Uhhh, looks like the Bulgaria defenders simply had more support than the attackers and the convoy failed for that reason.

Bulgaria defenders:
1. Bulgaria
2. Constantinople
3. Rumania
4. Black Sea
Total strength: 4

Bulgaria attackers:
1. Tunis
2. Greece
3. Serbia
Total force: 3

Note that even if the attackers have *equal* strength to the defenders, the defenders still prevail. It takes *superior* force to dislodge a defending unit.

You're misunderstanding. A Tun-Bul fails in good logic. We all agree to that.

What I question is that the convoys as such should succeed. I've GMed in the past PBEM Diplomacy games and that's what the adjudication should reflect: convoys (both) succeed but army move (and only that) fails.

Semantics. In reality, the convoys would have failed to deliver, therefore they would have failed. But it's just a matter of what is displayed. IT has no effect on the outcome at all. Your way, the only way a convoy could fail was if it was misordered or dislodged.

"Your way, the only way a convoy [order] could fail was if it was misordered or dislodged."

Exactly. I hope you're right and it's just a matter of semantics. But I'd consider changing that because I was at firs calling the Italian player "noob" for failing to order properly (the convoy orders did not even appear in the map, so more confusion, although they do appear in the expanded map for some reason, as failed).

It is semantics, and probably something with the way the adjudication code is written. In A PBEM game, the results would have been shown as suggested, and rightly so. The fleets conducted successful orders. The army's move failed. This matter is one of many prices we pay for automated adjudication. The player calling Italy a "noob" is a fool, but you will soon find that fools are not scarce here.

Very funny! In the old PBM days such orders were written F(ION) + F(AEG) convoys A(Tun)-Bul... all would be underlined in the event of a failure. The whole is in effect a single compound entity. If you make convoy orders discrete entities then you have a philosophical problem in that if they fail, the final fleet should just chuck the army off it! To put it another way, the fleets have been ordered to transport the army from X to Y, if the army doesn't get there, then they have NOT succeeded. (And please don't say "It's not the fleets' fault", anthropomorphising an abstract entity is a short step from raving lunacy!)

A reminder to please report bugs in the mod forum. We don't always check the community forum to catch all bug reports there.

In this case, the resulting position of all units is adjudicated correctly, the graphical display of the specifics of the failure is stylistic.

"anthropomorphising an abstract entity is a short step from raving lunacy"

Quote of the day!

"anthropomorphising an abstract entity is a short step from raving lunacy"

Just curious btw, what pray tell is a fictional character in a novel?

One does not attribute real emotions to a fictional character (or at least one shouldn't) as they are contrived by the writer. Also, one does not simply walk into Mordor.

"anthropomorphising an abstract entity is a short step from raving lunacy"

Isn't this the essence of religion?

I never fail to be amazed at the utter absence of logic posted in these forums. It is not the fleet's fault that the action failed, and that is the very point of the discussion. If the fleets did not carry the army to the destination, then there could not have been a conflict there. Therefore the fleets did succeed in convoying the army, whether the army takes the destination or not. The army did not arrive, and bounced back to it's origination point. If the fleets had failed to deliver the army to the shored of Bulgaria, there would be no bounce.

Agreed, Ruffhaus, but a moot po8 t in the end as the resulting adjudication is the same, it's just semantic "wording" that is different.

Kaner, your religion only applies to the atheistic view. A theistic view would proscribed that God created us and, the Judeao/Christian/Muslim view is that we were created in *His* image therefore *He* in, at worst, anthropomorphising us as his equals, not we. If He is real, we aren't anthropomorphising anything.

"I never fail to be amazed at the utter absence of logic posted in these forums. It is not the fleet's fault... " There you go again, for the sake of clarity I'll rephrase: the fleet cannot be 'at fault'. I imagine this huge finger pointing down at the fleet and a booming voice coming from the clouds "It's your bloody fault!".

Ascribing a moral judgement to an adjudication, I repeat, is raving imbecility. Turn this around and make it the basis of a new variant: "Only units which deserve it, will have their orders succeed"

How the orders are displayed on the map is very important in some variants for example, Classic Fog of War variant. If you support a unit, but the support is cut or the unit is dislodged it does not show the the unit ever attempted to offer support. Because its fog of war you cannot review the submitted orders, so despite the outcome you have no idea if your allies were helping you or not.

Not true, Peter. The large map will still show the cut supports.

Oh.. I always assumed the big map and little map were the same, just a smaller representation.

When I ran PBEM games and did them by hand, I had a shorthand definition for all conflicts. Nothing would be stated for the convoy orders, they were not dislodged and did not fail. You would see any support orders that were cut as "SC" (support cut) for the army moving it would state "CIF" (conflict insufficient force) but again, the convoy orders would say nothing as they had no conflict.
Same exact thing here! No problem in the least with the way things are handled!

"In the old PBM days such orders were written F(ION) + F(AEG) convoys A(Tun)-Bul"...

Not in my dipping school really. I would have surely told you to state your orders properly in three different lines for the sake of clarity, and so would have done most other GMs. Sloppiness is against the principle that orders must be clear and unmistakable and there's no excuse for not writing it properly with all the time available in PBEM. In some cases your "compound" order would have been just declared failed because there's no such thing as a compound order per the rulebook and a stark GM may not feel like accepting your very capricious notation as valid or even be pedagogic with you. In doubt just browse GM home rules around the net, which will confirm what I say generally.

Anyways I'm glad that the case sparked some discussion because technically the convoys did not fail and it's just a matter on how the judge treats the order, apparently as the kind of "compound" order that Chumbles imagines but that I would never ever accept as GM (I would request to clarify, because the intent is apparent, though).

not that it matters in the least here, but for discussions sake, since it has been brought up...
I agree the compound order is not correctly written
I have never seen any such orders sent to me this way that I can recall (and over the years that would be several thousand order lines so maybe I did?) but if I was in that situation, If I happened to notice them (and I did not usually proof read orders ahead of time but sometimes did) I would ask for them to be re-written as the rules spell out. But if I were in a situation where they had snuck through and I was adjudicating the turn (and this were not a tourney with explicit order writing format rules), I would let them proceed as valid orders because the rules also state any orders that are not ambiguous must be followed, these are not written "correctly" but they are also unambiguous as to the intent, we have no question as to what each units orders are. He did order each unit in a format that is not correct but each was ordered and we have zero ambiguity. That too is part of the manual! But for those who chose to judge them invalid, I certainly can see that side as well and am not against that interpretation if that games GM had declared them invalid orders. It's all a gray area and the player should try to avoid getting into such a situation!

Well, the discussion was more about results reporting, not order formatting. They are done on here so the software can prevent the only possible options so supports and convoys are backwards as the "to" helps narrow down the "from" quite often.