Paradox Resolution Rules

By Simon Szykman and Manus Hand

Thanks For Answering....

Okay, now for the rules and discussion. Both Simon and Manus came up with different rules that would avoid the paradox in the scenario described previously. The first rule results in the first of the two possible outcomes shown, and the second rule results in the second of the outcomes show. In case it isn't obvious, this is an either-or situation. Paradoxes would be eliminated by adding only one of the two rules to the current rules.

Paradox-eliminating Rule Number 1: "If a convoyed army attacks a fleet that is supporting an action in or into a body of water that contains a convoying fleet, that support is not cut by the convoyed army under any circumstance (but a convoying army does cut all other supports normally)."

Paradox-eliminating Rule Number 2: "If a situation arises in which an army's convoy order results in a paradoxical adjudication, the turn is adjudicated as if the convoying army had been ordered to hold."

In case you want to see the setup again, here is the initial setup and the two outcomes:

Original Situation Resolution Using Rule 1 Resolution Using Rule 2
F Wal - ENG
F Lon S F Wal - ENG

A Bre - ENG - Lon
F ENG C A Bre - Lon
A Yor S A Bre - Lon

F Bel - ENG
F NTH S F Bel - ENG

Before moving on to the discussions, a couple of general points.

  1. Neither one of these rules is in the Diplomacy rulebook. You will always have purists who say that the official rules, albeit flawed, are the ones that should be used. There's not much to say to these purists. Leaving the rules as they are now is not a big deal, since these paradoxical situations generally don't arise in your average game. On the other hand, the current rules are flawed because they allow these paradoxical situations -- cases in which there is no single adjudication that is consistent with all the rules. Therefore, if something can be done to remedy those paradoxical situations, why not consider it?

  2. Both of the proposed rules are, in a way, inconsistent with or contradictory to the rules that are already in the rulebook. In other words, the current rulebook consists of a set of rules that allow certain unusual cases to be irresolvable because the rules are not fully consistent, and both of the proposed solutions are the result of adding to the rulebook another rule that is not completely consistent with the existing set of rules.

So by way of a disclaimer, it should be noted that Simon and Manus do not claim that their proposed solutions are consistent with the current rulebook. Their claim is that the rulebook is already flawed by inconsistencies that causes paradoxes, and that those paradoxes can be eliminated by adding one of these proposed rules. With or without the paradox-eliminating rules, the rulebook includes consistencies. So they advocate an inconsistent set of rules where paradoxes have been eliminated over an inconsistent set of rules that allows paradoxical situations. And these rules will only affect these rare situations where paradoxes arise... they will not affect regular gameplay.

And with that, you can read the two discussions, one making a case for rule 1 over rule 2, and the other making a case for rule 2 over rule 1.

After you have read the two discussions, you can vote again for whichever you think is a better solution to the paradox situation.

Manus Hand
(manus@diplom.org)
Simon Szykman
(simon@diplom.org)

If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the envelope above does not work for you, feel free to use the "Dear DP..." mail interface.