuscany
  TYR- Tyrolia
  TYS- Tyrrhenian Sea
  UKR- Ukraine
  VEN- Venice
  VIE- Vienna
  WAL- Wales
  WAR- Warsaw
  WME- Western Med
  YOR- Yorkshire
  
  
• Unit Types
  A - Army
  F - Fleet
  
  
• Coasts
  (SC) - South Coast
  (NC) - North Coast
  (EC) - East Coast
  
  
• Orders
  "-" - Move/ Attack
  S - Support
  C - Convoy
  
  

Rank: Admin
Site Administrator
Ottawa, Canada

# of Posts: 1173

A Board Power Rating (BPR) system was added to this site in March of 2002. This is in addition to the previously implemented Player Ranking system and offers a different view on results of the game.

There is also a forum dedicated to the DIPS rating system. Both are used on this site.

The Board Power Rating is based on a tournament scoring system by Stephen Agar.

The basic material that any scoring system can use is the supply centre chart, so this rating system focuses on supply centre totals at the time the game was ended, but it goes one step further and adjusts the points awarded to each player on the basis of how well all the powers on the board have performed.
It may appear that a player with 12 units when the game ends is doing pretty well. However, there is a world of difference in being the largest power with 12 centres when the game ends, and being a poor second to a 16 centre power. In both cases the player has achieved 12 centres, but his relative success in the two games is very different. One way to incorporate this into a tournament scoring system is to consider how close each player is to victory compared to his opponents. A player with nine centres usually has nine pieces and needs nine more centres to win, thus if he attempted to rush for victory he would have one unit to send against each of the nine centres he needs. If a player gets to 12 units, he needs only another six centres, so he has 2 units to send against each centre he needs. At 15 units the 15/3 ratio produces a result of 5.0. At 17 units, the ratio is 17/1 or 17.0.

Having calculated the prospects for each Power, how do we use this to produce a rating? Well, let us assume that each game is worth 100 points and if we were to apportion the 100 points between all surviving players in the same ratios as their prospects are to each other, then you would have a rating which reflects not only the strength of the player being rated, but also the strength of the opposition.

• The Survival Bonus - Each player receives 0.1 points for every complete game year they remain in the game
  
  
• Win - The winning player recieves 100 points for an 18SC win. All other players receive only the appropriate survival bonus points.
  
  
• Draws - If players agree a draw then the BPR points are averaged across the participants in the draw. All other players only receive the appropriate survival bonus points.
  
  
• Total Points per Game - The final results (points + bonus) are then re-based for a total of 100 points per game.
  

Rank: Admin
Site Administrator
Ottawa, Canada

# of Posts: 1173

Placeholder - This is a work in progress. I will be creating/clarifying a house rule to deal with a typical convoy paradox. It has come up before and I was recently asked my position on it as depending on the ruleset used, and the GM, the outcome is different.



http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.A.2

quote:

---

4.A.2. CONVOY DISRUPTION PARADOXES
A convoy disruption paradox is a situation with a possible disrupted convoy and for which the rules give no resolution or more than one resolution.

Some people argue that some situations are not convoy paradoxes, since the rules give a resolution for those situations. Hence, for a proper discussion on paradoxes, rule XII.5 of the 1971, 1976, 1982 and 1992 rulebooks and the rule on the top of page 16 of the 2000 rulebook, should not be taken into account in the above definition of a paradox.

In case of a paradox, the smallest subset of orders for which the paradox still exists, is the core of the paradox. In case there are several independent paradoxes on the board, then it is possible that there are two different subsets of orders with the same number of orders. In that case, just one can be taken to proceed. Since the paradoxes are independent it doesn't matter which one is handled first.

The 1982 rule about this issue is:
"If a convoyed army attacks a fleet which is supporting an action in a body of water; and that body of water contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut. ". The advantage of this rule is that it is a simple and effective rule that eliminates all paradoxes. Compared to other rules that eliminate all paradoxes, it is the easiest rule to program in an adjudicator. However, the disadvantage is that it effects not only the paradoxical situations, but also many other cases. This has as consequence that players can do tricks with this rule to take advantage (see test cases 6.F.20 and 6.F.21). It is also not clear what a "convoying fleet" means. Does it mean a fleet that is ordered to convoy? Or must there be at least an army that tries to convoy? Or must there be a possible route? Finally, as with the 1971 rule, it conflicts with the dislodge rule in some cases, although, the common interpretation is that this rule takes precedence (see test case 6.F.17).

---