I know the argument about a unit not being able to cut the support of another unit supporting an attack on the first unit, but this seems different. Using the common sense rule, this seems to be two separate actions. A Mun succeeds in going to Boh, actually dislodging the enemy unit supporting A Sil>Mun. Then there is a separate contest between the unsupported A Sil and A Ber, which to my mind should bounce. Any insights would be appreciated. This situation comes up more than I like, and so far I have never been willing to trust that the result will be a standoff.

jdip says that Bohemia is dislodged, which is correct according to every rule I know. Don't trust that it will be a standoff. It won't be.

There will be a standoff in Munich. Berlin and Silesia will bounce each other.

Thanks folks. Of course, I was hoping for a unanimous decision. :) I'll wait until it comes up in a low point game before trying to see if it works.

Cutting support is best understood as a series of exceptions within exceptions.

Let's try it:

- Support actions always work (support cannot be "refused").
--- If you move to a territory where a unit is performing a support action, the support is cut.
----- Unless it's your unit (you can't cut support from one of your units).
----- Unless the support is a support move, with the move being aimed at the would-be support cutter.
------- But if the support cut attempt is itself supported, and the unit is dislodged, then ALL support is cut, no matter what.

So in the case mentioned in the original post: Bohemia is dislodged, so its support is cut. Period, end of story. Doesn't matter that it's Munich doing the cutting, since a dislodgement implies support is cut no matter what. Thus Berlin and Silesia will bounce in Munich, as it will be one against one.

To modify the situation a bit... suppose Country A has Berlin, Munich, and Galicia, and Country B has Silesia, Bohemia, and Vienna:

A Mun-Boh
A Gal S A Mun-Boh
A Ber-Mun
vs
A Sil-Mun
A Boh supports A Sil-Mun
A Vie supports A Boh to hold (assume support is not cut)

In this case, Bohemia is attacked with 2 units but it has the defensive strength of two units as well. Now look at the rules/exceptions I outlined above: you can start in the middle and unwind as far as you need to.

- Was Bohemia dislodged? NO, ergo its support is not automatically cut.
- Was Bohemia's would-be support cut from the territory to which the support move is directed? YES, so support is NOT cut and that's that.

Thus, since Bohemia's support is not cut, Silesia moves to Munich and takes it, two against one.

Does that make any sense at all? Let me know if I can clarify it further.

Oh, small clarification-- when I say that support actions "always work", I mean that they work if and only if the support move action matches the move action, or if the support hold action is matched with a non-move action.

But that part does come in handy for understanding how to defeat intentional self-standoffs, if that ever comes up in a game. :-)

wow, those are very long games you've got going. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten :)

Yep, figle.....they ARE long games. Thought I would be free of them by now. But both are getting near the end, and the execution can proceed. :)

So what is YOUR answer to the question, figle? :)

Thanks Katsarephat. That makes perfect sense to me, and is pretty much what my "common sense" conclusion was. The question is, does the SOFTWARE always make such perfect sense. :)

Presumably, figle, you are talking about greendjinn and smokybarnable being one and the same? Just for the purposes of clarity, which account is being axed?

Yeah, Captain Dave, I noticed that too.

Yes, the software is accurate.

Greendjinn will be closed, but so we don't wreck the games he'll be allowed to finish these before closing.

greendjinn: You can go to the Help page... somewhere on there is a link to a page with DATC in the name. These are adjudicator tests, pretty much all of which phpDiplomacy passes.

Thanks again, Katsarephat.

Yes, sorry about the confusion, Captain Dave and Pandarsenic. The Greendjinn account was started before I knew that multiple non-interacting accounts were illegal, because my original account had accidentally signed into a useless CD that I couldn't escape without also going CD, and I wanted to start out fresh, without the blemish of the inevitable loss. I notified figle about the error right away, and we worked out a solution. It has just taken forever, because both games Greendjinn is playing in are 72 hour phases.

Well, I'm just glad I read the whole thread carefully... I was this ---><--- close to sending an angry e-mail to the mods about *another* multi-accounter!