I agree with you on both scenarios.
However, as you just stated, it is a game & those are the rules of the game.

Well then I should make a better game! :D Some day maybe...

I think it makes sense that two units get turned away at the border by two entrenched units, but the Swedish unit returning home is still able to hold its own territory against a single invading unit.

Three still beats two if they are positioned and used properly.

Denmark did not help in the attack. All it did was to cut Sweden support. There and a standoff with support in Norway that bounced, bouncing Denmark as well

By the rules I understand how it happened. But it is still nonsensical logically. If Sweden army goes to Norway for adventure, Denmark takes Sweden. If it stays, water takes Norway. Effectively in my eyes if you are attacked, your attack should be cut too, same as for support, though that opens other cans of worms. The current outcome basically would require some seriously stupid coordination on England's troop side. First than happens then that happens... No, diplomacy seem to be simultaneous turns game...

Even if a unit moves, and it does not make it to its new destination for whatever reason, it moves back to its original spot. It only would not do so, if the spot it left is attacked with support

Why are you explaining rules, I said I understand that, my point is that realistically they are nonsensical. Yes game is as it is, but this makes very little sense, and it seems diplomacy is filled with such very hard to predict special cases. In that way I'd call diplomacy rules very inelegant (while intro reading of rules would seem to imply very elegant game with couple of possible actions).

Then the answer is its a game with those rules

Keep in mind these are six month phases and meant to represent large movements and trends in the battlefield. Looking at the history of WWI, there would be of course, feints, attacks, retreats, etc. throughout that time before eventually making a major move forward over time. If anything six months is an absurdly long time to cross the English channel with an army.

It makes perfect sense that three units with bad coordination can't beat two units with good coordination. The fact that England doesn't have the right three units in the right three places to beat Russia's two units is England's problem, not the game's.

I like the answer that this is over a 6-month period.

Also, I don't think you need to assume that the 'army' is in one place, but the army figure represents the influence of an army. That round, the army was reaching out to invade Norway, supported by the influence of St. P, but was rebuffed by an equal effort from England to invade Norway. Given that the army was unable to exert enough influence to move to Norway - it remained where it was. If it had the strength to move out, it would have been willing to abandon its original position and not defend, but it was stuck at home and therefore still defended.

Where it was able to defend against an invading army which did not have enough force to push out the Russian army. You can think about it as the standing army had natural defense advantages, so even while it is trying to invade another country with its influence, a country back at home can defend its position if the army can't make any progress on another front.

It also might help to think about it in terms of the armies are not suicidal - so they don't all commit to an action, but it is a slow protracted effort to extend their influence in the round, but they aren't willing to send their whole army to a place they can't conquer (or both England and Russia's invading units should die)

My advice on this, and all other games, is to not think so much about the theme. The theme serves the game; the game doesn't serve the theme. The rules are the way they are because it makes the tactics and gameplay and mechanics work.

Oh I know that rules and game and stuff. I'm quite into games, many of them. My main point being that diplomacy is a dupey game. At first it seems like that elegant game with simple rules, combine forces to dislodge enemies. But it ends up being incredibly hairy and nonintuitive, just look at test cases made for it. Now there are many games where simple rules give rise to complicated and very interesting game-play, examples say hex, havannah. So you could basically scratch all this under me not being happy that I got into diplomacy :).

HappyThoughs I kinda get what you are saying in part, but in the end this is like weaselwording, also very contrived explanations. While "in spirit" diplomacy seems, combine forces, bigger forces outnumber and win against smaller, and in that regard all that event is "against spirit". Or my simple counterpoint would by, why not English forces come in coordinated with full force, and take confused Russian army out (meaning disbanding) as Russian army was in awkward position between two "encampments" (aka totally out in the open. Point is that one can contrive various situations, but the end result is the same, who would expect people unfamiliar with game to resolve such "simulation" in a way it did resolve? I would guess not many would, certainly not me, and that is what I mean when I say that rules are very nonintuitive/obscure salad of special cases (this is of course due to constrains of how game was designed, the choices for simple "base rules" implied all this mess).

@ Morphles: You are missing a very important point. Diplomacy is a game of intrigue, of deal-making and deal-breaking. The movement rules are abstract - this is not a tactical wargame. It is a game of alliances and subterfuge..

I'm not missing that as much as you think, though it is likely part that I like least (also judging by the prevalence of no chat games, I might not be so alone on that ether). Thing is it is very hard to make deals when results of deal made or broken are quite obscure and you need like a law book or simulations to check what might happen...

Diplomacy is also a game of tactics, and outmanuevering and guessing your army. That is the most enjoyable part to me, and is reliant on supports and moves being treated differently with regards to 2v3 and 3v2 situations.

Make every scenario with a 3v2 win and you lose a lot of the ability to position, strategize, and outmaneuver another army. In the example, England could play a more optimal move by knowing that Russia will play strategically, and so if they only let 1 unit move to Norway, but move the other unit to Sweden still as they did they either gain Sweden if Russia moves Sweden unit overexending Russia, or cut support to Sweden and bounce just like they did. They can then use that other army to move to Ska, where the pressure can be placed on both countries. Far more likely to outmaneuver Russia that way.

@ Morphles: "you need like a law book or simulations to check what might happen"

Actually once you've played a reasonable number of games it becomes quite intuitive. I never have to check the movement rules.

Really? I have to stop and think about how a move might work on a fairly regular basis. The basics flow nicely enough, but throw multiple units in some of the more complicated locations and I get a tad lost.

I have to stop and think about what someone else might do to ruin my moves, but the movement rules themselves are fully ingrained in me at this point.

Man, I can't believe bishops can only move diagonally. Chess is so unrealistic.

I mean knights on horses can jump I suppose, but why the weird angle? Wouldn't it make sense if they jumped in a straight line?

Why the fuck can the queen move further than the king? Medieval warfare should be oppressively misogynistic.

It's a commentary on the oppressively constricting nature of being head of state. The queen is free to go gallivanting all over the world meeting new people because she is, at the heart of this misogynistic monarchy, expendable.

I don't want my game to be a damn commentary. I want it to be a game. This is exactly what's been wrong with board games the last couple millennia

Don't get me started with Backgammon. I mean where is the logic?

"I don't want my game to be a damn commentary."

Don't play Undertale or Spec Ops: The Line, I guess?

Chess is a lot more abstracted than diplomacy I'd say (and cleaner, there is no such things as thinking how to resolve a move; while say go, has overall rules simpler than chess, it suffers some of the same that diplomacy does, things like superko rules are quite annoying, though at least that happens much less than for diplomacy move resolution). Though considering current commercial board games, diplomacy of course is very abstract by those standards too.

But in any case I see my point is being almost totally missed, so whatever, I'm out of discussion.

Your point isn't being missed. You're just ignoring the responses people give. If the rules upset you so much that you can't enjoy the game, diplomacy isn't for you. If they don't, you're welcome to keep your opinion and continue playing, but that doesn't mean people have to agree with you.

It's not being missed so much as ignored. Starting a thread calling everyone's favourite hobby "moderately interesting" is never likely to generate a warm response :p.

Not that there's much to talk about. Some of the moves feel odd? Yes. Not much you can do without creating a different game. As with life, there's much to be enjoyed if you can stop yourself obsessing over the irritating bits :).

Personally I hate it when the rules of a game combine to create situations that are not expected. When another player in Ticket to Ride blocks my route to another city deliberately, even though it isn't in their best interests; or when I'm playing History of the World and a player combines their Mayan event combined with their Roman Epoch and goes onto wipe the whole board out because they also somehow happen to have Superior Weaponry. That just pisses me off. Because how can a really cool game happen to have quirks in the conjunction of some of the rules? And as for GO? How dare there be a rule for Seki situations? I mean if players want to continue to trade territory indefinitely they should be allowed to right? I mean that just does my goat in.

"Though considering current commercial board games, diplomacy of course is very abstract by those standards too."

i think that's very important - for me, diplomacy is more an abstract strategy game than a (war) simulation i the vein of civilization. if the very non-abstract map confuses you, try this: http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/diplomacy.html
or this: http://diplom.org/Online/maps/stdmap.gif

I like the example of three armies beat four armies to take berlin.

You can set it up with (lets see if i can rememver my board positions without looking) ruhr supports berlin-munich and kiel supports baltic sea-berlin

The enemy has orders munich - berlin (with two armies supporting)

Two vs three in munich means the enemy wins there, and then two vs three in berlin means the enemy takes berlin.

Thus with proper co-ordination you can beat an outnumbered but less organised foe.

The fact that they would have been better off defending is relevant, because war games often see defence and offence as different. But diplomacy is almost symmetric.

And yes morphles, weaslewords.

When you ask someone to rationalise their thing, you expect to get a rationalisation.

And it sounds weasley to someone who already has preconcieved notions of how things *should* be...

Surprise, surprise.

omg chess is so weird and non-logical, knights would never jump over a queen!
what a stupid debate i cannot believe this.

Technically, the knights in chess do not jump, but rather move in a diagonal that does not intersect the centers of any other squares.

Let's not forget that the "2 matching 3" is a defending force repelling an invading force. In battle, defending territory is easier than taking land. An attacking force can (all things being equal) expect much greater casualties than the corresponding defending force.

Damn good point SuperSteve...defenders only have to hold on, and can use strategic withdrawals to inflict heavy costs on the attackers
Examples.. Campaign along the Kokoda track in Papua New Guinea in WW2 where Australian army facing larger Japanese forces staged a series of withdrawals.. lengthening opponents supply route, and using terrain to set up defensive ambush points,
Russia's scorched earth Retreats against Napoleon
Robert the Bruce V Edward

Example of a static defense, where superior weapons played a major role.. Rorke's Drift in Africa..British army vastly outnumbered by Zulu forces, but British soldiers had rifled muskets, or rifles..well organised defense held off attackers inflicting massive casualties on attackers until relief column arrived

Seige of Rochester castle against King John after John went back on his deal with Barons and signed Magna Carta, The castle was taken, but the seige delayed John from being able to advance on London and relief in the form of a French force had landed and marched up to threaten John's mercenaries

Oops, that last bit is expressed poorly..John had signed Magna Carta, but went back on the deal, hired a Mercenary army and stayed picking off the Barons, he needed to move quickly from the South coast across the Severn river? to advance on London and surrounding region, Rochester castle, built by his grandfather ? a classic Norman castle at the crossing point on the Severn river..the lengthy seige delayed John and played a significant part in his eventual defeat

Oops..started picking off the Barons