John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
-
just rec'd my 1st copy (AH with the metal pcs), and am now looking to schedule our 1st game...understanding how long games might take, etc...and reading the rules several times, the one issue i see stopping this from being more than a "one time at the table game" is the "support" function...it is rather complicated, and with all new players (incl myself), this could become a "deal breaker"...
is there any easier way to implement "support", or explain support? has anyone modified support (in a variant, for example) to help move this part of the game along a little easier? i find the support issue confusing and convoluted, and i am the one who needs to introduce all our new games, host the evening, explain all the rules, etc...i really want to give this a shot, but just expalining "support" might take 1/3 of the evening alone, and even then we'd be using the rules several times per turn...
the basic premise of support is fine, it's all the diff things that change/interupt support that are hard to grasp...any ideas? thanks...
-
Matt Downey
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
-
Support really boils down to the following three rules:
If you can move there, you can provide support there
If you are attacked by anyone other than the territory you're supporting against, your support is cut
If you are dislodged, your support is cut
That's really all you need to know.
-
Edward Rustin
United Kingdom
London
-
There's not a whole lot to it really. Probably the easiest way to explain it is to just a put a few units on the map and demonstrate what can happen.
-
-
downeymb wrote: If you can move there, you can provide support there.
Matt summed it well, but I would re-emphasize the one above. In my experience, despite being fairly obvious, this rule is oft-forgotten.
-
Edward Rustin
United Kingdom
London
-
Juxtatype wrote: downeymb wrote: If you can move there, you can provide support there. Matt summed it well, but I would re-emphasize the one above. In my experience, despite being fairly obvious, this rule is oft-forgotten.
Though it might still need clarification. For example, when supporting moves, it's being able to move to the destination that enables support, rather than the origin.
-
Gerald Todd
United States
Pasadena
Maryland
-
I cut some simple paper arrows (triangles really) and set up situations on the board. The arrows show intended moves, arrows with "support" written on them show, well, support
So you set up some units and place arrows to show intended moves and support. When everything is arrowed up, you can then go through and remove supports that were cut, moves that failed, and what is left is what will happen.
I actually used to use this set-up to work out complicated situations when I was GMing PBM games - it's easy to lose track of what was ordered and the visual aids help a lot. You can use them during actual play placing them as the orders are read out, removing cut supports, then determining failed moves. What's left are your moves. Then do your retreats/disbandments - rinse and repeat.
-
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
-
elemental wrote: Juxtatype wrote: downeymb wrote: If you can move there, you can provide support there. Matt summed it well, but I would re-emphasize the one above. In my experience, despite being fairly obvious, this rule is oft-forgotten. Though it might still need clarification. For example, when supporting moves, it's being able to move to the destination that enables support, rather than the origin.
i'm sure that after a few plays this will make sense, my concern if this complicates an already very long game even more i won't get it to the table ever again...i wish someone had devised a variant that really made it simple; like you list support as required in the rules on your order sheet, and IF (when the time comes) that order can be carried out that's fine...but if the unit/area you were suppporting has moved (or is eliminated, etc.) then obv no support was needed...it gets complicated to me when you get the "ans, buts, ifs" that still exist...
-
Gerald Todd
United States
Pasadena
Maryland
-
Owning a cat is more complicated than playing Diplomacy, and harder to figure out.
Unit A wants to go there - units B & C will help (support) him. Unit D is already there and unit E is helping him to stay (hold). Unit F is ordered to unit C's position.
A+B+C = 3 but unit C is distracted by unit F (cut) so A+B=2
D+E=2
2 vs 2 = bounce
Tada!
-
Stewart Nairn
United Kingdom
Glasgow
Glasgow
-
elemental wrote: Juxtatype wrote: downeymb wrote: If you can move there, you can provide support there. Matt summed it well, but I would re-emphasize the one above. In my experience, despite being fairly obvious, this rule is oft-forgotten. Though it might still need clarification. For example, when supporting moves, it's being able to move to the destination that enables support, rather than the origin.
I tend to say to people "If you could move there, you could decide instead to stay where you are and support someone else to move there."
-
Kevin Brown
United States
Macon
Georgia
-
In support, a unit lends its strength to another unit. Units can do this in any space into which they could move on the turn they are supporting. Support can be used to help a defending unit in the space or to aid a unit attacking into the space. If a unit ordered to support is attacked from somewhere other than the space into which it is supporting the support is broken because the unit has to use its strength to defend itself.
That's how I've always explained support. Almost everyone understands it right away.
-
Stewart Nairn
United Kingdom
Glasgow
Glasgow
-
John_VW wrote: ...i wish someone had devised a variant that really made it simple; like you list support as required in the rules on your order sheet, and IF (when the time comes) that order can be carried out that's fine...but if the unit/area you were suppporting has moved (or is eliminated, etc.) then obv no support was needed...it gets complicated to me when you get the "ans, buts, ifs" that still exist...
Not really sure what you mean here, John. Yes, you write your order; what is moving where, who is supporting whom to do what, and then when it comes to carrying out the orders things don't work out the way you planed because other people have not done what you expected them to (or what they said to you the would do). That's the whole point of the game.
If I am in Belgium and you are in Holland you might agree to order Holland to support my unit to hold in Belgium, in exchange for me doing something for you. When it comes to reading out the orders you find that I didn't order Begium to hold, rather I ordered it to move to the Ruhr and also ordered Picardy to Belgium.
Your support for my hold is void and I am in Begium and the Ruhr ready to take Holland from you. Had I not deceived you into ordering the support and you had ordered Holland to Belgium instead then I would have end up in Picardy and the Ruhr and not able to take Holland.
So, ordering things that, as it turns out, can't happen, is very much part of the game.
It is all the "ifs and buts" that make the game. When you write your moves you don't know what others are actually writing. "If he does this and I do that then it will be good for me, but, if I do that and he does the other thing then it will be bad for me. What will he do? Can I trust him to do what he says?"
If your confusion is about actually resolving the moves once all the orders are, figuring out which moves succeed and which fail then it's not actually that difficult.
If different units are ordered to occupy the same area then the biggest force wins, the force being 1 for the unit plus an extra 1 for every uncut support it gets.
If you are still not clear how to resolve certain situations then why not post the position here and people will tell you how to work it out.
This is a beautifully simple game of incredible depth. It would be a tragedy for it to be a "one time at the table game", it is a whole lifetimes game.
I would recomend readin at least the first couple of chapters of Richard Sharps wonderful book "The Game of Diplomacy", available (with his permission) here http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/god.htm, to get a feel for the game)
This is arguably the greatest board game ever made. Welcome aboard.
-
Matt Shields
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
John_VW wrote:
i'm sure that after a few plays this will make sense, my concern if this complicates an already very long game even more i won't get it to the table ever again...i wish someone had devised a variant that really made it simple; like you list support as required in the rules on your order sheet, and IF (when the time comes) that order can be carried out that's fine...but if the unit/area you were suppporting has moved (or is eliminated, etc.) then obv no support was needed...it gets complicated to me when you get the "ans, buts, ifs" that still exist...
The way you say this makes me a little bit concerned that you're misunderstanding the rules, John. I say this because the regular rules kind of are the way you're saying you wish a variant was.
There are no "conditional" orders in Diplomacy. I'll write one order for my piece, and if it turns out that order is invalid because another player didn't do what I thought they were going to, then my order was wasted.
For example, if I'm in Belgium and you're in Holland, I could order:
Belgium SUPPORT Holland -> Ruhr.
If when we read your orders you actually wrote "Holland -> Ruhr" then great, my order is executed. If it turns out you did anything else, then my order is simply ignored.
There aren't really any if/and/buts about this.
Now it's true that supports can be cut, and this will change whether your support order gets executed, but cutting supports is one of the most important mechanics in the whole game. A variant that didn't allow that, would be a very very different game.
-
|
|
