The English army in London bounces on the French army in Paris. Both units do not
move.
6.F.3. TEST CASE, AN ARMY BEING CONVOYED CAN RECEIVE SUPPORT
Armies being convoyed can receive support as in any other move.
England: F English Channel Convoys A London - Brest A London - Brest F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports A London - Brest France: A Paris - Brest
The army in London receives support and beats the army in Paris. This means
that the army London will end in Brest and the French army in Paris stays in Paris.
6.F.4. TEST CASE, AN ATTACKED CONVOY IS NOT DISRUPTED
A convoy can only be disrupted by dislodging the fleets. Attacking is not sufficient.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland A London - Holland Germany: F Skagerrak - North Sea
The army in London will successfully convoy and end in Holland.
6.F.5.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland A London - Holland France: F English Channel - North Sea F Belgium Supports F English Channel - North Sea Germany: F Skagerrak - North Sea F Denmark Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea
The army in London will successfully convoy and end in Holland.
6.F.6. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CUT SUPPORT
When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, the convoy is completely cancelled. So, no support is cut.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland A London - Holland Germany: A Holland Supports A Belgium A Belgium Supports A Holland F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea F Skagerrak - North Sea France: A Picardy - Belgium A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium
The hold order of Holland on Belgium will sustain and Belgium
will not be dislodged by the French in Picardy.
6.F.7. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CAUSE CONTESTED AREA
When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, the landing area is not contested, so other units can retreat to that area.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland A London - Holland Germany: F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea F Skagerrak - North Sea
The dislodged English fleet can retreat to Holland.
6.F.8. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOY DOES NOT CAUSE A BOUNCE
When a fleet of a convoy is dislodged, then there will be no bounce in the landing area.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Holland A London - Holland Germany: F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea F Skagerrak - North Sea A Belgium - Holland
The army in Belgium will not bounce and move to Holland.
6.F.9. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY
When a fleet of a convoy with multiple routes is dislodged, the result depends on the rulebook that is used.
England: F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium A London - Belgium France: F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
The French fleet in Mid Atlantic Ocean will dislodge the convoying
fleet in the English Channel. If the 1971 rules are used (see issue
4.A.1), this will disrupt the convoy and the army will
stay in London. When the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (which I prefer)
the army can still go via the North Sea and the convoy succeeds and
the London army will end in Belgium.
6.F.10. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY WITH FOREIGN FLEET
When the 1971 rulebook is used "unwanted" multi-route convoys are possible.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium A London - Belgium Germany: F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium France: F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
If the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (which I prefer), it makes no
difference that the convoying fleet in the English Channel is German.
It will take the convoy via the North Sea anyway and the army in London
will end in Belgium. However, when the 1971 rules are used, the German
convoy is "unwanted". According to the DPTG the German fleet should be
ignored in the English convoy, since there is a convoy path with only
English fleets. That means that the convoy is not disrupted and the
English army in London will end in Belgium. See also issue 4.A.1.
6.F.11. TEST CASE, DISLODGE OF MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY WITH ONLY FOREIGN FLEETS
When the 1971 rulebook is used, "unwanted" convoys can not be ignored in all cases.
England: A London - Belgium Germany: F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium Russia: F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium France: F Brest Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - English Channel
If the 1982 or 2000 rulebook is used (which I prefer), it makes no difference that the convoying fleets are not English. It will take the convoy via the North Sea anyway and the army in London will end in Belgium.
However, when the 1971 rules are used, the situation is
different. Since both the fleet in the English Channel as the fleet
in North Sea are not English, it can not be concluded that the
German fleet is "unwanted". Therefore, one of the routes of the convoy
is disrupted and that means that the complete convoy is disrupted.
The army in London will stay in London. See also issue 4.A.1.
6.F.12. TEST CASE, DISLODGED CONVOYING FLEET NOT ON ROUTE
When the rule is used that convoys are disrupted when one of the routes is disrupted (see issue 4.A.1), the convoy is not necessarily disrupted when one of the fleets ordered to convoy is dislodged.
England: F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium A London - Belgium F Irish Sea Convoys A London - Belgium France: F North Atlantic Ocean Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Irish Sea
Even when convoys are disrupted when one of the routes is disrupted
(see issue 4.A.1), the convoy from London to Belgium
will still succeed, since the dislodged fleet in the Irish Sea is not
part of any route, although it can be reached from the starting point
London.
6.F.13. TEST CASE, THE UNWANTED ALTERNATIVE
This situation is not difficult to adjudicate, but it shows that even if someone wants to convoy, the player might not want an alternative route for the convoy.
England: A London - Belgium F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium France: F English Channel Convoys A London - Belgium Germany: F Holland Supports F Denmark - North Sea F Denmark - North Sea
If France and German are allies, England want to keep its army in London, to defend the island. An army in Belgium could easily be destroyed by an alliance of France and Germany. England tries to be friends with Germany, however France and Germany trick England.
The convoy of the army in London succeeds and the fleet in Denmark
dislodges the fleet in the North Sea.
6.F.14. TEST CASE, SIMPLE CONVOY PARADOX
The most common paradox is when the attacked unit supports an attack on one of the convoying fleets.
England: F London Supports F Wales - English Channel F Wales - English Channel France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London
This situation depends on how paradoxes are handled (see issue
(4.A.2). In case of the 'All Hold' rule
(fully applied, not just as "backup" rule), both the movement of
the English fleet in Wales as the France convoy in Brest
are part of the paradox and fail. In all other rules of
paradoxical convoys (including the Szykman rule which I prefer),
the support of London is not cut. That means that the fleet
in the English Channel is dislodged.
6.F.15. TEST CASE, SIMPLE CONVOY PARADOX WITH ADDITIONAL CONVOY
Paradox rules only apply on the paradox core.
England: F London Supports F Wales - English Channel F Wales - English Channel France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London Italy: F Irish Sea Convoys A North Africa - Wales F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A North Africa - Wales A North Africa - Wales
The Italian convoy is not part of the paradox core and should therefore succeed when the move of the fleet in Wales is successful. This is the case except when the 'All Hold' paradox rule is used (fully applied, not just as "backup" rule, see issue 4.A.2).
I prefer the Szykman rule, so I prefer that both the fleet in
Wales as the army in North Africa succeed in moving.
6.F.16. TEST CASE, PANDIN'S PARADOX
In Pandin's paradox, the attacked unit protects the convoying fleet by a beleaguered garrison.
England: F London Supports F Wales - English Channel F Wales - English Channel France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London Germany: F North Sea Supports F Belgium - English Channel F Belgium - English Channel
In all the different rules for resolving convoy disruption paradoxes (see
issue 4.A.2), the support of London is not cut. That means
that the fleet in the English Channel is not dislodged and none of the units
succeed to move.
6.F.17. TEST CASE, PANDIN'S EXTENDED PARADOX
In Pandin's extended paradox, the attacked unit protects the convoying fleet by a beleaguered garrison and the attacked unit can dislodge the unit that gives the protection.
England: F London Supports F Wales - English Channel F Wales - English Channel France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London F Yorkshire Supports A Brest - London Germany: F North Sea Supports F Belgium - English Channel F Belgium - English Channel
When the 1971, 1982 or 2000 rule is used (see issue 4.A.2), the support of London is not cut. That means that the fleet in the English Channel is not dislodged. The convoy will succeed and dislodge the fleet in London. You may argue that this violates the dislodge rule, but the common interpretation is that the paradox convoy rules take precedence over the dislodge rule.
If the Simon Szykman alternative is used (which I prefer), the
convoy fails and the fleet in London and the English Channel are not
dislodged. When the 'All Hold' (fully applied, not just as "backup" rule)
or the DPTG rule is used, the result is
the same as the Simon Szykman alternative. The involved moves (the move of
the German fleet in Belgium and the convoying army in Brest) fail.
6.F.18. TEST CASE, BETRAYAL PARADOX
The betrayal paradox is comparable to Pandin's paradox, but now the attacked unit direct supports the convoying fleet. Of course, this will only happen when the player of the attacked unit is betrayed.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium A London - Belgium F English Channel Supports A London - Belgium France: F Belgium Supports F North Sea Germany: F Helgoland Bight Supports F Skagerrak - North Sea F Skagerrak - North Sea
If the English convoy from London to Belgium is successful, then it cuts the France support necessary to hold the fleet in the North Sea (see issue 4.A.2).
The 1971 and 2000 ruling do not give an answer on this.
According to the 1982 ruling the French support on the North Sea will not be cut. So, the fleet in the North Sea will not be dislodged by the Germans and the army in London will dislodge the French army in Belgium.
If the Szykman rule is followed (which I prefer), the move of the army in London will fail and will not cut support. That means that the fleet in the North Sea will not be dislodged.
The 'All Hold' rule has the same result as the Szykman rule, but with a different reason. The move of the army in London and the move of the German fleet in Skagerrak will fail.
Since a failing convoy does not result in a consistent
resolution, the DPTG gives the same result as the 'All Hold'
rule.
6.F.19. TEST CASE, MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY DISRUPTION PARADOX
The situation becomes more complex when the convoy has alternative routes.
 The ruling about disruption of convoys (issue 4.A.1) and the issue how paradoxes are resolved (issue 4.A.2).
If the 1971 rule is used about multi-route convoys (when one of the routes is disrupted, the convoy fails), this test case is just a simple paradox. For the 1971, 1982, 2000 and Szykman paradox rule, the support of the fleet in Naples is not cut and the fleet in Rome dislodges the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea. When the 'All Hold' rule is used, both the convoy of the army in Tunis as the move of the fleet in Rome will fail.
When the 1982 rule is used about multi-route convoy disruption, then convoys are disrupted when all routes are disrupted (this is the rule I prefer). With this rule, the situation becomes paradoxical. According to the 1971 and 1982 paradox rules, the support given by the fleet in Naples is not cut, that means that the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.
According to the 2000 ruling the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea is not "necessary" for the convoy and the support of Naples is cut and the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea is not dislodged.
If the Szykman rule is used (which I prefer), the
'All Hold' rule or the DPTG, then there is no paradoxical
situation. The support of Naples is cut and the fleet in the
Tyrrhenian Sea is not dislodged.
6.F.20. TEST CASE, UNWANTED MULTI-ROUTE CONVOY PARADOX
The 1982 paradox rule allows some creative defense.
 The ruling about disruption of multi-route convoys (issue 4.A.1) and the issue how paradoxes are resolved (issue 4.A.2).
If the 1971 rule is used about multi-route convoys (when one of the routes is disrupted, the convoy fails), the Italian convoy order in the Ionian Sea is not part of the convoy, because it is a foreign unit (according to the DPTG). That means that the fleet in the Ionian Sea is not a 'convoying' fleet. In all rulings the support of Naples on the Ionian Sea is cut and the fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.
When the 1982 rule is used about multi-route convoy disruption, then convoys are disrupted when all routes are disrupted (this is the rule I prefer). With this rule, the situation becomes paradoxical. According to the 1971 and 1982 paradox rules, the support given by the fleet in Naples is not cut, that means that the fleet in the Ionian Sea is not dislodged.
According to the 2000 ruling the fleet in the Ionian Sea is not "necessary" and the support of Naples is cut and the fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.
If the Szykman rule, the 'All Hold' rule or DPTG is used, then there is no paradoxical situation. The support of Naples is cut and the fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean.
As you can see, the 1982 rules allows the Italian player to
save its fleet in the Ionian Sea with a trick. I do not consider
this trick as normal tactical play. I prefer the Szykman rule as one of the
rules that does not allow this trick. According to this rule the
fleet in the Ionian Sea is dislodged.
6.F.21. TEST CASE, DAD'S ARMY CONVOY
The 1982 paradox rule has as side effect that convoying armies do not cut support in some situations that are not paradoxical.
Russia: A Edinburgh Supports A Norway - Clyde F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Norway - Clyde A Norway - Clyde France: F Irish Sea Supports F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - North Atlantic Ocean F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - North Atlantic Ocean England: A Liverpool - Clyde via Convoy F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Clyde F Clyde Supports F North Atlantic Ocean
In all rulings, except the 1982 paradox ruling, the support of the fleet in Clyde on the North Atlantic Ocean is cut and the French fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean will dislodge the fleet in the North Atlantic Ocean. This is the preferred way.
However, in the 1982 paradox rule (see issue 4.A.2), the support of the fleet in Clyde is not cut. That means that the English fleet in the North Atlantic Ocean is not dislodged.
As you can see, the 1982 rule allows England to save its fleet
in the North Atlantic Ocean in a very strange way. Just the support
of Clyde is insufficient (if there is no convoy, the support is cut).
Only the convoy to the area occupied by own unit, can do the trick
in this situation. The embarking of troops in the fleet deceives
the enemy so much that it works as a magic cloak. The enemy is
not able to dislodge the fleet in the North Atlantic Ocean any more.
Of course, this will only work in comedies. I prefer the Szykman
rule as one of the rules that does not allow this trick.
According to this rule (and all other paradox rules),
the fleet in the North Atlantic is just dislodged.
6.F.22. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS
Two convoys are involved in a second order paradox.
England: F Edinburgh - North Sea F London Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London Germany: F Belgium Supports F Picardy - English Channel F Picardy - English Channel Russia: A Norway - Belgium F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Belgium
Without any paradox rule, there are two consistent resolutions. The supports of the English fleet in London and the German fleet in Picardy are not cut. That means that the French fleet in the English Channel and the Russian fleet in the North Sea are dislodged, which makes it impossible to cut the support. The other resolution is that the supports of the English fleet in London the German fleet in Picardy are cut. In that case the French fleet in the English Channel and the Russian fleet in the North Sea will survive and will not be dislodged. This gives the possibility to cut the support.
The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue 4.A.2) do not have an answer on this.
According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that the French fleet in the English Channel and the Russian fleet in the North Sea are dislodged.
The Szykman (which I prefer), has the same result as the 1982 rule. The supports are not cut, the convoying armies fail to move, the fleet in Picardy dislodges the fleet in English Channel and the fleet in Edinburgh dislodges the fleet in the North Sea.
The DPTG rule has in this case the same result as the Szykman rule, because the failing of all convoys is a consistent resolution. So, the armies in Brest and Norway fail to move, while the fleets in Edinburgh and Picardy succeed to move.
When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies in
Brest and Norway as the fleets in Edinburgh and Picardy
will fail.
6.F.23. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH TWO EXCLUSIVE CONVOYS
In this paradox there are two consistent resolutions, but where the two convoys do not fail or succeed at the same time. This fact is important for the DPTG resolution.
 In one resolution, the convoy in the English Channel is dislodged by the fleet in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, while the convoy in the North Sea succeeds. In the other resolution, it is the other way around. The convoy in the North Sea is dislodged by the fleet in Edinburgh, while the convoy in the English Channel succeeds.
The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue 4.A.2) do not have an answer on this.
According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that the none of the units move.
The Szykman (which I prefer), has the same result as the 1982 rule. The convoying armies fail to move and the supports are not cut. Because of the failure to cut the support, no fleet succeeds to move.
When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies and the fleets all fail.
Since there is no consistent resolution where all convoys fail,
the DPTG rule has the same result as the 'All Hold' rule. That means
the movement of all units fail.
6.F.24. TEST CASE, SECOND ORDER PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION
As first order paradoxes, second order paradoxes come in two flavors, with two resolutions or no resolution.
England: F Edinburgh - North Sea F London Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea F Irish Sea - English Channel F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Irish Sea - English Channel France: A Brest - London F English Channel Convoys A Brest - London F Belgium Supports F English Channel Russia: A Norway - Belgium F North Sea Convoys A Norway - Belgium
When no paradox rule is used, there is no consistent resolution. If the French support in Belgium is cut, the French fleet in the English Channel will be dislodged. That means that the support of London will not be cut and the fleet in Edinburgh will dislodge the Russian fleet in the North Sea. In this way the support in Belgium is not cut! But if the support in Belgium is not cut, the Russian fleet in the North Sea will not be dislodged and the army in Norway can cut the support in Belgium.
The 1971 paradox rule and the 2000 rule (see issue 4.A.2) do not have an answer on this.
According to the 1982 rule, the supports are not cut which means that the French fleet in the English Channel will survive and but the Russian fleet in the North Sea is dislodged.
If the Szykman alternative is used (which I prefer), the supports are not cut and the convoying armies fail to move, which has the same result as the 1982 rule in this case.
When the 'All Hold' rule is used, the movement of the armies in Brest and Norway as the fleets in Edinburgh and the Irish Sea will fail.
Since there is no consistent resolution where all convoys fail,
the DPTG has in this case the same result as the 'All Hold' rule.
6.G. TEST CASES, CONVOYING TO ADJACENT PLACES
6.G.1. TEST CASE, TWO UNITS CAN SWAP PLACES BY CONVOY
The only way to swap two units, is by convoy.
England: A Norway - Sweden F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden Russia: A Sweden - Norway
In most interpretation of the rules, the units in Norway and Sweden will be swapped. However, if explicit adjacent convoying is used (see issue 4.A.3), then it is just a head to head battle.
I prefer the 2000 rules, so the units are swapped.
6.G.2. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING AN ARMY
Germany promised England to support to dislodge the Russian fleet in Sweden and it promised Russia to support to dislodge the English army in Norway. Instead, the joking German orders a convoy.

When the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (which I prefer), England
has no intent to swap and it is just a head to head
battle were both units will fail to move. When explicit adjacent
convoying is used (DPTG), the English move is not
a convoy and again it just a head to head battle were both units will
fail to move. In all other interpretations, the army in Norway will be convoyed
and swap its place with the fleet in Sweden.
6.G.3. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING WITH A DISRUPTED CONVOY
When kidnapping of armies is allowed, a move can be sabotaged by a fleet that is almost certainly dislodged.
France: F Brest - English Channel A Picardy - Belgium A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel England: F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium
See issue 4.A.3. If a convoy always takes precedence over a land route (choice a), the move from Picardy to Belgium fails. It tries to convoy and the convoy is disrupted.
For choice b and c, there is no unit moving in opposite direction for the move of the army in Picardy. For this reason, the move for the army in Picardy is not by convoy and succeeds over land.
When the 1982 or 2000 rules are used (choice d), then it is not the "intent" of the French army in Picardy to convoy. The move from Picardy to Belgium is just a successful move over land.
When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e), the order of the French army in Picardy is not a convoy order. So, it just ordered over land, and that move succeeds.
This is an excellent example why the convoy route should
not automatically have priority over the land route. It would just
be annoying for the attacker and this situation is without fun. I prefer the
1982 rule with the 2000 clarification. According to these
rules the move from Picardy succeeds.
6.G.4. TEST CASE, KIDNAPPING WITH A DISRUPTED CONVOY AND OPPOSITE MOVE
In the situation of the previous test case it was rather clear that the army didn't want to take the convoy. But what if there is an army moving in opposite direction?
France: F Brest - English Channel A Picardy - Belgium A Burgundy Supports A Picardy - Belgium F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel England: F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - Belgium A Belgium - Picardy
See issue 4.A.3. If a convoy always takes precedence over a land route (choice a), the move from Picardy to Belgium fails. It tries to convoy and the convoy is disrupted.
For choice b the convoy is also taken, because there is a unit in Belgium moving in opposite direction. This means that the convoy is disrupted and the move from Picardy to Belgium fails.
For choice c the convoy is not taken. Although, the unit in Belgium is moving in opposite direction, the army will not take a disrupted convoy. So, the move from Picardy to Belgium succeeds.
When the 1982 or 2000 rules are used (choice d), then it is not the "intent" of the French army in Picardy to convoy. The move from Picardy to Belgium is just a successful move over land.
When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e), the order of the French army in Picardy is not a convoy order. So, it just ordered over land, and that move succeeds.
Again an excellent example why the convoy route should
not automatically have priority over the land route. It would just
be annoying for the attacker and this situation is without fun. I prefer the
1982 rule with the 2000 clarification. According to these
rules the move from Picardy succeeds.
6.G.5. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH INTENT
When one of the convoying fleets is of the same nationality of the convoyed army, the "intent" is to convoy.
Italy: A Rome - Apulia F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome Turkey: A Apulia - Rome F Ionian Sea Convoys A Apulia - Rome
See issue 4.A.3. When the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (which I prefer), the convoy depends on the "intent". Since there is an own fleet in the convoy, the intent is to convoy and the armies in Rome and Apulia swap places.
For choices a, b and c of the issue there is also a convoy and the same swap takes place.
When explicit adjacent convoying is
used (DPTG, choice e), then the Turkish army did not receive
an order to move by convoy. So, it is just a head to head battle
and both the army in Rome and Apulia will not move.
6.G.6. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH UNINTENDED INTENT
The intent is questionable.
England: A Liverpool - Edinburgh F English Channel Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh Germany: A Edinburgh - Liverpool France: F Irish Sea Hold F North Sea Hold Russia: F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh
See issue 4.A.3.
For choice a, b and c the English army in Liverpool will move by convoy and consequentially the two armies are swapped.
For choice d, the 1982/2000 rulebook (which I prefer), the convoy depends on the "intent". England intended to convoy via the French fleets in the Irish Sea and the North Sea. However, the French did not order the convoy. The alternative route with the Russian fleets was unintended. The English fleet in the English Channel (with the convoy order) is not part of this alternative route with the Russian fleets. Since England still "intent" to convoy, the move from Liverpool to Edinburgh should be via convoy and the two armies are swapped. Although, you could argue that this is not really according to the clarification of the 2000 rulebook.
When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
then the English army did not receive an order to move by convoy.
So, it is just a head to head battle and both the army in Edinburgh
and Liverpool will not move.
6.G.7. TEST CASE, SWAPPING WITH ILLEGAL INTENT
Can the intent made clear with an impossible order?
England: F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway F Norway - Sweden Russia: A Sweden - Norway F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A Sweden - Norway
If for issue 4.A.3 choice a, b or c has been taken, then the army in Sweden moves by convoy and swaps places with the fleet in Norway.
However, if for issue 4.A.3 the 1982/2000 has been chosen (choice d), then the "intent" is important. The question is whether the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia can express the intent. If the order for this fleet is considered illegal (see issue 4.E.1), then this order must be ignored and there is no intent to swap. In that case none of the units move.
If explicit convoying is used (DPTG, choice e of issue 4.A.3) then the army in Sweden will take the land route and none of the units move.
I prefer the 1982/2000 rule and that any orders that can't be
valid are illegal. So, the order of the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is
ignored and can not show the intent. There is no convoy, so no unit will
move.
6.G.8. TEST CASE, EXPLICIT CONVOY THAT ISN'T THERE
What to do when a unit is explicitly ordered to move via convoy and the convoy is not there?
France: A Belgium - Holland via Convoy England: F North Sea - Helgoland Bight A Holland - Kiel
The French army in Belgium intended to move convoyed with the English fleet in the North Sea. But the English changed their plans.
See issue 4.A.3.
If choice a, b or c has been taken, then the 'via Convoy' directive has no meaning and the army in Belgium will move to Holland.
If the 1982/2000 rulebook is used (choice d, which I prefer), the "via Convoy" has meaning, but only when there is both a land route and a convoy route. Since there is no convoy the "via Convoy" directive should be ignored. And the move from Belgium to Holland succeeds.
If explicit adjacent convoying is used (DPTG, choice e),
then the unit can only go by convoy. Since there is no convoy, the move
from Belgium to Holland fails.
6.G.9. TEST CASE, SWAPPED OR DISLODGED?
The 1982 rulebook says that whether the move is over land or via convoy depends on the "intent" as shown by the totality of the orders written by the player governing the army (see issue 4.A.3). In this test case the English army in Norway will end in all cases in Sweden. But whether it is convoyed or not has effect on the Russian army. In case of convoy the Russian army ends in Norway and in case of a land route the Russian army is dislodged.

For choice a, b and c the move of the army in Norway is by convoy and the armies in Norway and Sweden are swapped.
If the 1982 rulebook is used with the clarification of the 2000 rulebook (choice d, which I prefer), the intent of the English player is to convoy, since it ordered the fleet in Skagerrak to convoy. Therefore, the armies in Norway and Sweden are swapped.
When explicit adjacent convoying is used (DTPG, choice e), then the unit in
Norway did not receive an order to move by convoy and the
land route should be considered. The Russian army in Sweden
is dislodged.
6.G.10. TEST CASE, SWAPPED OR AN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE?
Can a dislodged unit have effect on the attackers area, when the attacker moved by convoy?
England: A Norway - Sweden via Convoy F Denmark Supports A Norway - Sweden F Finland Supports A Norway - Sweden Germany: F Skagerrak Convoys A Norway - Sweden Russia: A Sweden - Norway F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway France: F Norwegian Sea - Norway F North Sea Supports F Norwegian Sea - Norway
Since England ordered the army in Norway to move explicitly via convoy and the army in Sweden is moving in opposite direction, only the convoyed route should be considered regardless of the rulebook used. It is clear that the army in Norway will dislodge the Russian army in Sweden. Since the strength of three is in all cases the strongest force.
The army in Sweden will not advance to Norway, because it can not beat the force in the Norwegian Sea. It will be dislodged by the army from Norway.
The more interesting question is whether French fleet in the
Norwegian Sea is bounced by the Russian army from Sweden.
This depends on the interpretation of issue 4.A.7.
If the rulebook is taken literally (choice a), then a dislodged unit
can not bounce a unit in the area where the attacker came from. This
would mean that the move of the fleet in the Norwegian Sea succeeds
However, if choice b is taken (which I prefer), then a bounce
is still possible, when there is no head to head battle. So, the
fleet in the Norwegian Sea will fail to move.
6.G.11. TEST CASE, A CONVOY TO AN ADJACENT PLACE WITH A PARADOX
In this case the convoy route is available when the land route is chosen and the convoy route is not available when the convoy route is chosen.
England: F Norway Supports F North Sea - Skagerrak F North Sea - Skagerrak Russia: A Sweden - Norway F Skagerrak Convoys A Sweden - Norway F Barents Sea Supports A Sweden - Norway
If for issue 4.A.3, choice b, c or e has been taken, then the move from Sweden to Norway is not a convoy and the English fleet in Norway is dislodged and the fleet in Skagerrak will not be dislodged.
If choice a or d (1982/2000 rule) has been taken for issue 4.A.3, then the move from Sweden to Norway must be treated as a convoy. At that moment the situation becomes paradoxical. When the 'All Hold' rule is used, both the army in Sweden as the fleet in the North Sea will not advance. In all other paradox rules the English fleet in the North Sea will dislodge the Russian fleet in Skagerrak and the army in Sweden will not advance.
I prefer the 1982 rule with the 2000 rulebook clarification
concerning the convoy to adjacent places and I prefer the Szykman
rule for paradox resolving. That means that according to these
preferences the fleet in the North Sea will dislodge the Russian
fleet in Skagerrak and the army in Sweden will not advance.
6.G.12. TEST CASE, SWAPPING TWO UNITS WITH TWO CONVOYS
Of course, two armies can also swap by when they are both convoyed.
 TEST CASE, SUPPORT CUT ON ATTACK ON ITSELF VIA CONVOY
If a unit is attacked by a supported unit, it is not possible to prevent dislodgement by trying to cut the support. But what, if a move is attempted via a convoy?
Austria: F Adriatic Sea Convoys A Trieste - Venice A Trieste - Venice via Convoy Italy: A Venice Supports F Albania - Trieste F Albania - Trieste
First it should be mentioned that if for issue 4.A.3 choice b or c is taken, then the move from Trieste to Venice is just a move over land, because the army in Venice is not moving in opposite direction. In that case, the support of Venice will not be cut as normal.
In any other choice for issue 4.A.3, it should be decided whether the Austrian attack is considered to be coming from Trieste or from the Adriatic Sea. If it comes from Trieste, the support in Venice is not cut and the army in Trieste is dislodged by the fleet in Albania. If the Austrian attack is considered to be coming from the Adriatic Sea, then the support is cut and the army in Trieste will not be dislodged. See also issue 4.A.4.
First of all, I prefer the 1982/2000 rules for adjacent convoying. This means
that I prefer the move from Trieste uses the convoy. Furthermore, I think that
the two Italian units are still stronger than the army in
Trieste. Therefore, I prefer that the support in Venice is not cut and that
the army in Trieste is dislodged by the fleet in Albania.
6.G.14. TEST CASE, BOUNCE BY CONVOY TO ADJACENT PLACE
Similar to test case 6.G.10, but now the other unit is taking the convoy.
 The army in Norway will move to Sweden and dislodge the Russian army.
The final destination of the fleet in the Norwegian
Sea depends on how issue 4.A.7
is resolved. If choice a is taken, then the fleet advances
to Norway, but if choice b is taken (which I prefer)
the fleet bounces and stays in the Norwegian Sea.
6.G.15. TEST CASE, BOUNCE AND DISLODGE WITH DOUBLE CONVOY
Similar to test case 6.G.10, but now both units use a convoy and without some support.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium A Holland Supports A London - Belgium A Yorkshire - London A London - Belgium via Convoy France: F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London A Belgium - London via Convoy
The French army in Belgium is bounced by the army from Yorkshire. The army in London move to Belgium, dislodging the unit there.
The final destination of the army in the Yorkshire
depends on how issue 4.A.7
is resolved. If choice a is taken, then the army advances
to London, but if choice b is taken (which I prefer)
the army bounces and stays in Yorkshire.
6.G.16. TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, MOVING BY CONVOY
If the adjudicator is not correctly implemented, this may lead to
a resolution where two units end up in the same area.
 If the 'PREVENT STRENGTH' is incorrectly implemented, due to the fact that it does not take into account that the 'PREVENT STRENGTH' is only zero when the unit is engaged in a head to head battle, then this goes wrong in this test case. The 'PREVENT STRENGTH' of Sweden would be zero, because the opposing unit in Norway successfully moves. Since, this strength would be zero, the fleet in the North Sea would move to Norway. However, although the 'PREVENT STRENGTH' is zero, the army in Sweden would also move to Norway. So, the final result would contain two units that successfully moved to Norway.
Of course, this is incorrect. Norway will indeed successfully move
to Sweden while the army in Sweden ends in Norway, because it is stronger
then the fleet in the North Sea. This fleet will stay in the North
Sea.
6.G.17. TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, MOVING OVER LAND
Similar to the previous test case, but now the other unit moves by convoy.
 TEST CASE, THE TWO UNIT IN ONE AREA BUG, WITH DOUBLE CONVOY
Similar to the previous test case, but now both units move by convoy.
England: F North Sea Convoys A London - Belgium A Holland Supports A London - Belgium A Yorkshire - London A London - Belgium A Ruhr Supports A London - Belgium France: F English Channel Convoys A Belgium - London A Belgium - London A Wales Supports A Belgium - London
Belgium and London are swapped, while the army in
Yorkshire fails to move to London.
6.H. TEST CASES, RETREATING
6.H.1. TEST CASE, NO SUPPORTS DURING RETREAT
Supports are not allowed in the retreat phase.
Austria: F Trieste Hold A Serbia Hold Turkey: F Greece Hold Italy: A Venice Supports A Tyrolia - Trieste A Tyrolia - Trieste F Ionian Sea - Greece F Aegean Sea Supports F Ionian Sea - Greece
The fleet in Trieste and the fleet in Greece are dislodged. If the retreat orders are as follows:
Austria: F Trieste - Albania A Serbia Supports F Trieste - Albania Turkey: F Greece - Albania
The Austrian support order is illegal. Both dislodged fleets are disbanded.
6.H.2. TEST CASE, NO SUPPORTS FROM RETREATING UNIT
Even a retreating unit can not give support.
England: A Liverpool - Edinburgh F Yorkshire Supports A Liverpool - Edinburgh F Norway Hold Germany: A Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland A Ruhr - Holland Russia: F Edinburgh Hold A Sweden Supports A Finland - Norway A Finland - Norway F Holland Hold
The English fleet in Norway and the Russian fleets in Edinburgh and Holland are dislodged. If the following retreat orders are given:
England: F Norway - North Sea Russia: F Edinburgh - North Sea F Holland Supports F Edinburgh - North Sea
Although the fleet in Holland may receive an order, it may not support
(it is disbanded). The English fleet in Norway and the Russian fleet in
Edinburgh bounce and are disbanded.
6.H.3. TEST CASE, NO CONVOY DURING RETREAT
Convoys during retreat are not allowed.
England: F North Sea Hold A Holland Hold Germany: F Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland A Ruhr - Holland
The English army in Holland is dislodged. If England orders the following in retreat:
England: A Holland - Yorkshire F North Sea Convoys A Holland - Yorkshire
The convoy order is illegal. The army in Holland is disbanded.
6.H.4. TEST CASE, NO OTHER MOVES DURING RETREAT
Of course you may not do any other move during a retreat. But look if the adjudicator checks for it.
England: F North Sea Hold A Holland Hold Germany: F Kiel Supports A Ruhr - Holland A Ruhr - Holland
The English army in Holland is dislodged. If England orders the following in retreat:
England: A Holland - Belgium F North Sea - Norwegian Sea
The fleet in the North Sea is not dislodge, so the move is illegal.
6.H.5.  Still, the adjudicator must be tested on this.
Russia: F Constantinople Supports F Black Sea - Ankara F Black Sea - Ankara Turkey: F Ankara Hold
Fleet in Ankara is dislodged and may not retreat to Black Sea.
6.H.6. TEST CASE, UNIT MAY NOT RETREAT TO A CONTESTED AREA
Stand off prevents retreat to the area.
Austria: A Budapest Supports A Trieste - Vienna A Trieste - Vienna Germany: A Munich - Bohemia A Silesia - Bohemia Italy: A Vienna Hold
The Italian army in Vienna is dislodged. It may not retreat to Bohemia.
6.H.7. TEST CASE, MULTIPLE RETREAT TO SAME AREA WILL DISBAND UNITS
There can only be one unit in an area.
 TEST CASE, TRIPLE RETREAT TO SAME AREA WILL DISBAND UNITS
When three units retreat to the same area, then all three units are disbanded.
 If the following retreat orders are given:
England: F Norway - North Sea Russia: F Edinburgh - North Sea F Holland - North Sea
All three units are disbanded.
6.H.9. TEST CASE, DISLODGED UNIT WILL NOT MAKE ATTACKERS AREA CONTESTED
An army can follow.
England: F Helgoland Bight - Kiel F Denmark Supports F Helgoland Bight - Kiel Germany: A Berlin - Prussia F Kiel Hold A Silesia Supports A Berlin - Prussia Russia: A Prussia - Berlin
The fleet in Kiel can retreat to Berlin.
6.H.10. TEST CASE, NOT RETREATING TO ATTACKER DOES NOT MEAN CONTESTED
An army can not retreat to the place of the attacker. The easiest way to program that, is to mark that place as "contested". However, this is not correct. Another army may retreat to that place.
 The English army in Kiel can not retreat to Berlin, but the army in Prussia can retreat to Berlin. Suppose the following retreat orders are given:
England: A Kiel - Berlin Germany: A Prussia - Berlin
The English retreat to Berlin is illegal and fails (the unit is disbanded).
The German retreat to Berlin is successful and does not bounce on the
English unit.
6.H.11. TEST CASE, RETREAT WHEN DISLODGED BY ADJACENT CONVOY
If a unit is dislodged by an army via convoy, the question arises whether the dislodged army can retreat to the original place of the convoyed army. This is only relevant in case the convoy was to an adjacent place.
France: A Gascony - Marseilles via Convoy A Burgundy Supports A Gascony - Marseilles F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles F Western Mediterranean Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles F Gulf of Lyon Convoys A Gascony - Marseilles Italy: A Marseilles Hold
If for issue 4.A.3 choice b or c has been taken, then the army in Gascony will not move with the use of the convoy, because the army in Marseilles does not move in opposite direction. This immediately means that the army in Marseilles may not move to Gascony when it dislodged by the army there.
For all other choices of issue 4.A.3, the army in Gascony takes a convoy and does not pass the border of Gascony with Marseilles (it went a complete different direction). Now, the result depends on which rule is used for retreating (see issue 4.A.5).
I prefer the 1982/2000 rule for convoying to adjacent places. This means that
the move of Gascony happened by convoy. Furthermore, I prefer that the army in
Marseilles may retreat to Gascony.
6.H.12. TEST CASE, RETREAT WHEN DISLODGED BY ADJACENT CONVOY WHILE TRYING TO DO THE SAME
The previous test case can be made more extra ordinary, when both armies tried to move by convoy.
England: A Liverpool - Edinburgh via Convoy F Irish Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh F English Channel Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh F North Sea Convoys A Liverpool - Edinburgh France: F Brest - English Channel F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Brest - English Channel Russia: A Edinburgh - Liverpool via Convoy F Norwegian Sea Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Edinburgh - Liverpool A Clyde Supports A Edinburgh - Liverpool
If for issue 4.A.3 choice c has been taken, then the army in Liverpool will not try to move by convoy, because the convoy is disrupted. This has as consequence that army will just advance to Edinburgh by using the land route.
For all other choices of issue 4.A.3, both the army in Liverpool as in Edinburgh will try to move by convoy. The army in Edinburgh will succeed. The army in Liverpool will fail, because of the disrupted convoy. It is dislodged by the army of Edinburgh. Now, the question is whether the army in Liverpool may retreat to Edinburgh. The result depends on which rule is used for retreating (see issue 4.A.5).
I prefer the 1982/2000 rule for convoying to adjacent places. This means that
the army in Liverpool tries the disrupted convoy. Furthermore, I prefer that
the army in Liverpool may retreat to Edinburgh.
6.H.13. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH CONVOY IN MAIN PHASE
The places where a unit may retreat to, must be calculated during the main phase. Care should be taken that a convoy ordered in the main phase can not be used in the retreat phase.
England: A Picardy Hold F English Channel Convoys A Picardy - London France: A Paris - Picardy A Brest Supports A Paris - Picardy
The dislodged army in Picardy can not retreat to London.
6.H.14. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH SUPPORT IN MAIN PHASE
Comparable to the previous test case, a support given in the main phase can not be used in the retreat phase.
England: A Picardy Hold F English Channel Supports A Picardy - Belgium France: A Paris - Picardy A Brest Supports A Paris - Picardy A Burgundy Hold Germany: A Munich Supports A Marseilles - Burgundy A Marseilles - Burgundy
After the main phase the following retreat orders are given: England: A Picardy - Belgium France: A Burgundy - Belgium
Both the army in Picardy and Burgundy are disbanded.
6.H.15. TEST CASE, NO COASTAL CRAWL IN RETREAT
You can not go to the other coast from where the attacker came from.
England: F Portugal Hold France: F Spain(sc) - Portugal F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Spain(sc) - Portugal
The English fleet in Portugal is destroyed and can not
retreat to Spain(nc).
6.H.16. TEST CASE, CONTESTED FOR BOTH COASTS
If a coast is contested, the other is not available for retreat.
France: F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Spain(nc) F Gascony - Spain(nc) F Western Mediterranean Hold Italy: F Tunis Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
The French fleet in the Western Mediterranean can not
retreat to Spain(sc).
6.I. TEST CASES, BUILDING
6.I.1. TEST CASE, TOO MANY BUILD ORDERS
Check how program reacts when someone orders too many builds.
Germany may build one:
Germany: Build A Warsaw Build A Kiel Build A Munich
Program should not build all three, but handle it in an other way. See issue 4.D.4.
I prefer that the build orders are just handled one by one
until all allowed units are build. According to this preference,
the build in Warsaw fails, the build in Kiel succeeds and the
build in Munich fails.
6.I.2. TEST CASE, FLEETS CAN NOT BE BUILD IN LAND AREAS
Physical this is possible, but it is still not allowed.
Russia has one build and Moscow is empty.
Russia: Build F Moscow
See issue 4.C.4. Some game masters will change the order and build an army in Moscow.
I prefer that the build fails.
6.I.3. TEST CASE, SUPPLY CENTER MUST BE EMPTY FOR BUILDING
You can't have two units in a sector. So, you can't build when there is a unit in the supply center.
Germany may build a unit but has an army in Berlin. Germany orders the following:
Germany: Build A Berlin
Build fails.
6.I.4. TEST CASE, BOTH COASTS MUST BE EMPTY FOR BUILDING
If a sector is occupied on one coast, the other coast can not be used for building.
Russia may build a unit and has a fleet in St Petersburg(sc). Russia orders the following:
Russia: Build A St Petersburg(nc)
Build fails.
6.I.5. TEST CASE, BUILDING IN HOME SUPPLY CENTER THAT IS NOT OWNED
Building a unit is only allowed when supply center is a home supply center and is owned. If not owned, build fails.
Russia captured Berlin in Fall. Left Berlin. Germany can not build in Berlin.
Germany: Build A Berlin
Build fails.
6.I.6. TEST CASE, BUILDING IN OWNED SUPPLY CENTER THAT IS NOT A HOME SUPPLY CENTER
Building a unit is only allowed when supply center is a home supply center and is owned. If it is not a home supply center, the build fails.
Germany owns Warsaw, Warsaw is empty and Germany may build one unit.
Germany: Build A Warsaw
Build fails.
6.I.7. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE BUILD IN A HOME SUPPLY CENTER
If you may build two units, you can still only build one in a supply center.
Russia owns Moscow, Moscow is empty and Russia may build two units.
Russia: Build A Moscow Build A Moscow
The second build should fail.
6.J. TEST CASES, CIVIL DISORDER AND DISBANDS
6.J.1. TEST CASE, TOO MANY REMOVE ORDERS
Check how program reacts when someone orders too disbands.
France has to disband one and has an army in Paris and Picardy.
France: Remove F Gulf of Lyon Remove A Picardy Remove A Paris
Program should not disband both Paris and Picardy, but should handle it in a different way. See also issue 4.D.6.
I prefer that the disband orders are handled one by one. According
to the preference, the removal of the fleet in the Gulf of Lyon fails
(no fleet), the removal of the army in Picardy succeeds and the removal
of the army in Paris fails (too many disbands).
6.J.2. TEST CASE, REMOVING THE SAME UNIT TWICE
If you have to remove two units, you can always try to trick the computer by removing the same unit twice.
France has to disband two and has an army in Paris.
France: Remove A Paris Remove A Paris
Program should remove army in Paris and remove another unit by
using the civil disorder rules.
6.J.3. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO ARMIES WITH DIFFERENT DISTANCE
When a player forgets to disband a unit, the civil disorder rules must be applied. When two armies have different distance from the home supply centers, then the army with the greatest distance has to be removed.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has armies in Livonia and Sweden. Russia does not order a disband.The army in Sweden is removed.
If two armies have equal distance from the home supply centers, then alphabetical order is used.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has armies in Livonia and Ukraine. Russia does not order a disband.
Both armies have distance one. The Livonia army is removed, because
it appears first in alphabetical order.
6.J.5 TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS WITH DIFFERENT DISTANCE
If two fleets have different distance from the home supply centers, then the fleet with the greatest distance has to be removed. Note that fleets can not go over land.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has fleets in Skagerrak and Berlin. Russia does not order a disband.
The distance of the fleet in Berlin is three (the fleet can not go to
Warsaw), the fleet in Skaggerrak has distance two (via Norway). So,
the fleet in Berlin has to be removed.
6.J.6. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS WITH EQUAL DISTANCE
Alphabetical order is used, when two fleets have equal distance to the home supply centers.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has fleets in Berlin and Helgoland Bight. Russia does not order a disband.
The distances of both fleets to one of the home supply centers is three.
The fleet in the Berlin is removed, because it appears first in
alphabetical order. This also tests whether fleets can not go over land.
If they could go over land, the distance of Berlin would be two (going to
Warsaw) and the fleet in the Helgoland Bight would have incorrectly
be removed.
6.J.7. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER TWO FLEETS AND ARMY WITH EQUAL DISTANCE
In removal, the fleet has precedence over an army. In this case there are two fleets, to make the test more complex.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has an army in Bohemia, a fleet in Skagerrak and a fleet in the North Sea. Russia does not order a disband.
The distances of the army and the fleets to one of the home supply centers
are two. The fleets take precedence above the army (although the army is
alphabetical first). The fleet in the North Sea is alphabetical first, compared
to Skagerrak and has to be removed.
6.J.8. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER A FLEET WITH SHORTER DISTANCE THEN THE ARMY
If the fleet has a shorter distance than the army, the army is removed.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in the Baltic Sea. Russia does not order a disband.
The distances of the army to Warsaw is three while the distance of the
fleet is two. So, the army is removed.
6.J.9. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER MUST BE COUNTED FROM BOTH COASTS
Distance must be calculated from both coasts.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in the Baltic Sea. Russia does not order a disband.
The distance of the fleet to St Petersburg(nc) is three but to St Petersburg(sc) is two. So, the army in Tyrolia must be removed.
Russia has to remove one. Russia has an army in Tyrolia and a fleet in Skagerrak. Russia does not order a disband.
The distance of the fleet to St Petersburg(sc) is three but to
St Petersburg(nc) is two. So, the army in Tyrolia must be removed.
6.J.10. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER COUNTING CONVOYING DISTANCE
For armies the distance must be calculated by taking land areas, coastal areas as sea areas.
Italy has to remove one. Italy has a fleet in the Ionian Sea and armies in Greece and Silesia. Italy does not order a disband.
The distance from Greece to one of the Italian home supply center
is three over land. However, using a convoy the distance is
one or two (depending how you count, see issue 4.D.8).
Anyway, the army in Silesia has to be removed.
6.J.11. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER COUNTING DISTANCE WITHOUT CONVOYING FLEET
If there is no convoying fleet the result depends on the interpretation of the rules.
Italy has to remove one. Italy has armies in Greece and Silesia. Italy does not order a disband.
The distance from Greece to one of the Italian home supply centers is one, two or three (depending how you count, see issue 4.D.8).
I prefer that sea areas just add one to the distance. According to
this preference, the distance is two and the army in Silesia has to be
removed.
7. COLONIAL VARIANT
The rulebook of the second print of the colonial variant is used as source for these test case. Note that the regular rules in the Colonial rulebook are not based on the 1982 rules as you might expect, but on the 1971 rules.
The errata published by Avalon Hill is used as additional source (The General, Volume 30, Number 4). The exact text of this errata is as follows:
Map Addition: Kyoto is starting Colony for Japan. There should be a white circled dot in Kyoto.
Map Change: Constantinople is a province of Turkey. It should be printed in the same white colour as the rest of Turkey.
The correct abbreviation for the Andaman Sea is "AND.S" as per Rule 13.0; the abbreviation found on the conference map is incorrect.
Rule Change: 9.11: Delete "China may not enter Hong Kong until
the turn after another power has occupied it at the end of a counting move (even-numbered turns)."
 The Russian player may not allow another power to use it.
9.23 This rule restricts the attack capability of units using the TSR
A unit using the TSR may attack:
(1) a province that is unoccupied at the start of the turn. Normal rules
of conflict would apply,
(2) a province that is occupied at the start of the turn but was made
empty during the current turn as a result of that unit moving out. Normal
rules of conflict would apply, or
(3) a province that is occupied at the start of the turn, but if the unit
remains in place then the attack will be unsuccessful (even with support) and the unit
will have to stop in the nearest empty province along the line of the railroad before
the enemy-occupied province (e.g. An army in Moscow with orders A MOS-TSR-VLA with an
enemy unit holding in Vladivostok results in the Moscow army stopping in Irkutsk --the order
is legal, in the hope that the province will be vacated, but unsuccessful).
Note: So long as an enemy unit remains in place it may not be successfully attacked that turn by a unit using the TSR. This still applies even if that enemy unit is attacked by a third power that turn and forced to retreat, for example: Russia A MOS-TSR-VLA China A VLA HOLD Japan A SEO-VLA, F OS S A SEO-VLA
The Russian unit stops in Irkutsk. The Chinese unit retreats (not to Irkutsk or Seoul). The Japanese unit from Seoul takes Vladivostok.
9.241 The presence of a foreign power in a province along the line of the TSR blocks its use beyond that point. However, if the unit later moves off this province thus unblocking the line, the TSR may again function normally, that is, control of the province reverts to Russia (it is assumed the partisans rebuild the line).
EXCEPTION: If a supply center on the line of the TSR (Moscow, Omsk, Vladivostok) is captured by an enemy power and later vacated, ownership remains with that power and the TSR is out at that point until Russia is able to recapture the province. Only then is the line "open" again. For example, if China owns Omsk but has vacated it, a Russian unit using the TSR from Vladivostok could move to Omsk, but no further that turn.
9.25 A curious example of this rule applies if an enemy unit attacks from one province to another along the line of the TSR at the same time that a Russian unit is railed through these provinces in the same direction such as:
Russia A VLA-TSR-OMSK China A KRA-OMSK
This results in a standoff in Omsk. The Chinese unit stays in Krasnoyarsk and the Russian unit stays in Irkutsk. The logic being that Krasnoyarsk is left empty by the Chinese at the time the Russian unit moves through. Thus both units attack Omsk and cause a standoff. NOTE: The above result would also have occurred if the Russian unit had been ordered to Perm or Moscow because the same standoff would still occur in Omsk.
SUGGESTED ADDITION TO MAP The island of Sakhalin is contained entirely within the Okhotsk Sea and a unit there cannot be eliminated, so it is suggested that a - land bridge - arrow should connect Otaru and Sakhalin thus allowing a supported attack from Otaru and Okhotsk Sea to take Sakhalin.
CEBU Cebu is one space containing both land and sea. It can be occupied by either an army or a fleet. An army can use the - land bridges - to move from Manila to Cebu and Cebu to Davao (and vice versa). The game spaces adjacent to Cebu are: Manila, Middle Pacific, Lower Pacific, Davao, Sulu Sea and Luzon Strait.
Trans-Siberian Railroad
Q. In the following situation, where do A Mos and A Omsk end up? Russian
orders: A Mos-TSR-Vla, A Omsk-Kra, A Vla-Seo; Chinese orders: A Mac-Irk.
A. The standoff in Kra means that A Omsk does not move and A Mos stops in Perm.
Q. If Russia orders A Mos-TRS-Vla and China orders A Mac-Irk and A Mon-Kra, what happens?
A. A Mon-Kra fails, A Mac-Irk succeeds, A Mos stops in Omsk.
The additional rules and the errata do not explain everything. Therefore the following assumptions are made in the resolutions of the test cases (note, these are disputable):
On the first print of the Colonial variant map there is no land bridge between Sakhalin and Otaru and there is no land bridge between Sakhalin Vladivostok. This introduces the problem that a unit in Sakhalin can not be dislodged, because Sakhalin has only one neighbor (Okhotsk Sea). Since this area has also a supply center, the area can supply itself.
In the second print of the Colonial variant map and in the errata, Avalon Hill "corrected" this problem by adding a land bridge between Sakhalin and Otaru. However, this introduced a new problem. Two units in Sakhalin and Otaru can support each other and supply there selves forever. And some argue that this situation is even worse then the original problem.
There are several ways to solve this problems. One of the most common played versions is the "Moulmein Convention". In that convention there is a second additional land bridge between Otaru and Akita. However, according to Peter Hawes, the lead designer of the Colonial variant, the original design contained a land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok (and no land bridge between Sakhalin and Otaru). Avalon Hill omitted this land bridge by mistake. You should realize that this is a large change to the map and Avalon Hill never made an errata in this direction. Some people argue that a land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok is very bad, because Japan can be denied any build in the first build turn. However, that this is not different from the standard game where at least England and Russia can be denied any build in the first build turn.
I prefer the land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok.
I think that the many land bridges in the Moulmein Convention
destroys the interesting geographical situation in that
area and makes it too easy for Japan to defend. A common
complaint is that Japan is too strong (to only way to
beat Japan is to start bashing it from the start of the
game). With the land bridge between Sakhalin and Vladivostok,
Russia has to make a difficult choice. It can take
Sakhalin at the first turn (with a rather useless army on
Sakhalin) or try to move the army in the direction of
Seoul and Fusan. I think that this makes the situation
much more interesting and gives a better balance to
the game.
7.A. TEST CASES, HONG KONG OPTIONAL RULE
7.A.1 TEST CASE, HONG KONG IS NOT A SUPPLY CENTER FOR CHINA
Move Chinese army to Hong Kong in fall.
China should not have the right to build a unit for
the Hong Kong supply center.
7.A.2. TEST CASE, HONG KONG IS A SUPPLY CENTER FOR OTHER COUNTRIES
We know it is for Britain. But for France?
Move French army to Hong Kong in fall.
France should have the right to build a unit for the
additional Hong Kong supply center.
7.A.3. TEST CASE, HONG KONG DOES NOT COUNT FOR VICTORY FOR CHINA
Set victory condition to 30 (long game). Let China own 29 supply
centers which does not include Hong Kong. Let China own Hong Kong.
China has not won yet.
7.B. TEST CASE, TRANS SIBERIAN RAILROAD OPTIONAL RULE
7.B.1. TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCING ON ARMY OF OTHER COUNTRY
Along the railroad, the army can bounce.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Irkutsk Turkey: A Orenburg - Omsk
Armies will bounce in Omsk. The Russian army will end in
Perm and the Turkish army will stay in Orenburg.
7.B.2. TEST CASE, TSR CAN NOT PASS A SUPPORTED ARMY
If along the railroad, another armies move in with support, the army will bounce.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Irkutsk Turkey: A Orenburg - Omsk A Akmolinsk Supports A Orenburg - Omsk
The Russian army will end in Perm and the Turkish will move to
Omsk.
7.B.3. TEST CASE, TSR CAN MOVE THROUGH RUSSIAN ARMY
If along the railroad, a Russian army is holding, the army using the TSR should move through the army.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk Hold
Army should pass through the army in Omsk and end in Vladivostok.
7.B.4, TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCES ON RUSSIAN ARMY
If along the railroad, a Russian army is moving in, the army using the TSR will not move through the army, but will bounce on it.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Akmolinsk - Omsk
Both armies bounces in Omsk. The army in Moscow will end in Perm
and the army in Akmolinsk will stay in Akmolinsk.
7.B.5. TEST CASE, BOUNCING WHILE PASSING THROUGH A RUSSIAN ARMY
If an army using the TSR is passing through another Russian, but can not go further, it should not end with two units in the same sector.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR -Vladivostok A Omsk Hold China: A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
The Russian army and the Chinese army bounce in Krasnoyarsk. The Russian
army will end in Perm and the Chinese army will stay in Mongolia.
7.B.6. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS WHEN TWO ARMIES BOUNCE
When two armies bounce on one of the sectors on the TSR, the army using the TSR can still pass.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Semipalatinsk - Krasnoyarsk China: A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
The Russian and Chinese army bounce in Krasnoyarsk. This makes it
possible that the army using the TSR ends in Vladivostok.
7.B.7. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS WHEN TWO ARMIES WITH EQUAL SUPPORT BOUNCE
Comparable with the previous test case, but now the bouncing armies have support.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok China: A Manchuria Supports A Seoul - Vladivostok A Seoul - Vladivostok Japan: F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
Since the Japanese fleet and the Chinese army bounce in Vladivostok,
the army from Moscow can slip through and end in Vladivostok.
7.B.8. TEST CASE, TSR BOUNCES WHEN OTHER FORCES ARE UNBALANCED
Comparable with the previous test case, but now the two other moving units are unbalanced and the TSR can not take advantage of that.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Manchuria Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok China: A Seoul - Vladivostok Japan: F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
Now the Russian army from Moscow bounces with the fleet from
Japan. And the Russian army will end in Irkutsk
7.B.9. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS TRHOUGH AS LONG AS RUSSIAN ARMY HOLDS
When an army using the TSR passes through another Russian army on the railroad, and that army holds, it will pass as long as the Russian holds. Even when it is under attack. The army using the TSR is not part of a beleaguered garrison.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Krasnoyarsk Hold China: A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk
The army from Moscow will not bounce on the army from Mongolia,
because the army in Krasnoyarsk is defending the place.
7.B.10. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS EVEN WHEN RUSSIAN ARMY IS MOVING AWAY
When an army using the TSR passes through another Russian army on the railroad, and that army tries to move away, it can still have benefit from the army moving away, when that army bounces.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Krasnoyarsk - Semipalatinsk China: A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk A Urumchi - Semipalatinsk
The army in Krasnoyarsk bounces in Semipalatinsk and remains
in Krasnoyarsk, it can still help the army from Moscow
passing through Krasnoyarsk. The army from Moscow will end
in Vladivostok.
7.B.11. TEST CASE, TSR CAN ONLY BOUNCE ONCE
When an army using the TSR bounces, it has no effect on the remaining part of the move.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok China: A Mongolia - Krasnoyarsk A Manchuria - Irkutsk
The Russian army will bounce in Krasnoyarsk and end in Omsk.
The Chinese army in Mongolia will bounce and stay in Mongolia.
The army in Manchuria will just move to Irkutsk.
7.B.12. TEST CASE, COMPLEX BOUNCE WITH TSR
The adjudicator can easily choke on a bounce of the departure of the TSR.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Perm - Orenburg Britain: A Tashkent - Orenburg A Akmolinsk - Omsk Turkey: A Baku - Moscow
The army from Moscow can pass through Perm, but will bounce on the
British army in Omsk. It can not end in Perm, because the army in
Perm bounces also. The army has to stay in Moscow. This means that
the move of Turkey will fail.
7.B.13. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN NOT DISLODGE UNIT
A move with the TSR is not an attack, so it can not dislodge a unit.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Irkutsk Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok China: A Vladivostok Hold
Although the support from Irkutsk is possible, the Chinese army in
Vladivostok is not dislodged.
7.B.14. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN NOT CUT SUPPORT
A move with the TSR is not an attack, so it can not cut support.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Seoul Hold China: A Vladivostok Supports A Manchuria - Seoul A Manchuria - Seoul
The support of Vladivostok is not cut. So, the Russian army in Seoul
is dislodged.
7.B.15. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN RECEIVE A SUPPORT TO WIN A BATTLE
Although a move with the TSR is not an attack and can not dislodge a unit, it can win a battle when the sector is initially empty. Note, that a move with the TSR can only receive support on the last part of the move.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Irkutsk Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok Japan: F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok
The Russian move with the TSR succeeds and ends in Vladivostok. The Japanese
fleet will stay in the Okhotsk Sea.
7.B.16. TEST CASE, A MOVE WITH THE TSR CAN PREVENT DISLODGEMENT
Although a move with the TSR is not an attack and can not dislodge a unit, it can prevent that it is dislodged by another unit.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Manchuria Supports A Moscow - Vladivostok Japan: F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok F Sea of Japan Supports F Okhotsk Sea - Vladivostok China: A Vladivostok Hold
The Russian move with the TSR prevents that the Japanese fleet in the
Okhotsk Sea will dislodge the Chinese fleet in Vladivostok.
7.B.17. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH THE TSR IS POSSIBLE
Well, look if the adjudicator can handle circular movement.
Russia: A Omsk Hold A Krasnoyarsk - TSR - Moscow China: A Perm - Orenburg A Orenburg - Akmolinsk A Akmolinsk - Krasnoyarsk Turkey: A Odessa - Moscow
The Russian army in Krasnoyarsk will bounce in Moscow on the Turkish
army. But the Russian army and the Chinese armies can still make a
circular movement. All Chinese armies will move and the Russian army
will end in Perm.
7.B.18. TEST CASE, TSR CAN NOT PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER
It must recapture supply center first (Avalon Hill errata).
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok
Move will end in Omsk.
7.B.19. TEST CASE, TSR MAY LEAVE AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER
An army may leave an unowned supply center on TSR. This will probably only occur when Russia cooperates with another power and does not want to take over the supply center.
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Omsk - TSR - Vladivostok
Move will end in Vladivostok.
7.B.20. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER WHEN ANOTHER ARMY IS HOLDING
If an army is holding an unowned supply center, the TSR does not need to stop there.
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk HoldArmy in Moscow will end in Vladivostok.
When another army holding the unowned supply center moves away, the TSR should recapture it.
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk - Akmolinsk
Army in Moscow must stop in Omsk to capture the supply center.
7.B.22. TEST CASE, TSR CAN PASS AN UNOWNED SUPPLY CENTER WHEN ARMY MOVING AWAY BOUNCES
Well when the army bounces, the TSR can just go on.
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk - Akmolinsk Britain: A Tashkent - Akmolinsk
The army from Moscow does not need to stop in Omsk, since the army
there bounces. The army from Moscow ends in Vladivostok.
7.B.23. TEST CASE, SIMPLE TWO ARMY TSR PARADOX
A Russian army can rail through another army. But when that army moves, it bounces.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk - Krasnoyarsk
The part from Perm to Omsk and Omsk to Krasnoyarsk is part of the paradoxical situation.
The part from Omsk to Krasnoyarsk fails, but is still able to bounce the army that comes
from Omsk. This means that the TSR move ends in Perm and the army Omsk stays in Omsk
7.B.24. TEST CASE, COMPLEX TSR PARADOX
This paradox involves more armies.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok Britain: A Perm - Orenburg A Orenburg - Akmolinsk A Akmolinsk - Krasnoyarsk China: A Manchuria - Irkutsk
Whether the army Moscow can reach Krasnoyarsk is part of the paradoxical situation.
According to the paradox rule, the part from Omsk to Krasnoyarsk fails, but is still
able to bounce the British army in Akmolinsk. When this is decided, we continue with
the normal rules. The move from Perm to Orenburg will fail and that means that the
army in Moscow can not pass Perm and will stay in Moscow. The Chinese move from
Manchuria to Irkutsk is not part of the paradoxical situation. This move will succeed.
7.B.25. TEST CASE, TSR SUPPLY CENTER PARADOX
The need to recapture the supply center can cause a paradox.
Omsk is not owned by Russia.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Vladivostok A Omsk - Akmolinsk A Krasnoyarsk Hold China: A Akmolinsk - Semipalatinsk A Semipalatinsk - Urumchi A Urumchi - Mongolia A Mongolia - Irkutsk
There are two resolutions to this set of orders in which all rules
are obeyed. You can say that all Chinese armies move and the Russian
army in Omsk moves. In this way the TSR has to stop in Omsk to
recapture the Supply center. The other resolution is that the army in
Omsk does not move. In that case, the TSR can bounce in Irkutsk with
the Chinese army. And this will indeed cause the army in Omsk not
to move. The paradox rule says the last part of the paradoxical situation
(the part from Krasnoyrask to Irkutsk) fails but is still able to bounce
another army. So, all Chinese armies will not move and the Russian army
in Moscow will end in Perm.
7.B.26. TEST CASE, BALANCED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR
Look if the adjudicator can handle this.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Omsk A Perm - Moscow
Both armies fail to move.
7.B.27. TEST CASE, UNBALANCED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR
Now the army is attacked in is departure place.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Omsk Britain: A Perm - Moscow A Orenburg - Perm A Baku Supports A Perm - Moscow
The British army in Perm will dislodge the army in Moscow and the
army in Orenburg will advance to Perm (not bounced).
7.B.28. TEST CASE, SUPPORTED HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE WITH TSR
A supported head to head battle must also be handled correctly.
Britain: A Perm - Moscow A Orenburg Supports A Perm - Moscow Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Perm A Omsk Supports A Moscow - Perm
No unit will move.
7.B.29. TEST CASE, TSR CAN'T DISLODGE IN HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE
Although the TSR can win a head to head battle, it can not dislodge a unit.
Britain: A Perm - Moscow Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Perm A Omsk Supports A Moscow - Perm
No unit will move.
7.B.30. TEST CASE, DEPARTURE PLACE DISLODGE WITH SUPPORT FROM ARMY ON TSR
Now, the support is coming from the army that is on the TSR.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Omsk Britain: A Perm Supports A Orenburg - Moscow A Orenburg - Moscow
The British army in Orenburg will dislodge the army in Moscow.
7.B.31. TEST CASE, TSR PARADOX WITH DEPARTING TRAIN
Whether the train leaves or not, can cause a paradox.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Krasnoyarsk A Perm Hold A Orenburg - Moscow A Omsk - Orenburg Britain: A Akmolinsk - Omsk
If the army in Omsk stays, the TSR can slip trough and end in
Krasnoyarsk. But in that case the other Russian armies can
advance end the army in Omsk does not stay. If the army in Omsk
leaves, the TSR bounces on the British army. The army has to stay
in Moscow. This makes it impossible that the army in Omsk leaves.
According to the paradox rule, the last part of the paradoxical situation
(that is the part from Perm to Omsk) fails but is still able to bounce
another army. So, the army in Moscow stays in Moscow and the British
army in Akmolinks stays in Akmolinsk.
7.B.32. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT WITH TSR
It is not allowed to use a convoy during retreat. Assume the same for the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
Russia: A Moscow Hold Turkey: A Odessa - Moscow A Baku Supports A Odessa - Moscow
Army in Moscow is dislodged. When Russia retreats as follows:
A Moscow TSR Vladivostok
This is illegal and the army in Moscow is disbanded.
7.B.33. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE UNIT CAN USE THE TSR
A short circuit occurs when two units are starting to use the Trans-Siberian Railroad.
Russia: A Moscow - TSR - Omsk A Vladivostok - TSR - Krasnoyarsk
Both moves fail (they can receive support to hold).
7.B.34. TEST CASE, ONLY RUSSIA MAY USE THE TSR
Other countries are not able to control this advanced technology.
Turkey: A Moscow - TSR - Perm
The move fails (without the attempt to use the Trans-Siberian Railroad,
the move would succeed).
7.C. TEST CASES, SUEZ CANAL OPTIONAL RULE
7.C.1. TEST CASE, FLEET CAN NOT TAKE SUEZ CANAL IF NOT PERMITTED
The fleet that wants to use the Suez Canal must have permission.
Turkey: A Egypt Hold Russia: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
The move of the Russian fleet fails, because it has no permission.
7.C.2. TEST CASE, FLEET CAN TAKE SUEZ CANAL IF PERMITTED
The fleet that wants to use the Suez Canal must have permission.
Turkey: A Egypt Hold SC F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Russia: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
The move of the Russian fleet succeeds.
7.C.3. TEST CASE, IMPLICIT PERMISSION FOR OWN UNIT
It is not necessary to give permission to own unit.
Turkey: A Egypt Hold F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea
The move of the Turkish fleet succeeds.
7.C.4. TEST CASE, EXPLICIT PERMISSION DENIES IMPLICIT PERMISSION
Only one unit gets permission. That means that when a unit is given permission, own units do not get permission.
Russia: F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea SC F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea Britain: F Mecca Supports F Aden - Red Sea F Aden - Red Sea Turkey: F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea
Since Russia gives explicit permission to the Turkish fleet,
the permission to its own fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is denied.
That means that the move Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea fails and
that there is no beleaguered garrison in the Red Sea. The British
fleet in Aden will dislodge the Turkish fleet in the Red Sea.
7.C.5. TEST CASE, ONLY ONE IMPLICIT PERMISSION
When both own units try to move through the canal, none of them gets permission.
Russia: F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea Britain: F Mecca Supports F Aden - Red Sea F Aden - Red Sea
Both the move from Mediterranean Sea to Red Sea as the move from Red Sea
to Mediterranean fail, because they don't get permission (only one unit
can get permission). That means that the fleet in the Red Sea is not part
of a beleaguered garrison and will be dislodged by the British fleet in
Aden.
7.C.6. TEST CASE, NO HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE THROUGH CANAL
Since only one unit can get permission a head to head battle through the canal is not possible.
Turkey: F Egypt Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Britain: F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea F Syria Supports F Red Sea - Mediterranean Sea
The British fleet in the Red Sea does not have permission and that move
fails. So, there is no head to head battle. The attack from the Turkish
fleet in the Mediterranean Sea on the Red Sea is just two to one and will
dislodge the English fleet in the Red Sea.
7.C.7. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT THROUGH THE CANAL
Circular movement with a move through the canal is possible.
Turkey: F Egypt Hold F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Red Sea - Mecca A Mecca - Syria F Syria - Mediterranean Sea
All units except the unit in Egypt will advance.
7.C.8. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL MOVE OUT PARADOX
If the Egyptian fleet just follows the fleet using the Suez Canal, you have a paradox.
Turkey: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Egypt - Mediterranean Sea
If the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea moves, the fleet in Egypt can
also moves, which makes the move of the Mediterranean Sea impossible. In
case of a paradox the Suez Canal move fails. So, both units hold. Note
that in this case it is insufficient to use a paradox rule that
says that only the support is not cut (comparable to the 1971 rule with
possible disrupted convoys, see issue 4.A.2).
7.C.9. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S FIRST SUEZ CANAL PARADOX
A more complex move out paradox.
Britain: A Egypt - Mecca A Syria Supports A Egypt - Mecca F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Turkey: A Arabia - Mecca F Red Sea Supports A Arabia - Mecca
If the support in the Red Sea is cut, the army in Egypt can move out.
But when it moves out, the support in the Red Sea can not be cut.
When the paradox rule is used, the fleet in Mediterranean Sea fails to move
and does not have any effect on the Red Sea. That means that there is still
a bounce in Mecca and the army in Egypt and Arabia will fail to move.
7.C.10. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S SECOND SUEZ CANAL PARADOX
In this paradox, the army in Egypt does not move out, but can be dislodged.
Russia: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Egypt Hold Britain: F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt A Sudan - Egypt Turkey: A Syria - Egypt A Mecca Supports A Syria - Egypt
When the support of the Red Sea is cut, the fleet in Egypt will be
dislodged. But, when the fleet in Egypt is dislodged, the support can
not be cut. According to the paradox rule, the fleet in the Mediterranean
Sea will not advance and not cut support. This means that the fleet in
Egypt is not dislodged.
7.C.11. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S THIRD SUEZ CANAL PARADOX
This case is similar to the previous case, but now the fleet in the Red Sea is completely dislodged if the fleet in the Mediterranean is allowed through the canal.
Russia: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Egypt Hold F Eritrea Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Britain: F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt A Sudan - Egypt Turkey: A Syria - Egypt A Mecca Supports A Syria - Egypt
This should be handled similar to the previous test case. The fleet in the
Mediterranean Sea will fail to move and not cut support. That means that the
fleet in the Red Sea will not be dislodged and can give support. The fleet
in Egypt will not be dislodged. Note that in this case it is insufficient
to use a paradox rule that says that only the support is
not cut (comparable to the 1971 rule with possible disrupted convoys,
see issue 4.A.2). If only the support would not be cut,
then the fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged, but still gives valid support.
This violates the dislodge rule.
7.C.12. TEST CASE, SCHWARZ'S PARADOX ADAPTED TO TWO RESOLUTIONS
The Schwarz paradoxes have all in common that there are no consistent resolutions. This adapted version has two consistent resolutions.
Russia: F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Egypt Hold Britain: F Red Sea Supports A Sudan - Egypt A Sudan - Egypt
One consistent resolution is that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea cuts the support of the Red Sea. In this way the fleet in Egypt is not dislodged. The other resolution is that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea does not cut support of the Red Sea, which means that the fleet in Egypt is dislodged by the army in Sudan. Since it is dislodged, the fleet in the Mediterranean indeed fails to cut the support in the Red Sea.
When the paradox rule is used, then the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
fails to move and does not cut the support in the Red Sea. That means that
the fleet in Egypt is dislodged by the army in Sudan.
7.C.13. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL DISRUPTED CONVOY PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS
The Suez canal paradoxes can be combined with convoys that are possibly disrupted.
Turkey: A Egypt Hold F Mecca Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Britain: F Red Sea Convoys A Aden - Egypt A Sudan Supports A Aden - Egypt A Aden - Egypt
There are two resolutions that are consistent with the rules. The Egyptian army is dislodged or the fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged.
If the 1982 rule is used (see issue 4.A.2) for resolving disrupted convoy paradoxes, then there is nothing for this rule to apply. In that case only the paradox rule for the Suez Canal has to be applied. That means that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea will fail to move. The army in Aden convoys to Egypt, dislodging the army in Egypt.
When the Szykman rule is used (which I prefer) or the 'All Hold' rule,
then the convoy from Aden to Egypt is part of the paradoxical situation.
Therefore, this convoy fails. So, both the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea
as well as the army in Aden do not move.
7.C.14. TEST CASE, SUEZ CANAL DISRUPTED CONVOY PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION
Comparable with the previous test case, but now there is no resolution that is consistent with the rules.
Turkey: A Egypt - Sudan F Mecca Supports F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea F Mediterranean Sea - Red Sea Britain: F Red Sea Convoys A Aden - Sudan A Aden - Sudan
If the British fleet in the Red Sea is dislodged by the Turkish fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, then the Turkish army in Egypt will not bounce on the convoying army in Aden. But in that case, the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea may not move. But if it not moves, the army in Egypt will bounce on the army in Aden.
If the 1982 rule is used (see issue 4.A.2) for resolving disrupted convoy paradoxes, then there is nothing for this rule to apply. In that case only the paradox rule for the Suez Canal has to be applied. That means that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea will fail to move and not cut support. The army in Aden bounces on the army from Egypt in Sudan. So, both armies will fail to move.
If the Szykman rule is used (which I prefer), then the convoy will also fail to move and have no effect on Sudan. That means that the army in Egypt can move to Sudan.
If the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the army in Egypt is part of the paradox
and should also hold. That means that none of the units will move.
7.D. TEST CASES, TRANS-SIBERIAN RAILROAD AND SUEZ CANAL COMBINED ISSUES
7.D.1. TEST CASES, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH TSR, CONVOY AND SUEZ CANAL
A gigantic circular movement is possible.
 TEST CASE, KRUIJSWIJK'S PARADOX
A paradox that contains the Suez Canal, the Trans-Siberian Railroad and a possible disrupted convoy, is possible.
 That means that the support of Mancharia is not cut and the Russian army in Irkutsk is dislodged. This prevents that the army in Vladivostok will not go to Moscow for a bounce on the Turkish army in Baku. So, all Turkish armies will move, including the army in Egypt. But if the army in Egypt moves, the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is not allowed to go to the Red Sea to dislodge the British fleet. etc. etc.
Well, judge this whatever you like.
8. ICE VARIANT
Some variants have 'ice' sectors. You can not move to an ice sector in fall or in winter (retreat). Nor can you give support in fall.
This is used in variant Loeb9.
8.A. TEST CASE, MOVE TO AN ICE SECTOR
Move in winter to ice sector should fail.
Loeb9 in fall:
Norway: F Norwegian Sea - Arctic Ocean
Move fails.
8.B. TEST CASE, MOVE FROM AN ICE SECTOR
Move in winter from ice sector should fail.
Loeb9 in fall:
Norway: F Arctic Ocean - Norwegian Sea
Move fails.
8.C. TEST CASE, SUPPORT FROM AN ICE SECTOR
Support from an ice sector should fail in fall.
Loeb9 in fall:
Norway: F Arctic Ocean Supports F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic Ocean F Norwegian Sea - North Atlantic Ocean England: F North Atlantic Ocean Hold
English fleet in North Atlantic Ocean should not be dislodged.
8.D. TEST CASE, NO RETREAT TO AN ICE SECTOR
Retreat to an ice sector in autumn should fail.
Loeb9 in fall:
England: F North Atlantic Ocean - Norwegian Sea F North Sea Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Norwegian Sea Norway: F Norwegian Sea Hold
Fleet of Norway is dislodged. It can not retreat to the Artic Sea.
8.E. TEST CASE, NO CONVOY IN ICE SECTOR
A convoy in fall in an ice sector should fail.
Loeb9 in fall:
England: A Liverpool - Siberia F North Atlantic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Siberia F Arctic Ocean Convoys A Liverpool - Siberia
Convoy fails and army stays in Liverpool.
9. CONVOYING COASTAL AREA VARIANT
Some variants have coastal sectors in which convoying is allowed (for instance in Ancient Mediterranean). This introduces some difficulty in the rules, since convoys can now be disrupted by normal army movement or convoyed armies.
To execute these test cases, the standard map should be adapted.
The areas Denmark and Sweden are made convoyable coasts.
Berlin and Denmark are connected for fleets. That means that
fleets can move from Berlin to Denmark and vice versa, but armies
can not.
9.A. TEST CASE, DISLODGING OWN CONVOY
You can argue that your own convoy can be dislodged.
Denmark changed in convoyable coastal area and Berlin and Denmark are connected for fleets:
England: F Denmark Convoys A Berlin - Denmark Germany: A Kiel Supports A Berlin - Denmark Russia: A Berlin - Denmark
Dislodging your own convoy is not possible. The English
convoy order is illegal because it convoys to itself.
9.B. TEST CASE, CONVOYING TO OWN AREA WITH A LOOP
You may argue that in the previous test case there was no legal convoyable path. Since Berlin - Denmark - Denmark contains a move from Denmark to Denmark. This can be changed by an additional convoying fleet
Denmark changed in convoyable coastal area and Berlin and Denmark are connected for fleets:
England: F Denmark Convoys A Berlin - Denmark Germany: A Kiel Supports A Berlin - Denmark Russia: A Berlin - Denmark F Skagerrak Convoys A Berlin - Denmark
Now there is a convoy path Berlin - Denmark - Skagerrak - Denmark.
Still, dislodging your own convoy is not possible. The English
convoy order is illegal because it convoys to itself.
9.C. TEST CASE, CONVOY DISRUPTED BY ARMY
Convoys can be disrupted by armies.
Sweden changed in convoyable coastal area:
Germany: A Denmark - St Petersburg F Sweden Convoys A Denmark - St Petersburg F Gulf of Bothnia Convoys A Denmark - St Petersburg Russia: A Finland - Sweden A Norway Supports A Finland - Sweden
The German convoy is disrupted by the Russian army in Finland.
Therefore, the German move to St Petersburg fails.
9.D. TEST CASE, CONVOY DISRUPTED BY CONVOYING ARMY
Convoys can be disrupted by convoys.

Therefore, the German move to Finland fails.
9.E. TEST CASE, TWO DISRUPTED CONVOYS PARADOX
With the possible that a convoy can disrupt another convoy directly (without support cut) a new paradox is possible. Two convoys that disrupt each other directly.

This can not be resolved with the 1971, the 1982 or 2000 rulebook (see also issue 4.A.2).
When the Szykman (which I prefer) rule is used, both convoys fail.
The 'All Hold' rule has the same result since there are no other units that move.
9.F. TEST CASE, DISRUPTED CONVOY SUPPORT PARADOX WITH NO RESOLUTION
It is also possible that a convoy disrupts another convoys, while that convoy cuts the support targeting the convoy from which it is attacked.
 If the 1971 or 2000 rulebook is used, then there is no resolution.
If the 1982 rulebook is used, the support of Finland is not cut. That means that the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged by the English fleet in Livonia. Since, this disrupts the Russian convoy starting in St Petersburg, the Russian army in St Petersburg will stay and the German fleet in Sweden is not dislodged.
If the Szykman rule is used (which I prefer), both convoys are part of the paradoxical situation. So, the German army in Denmark and the Russian army in St Petersburg will not move. They have both no effect on the place where they supposed to move to. That means that the English support in Sweden is not cut and the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged by the English fleet in Livonia.
If the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the tree moves fail. So, the
German army in Denmark, the Russian army in St Petersburg and the English
fleet in Livonia all stay. So, the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is
not dislodged.
9.G. TEST CASE, DISRUPTED CONVOY SUPPORT PARADOX WITH TWO RESOLUTIONS
The previous test case did not have a resolution that follows all normal rules. It can be changed in such way that there are two possible resolutions.
 The German army in Denmark advances to Finland, cutting the support of the Russian fleet. The Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is dislodged, such that the fleet in Sweden will not be dislodged. The other resolution is that the army in St Petersburg dislodges the fleet in Sweden. This prevents that the support of the fleet in Finland is cut, such that the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia will not be dislodged.
The results depends on which paradox rule is used (see issue 4.A.2). When the 1971 or 2000 rulebook is used, there is no resolution.
When the 1982 rulebook is used, then the support of the Russian fleet in Finland is not cut. That means that the Russian fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is not dislodged and that the convoy from St Petersburg to Sweden is successful, dislodging the German fleet there. The German fleet in Livonia will stay.
When the Szykman rule is used (which I prefer), both convoys fail and the support of the Russian fleet in Finland is not cut. This means that the fleet in the Gulf of Bothnia is not dislodged. So, no unit will move.
When the 'All Hold' rule is used, then the army in Denmark, the army
in St Petersburg and the fleet in Livonia will not move. So, no unit will
move and no unit will be dislodged.
10. DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER VARIANT
In some variants armies can move between two sectors but with one
support less. If no support is given, then the move can not cut
support. Support can not be given over this corridor.
10.A. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CAN NOT BE CUT OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER
If an army is passing a difficult passable border without any support, then it can not cut support.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples - Sicily F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold Turkey: F Sicily Supports F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
The support is not cut and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.
10.B. TEST CASE, MOVE OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER WITH SUPPORTS CUT SUPPORTS
If the move receives support, then it can cut support.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples - Sicily F Ionian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily F Tunis Supports F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea F Rome - Tyrrhenian Sea Spain: F Sicily Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold
The support of Sicily is cut and the fleet in Tyrrhenian Sea is dislodged.
10.C. TEST CASE, MOVE OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CAN NOT BOUNCE WITH NORMAL MOVE
A move over difficult passable border can not prevent another unit to move into the sector.
In Loeb9:
Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa Italy: A Tunis - North Africa
Spanish move of army fails. The move of Italy succeeds.
10.D. TEST CASE, TWO MOVES OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CAN BOUNCE
When two armies over a difficult passable border enter the same sector, they bounce. Test whether the adjudicator can handle this bounce with zero power.
In Loeb9 with a changed map that has a difficult passable border between North Africa and Tunis:
Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa Italy: A Tunis - North Africa
Both armies bounce.
10.E. TEST CASE, SUPPORT CAN NOT BE GIVEN OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER
If the border is difficult to pass, it is impossible to give support over this border.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples Supports F Tyrrhenian Sea - Sicily F Tyrrhenian Sea - Sicily Turkey: F Sicily Hold
The army in Sicily should not be dislodged.
10.F. TEST CASE, SUPPORT PARADOX
There is no known real paradox with the difficult passable borders. However, in this test case the question is which of the supports is cut.
In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between Sicily and Tunis:
Italy: A Sicily - Tunis A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
Program should not come in an infinite loop. All armies should hold.
Preferable, the adjudicator reports a symmetric cut of supports. That
means both supports are cut or both supports are not cut.
10.G. TEST CASE, ALMOST PARADOX
The previous test case extended with an additional fleet that prevents the paradox.
In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between Sicily and Tunis:
Italy: A Sicily - Tunis A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa F Western Mediterranean Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
Army in Cordoba should advance.
Now test the same with an Italian fleet to see if there is no arbitrary decision in the adjudicator:
In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between Sicily and Tunis:
Italy: A Sicily - Tunis A North Africa Supports A Sicily - Tunis F Western Mediterranean Supports A Sicily - Tunis Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa A Tunis Supports A Cordoba - North Africa
Now the army in Sicily should advance.
10.H. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER
Adjudicator may choke on a circular movement when one of the borders is difficult passable.
In Loeb9:
Italy: F Sicily - Tyrrhenian Sea F Tyrrhenian Sea - Naples A Naples - Sicily
All units move.
10.I. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT WITH BOUNCE
Adjudicator may choke on a circular movement when one of the borders is difficult passable and the unit using this border is bounced.
In Loeb9:
Italy: F Sicily - Tyrrhenian Sea F Tyrrhenian Sea - Naples A Naples - Sicily Turkey: F Ionian Sea - Sicily
No unit moves.
10.J. TEST CASE, CIRCULAR MOVEMENT CAN NOT BE DISRUPTED BY ARMY USING DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER
When a circular movement is attacked by an army over a difficult passable order, the circular movement will just go on.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A North Africa - Tunis F Western Mediterranean - North Africa F Tunis - Western Mediterranean Spain: A Cordoba - North Africa
The Spanish army in Cordoba will not move and not disrupt the moves of
Italy. The Italian moves all succeed.
10.K. TEST CASE, DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER DURING RETREAT
A difficult passable border is also difficult passable during retreat. That means that when two armies retreat to the same sector and one of the armies is using a difficult passable border, the army using the normal border has a successful retreat.
In Loeb9:
Italy: F Tyrrhenian Sea Hold A Naples Hold Turkey: A Apulia - Naples F Ionian Sea Supports A Apulia - Naples Spain: F Western Mediterranean Supports F Gulf of Lyon - Tyrrhenian Sea F Gulf of Lyon - Tyrrhenian Sea
Both Italian units are dislodged. If they both retreat to Sicily, then
the fleet in the Tyrrhenian Sea should advance and the army in Naples
is disbanded.
10.L. TEST CASE, DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER IS PROPERTY OF BORDER NOT OF SECTOR
Adjudicators may mark the two adjacent sectors difficult passable, but this is an incorrect situation.
In Loeb9 with edited map that has a difficult passable border between Sicily and Tunis:
Italy: F Western Mediterranean Supports A Tunis - North Africa A Tunis - North Africa Spain: A North Africa Hold
Army in Tunis should advance.
10.M. TEST CASE, USING CONVOY INSTEAD OF DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER
A difficult passable border can be by-passed by a convoy.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples - Sicily via Convoy F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Naples - Sicily F Ionian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily Turkey: A Sicily Hold
Since the move from Naples to Sicily is via convoy, the Turkish army in
Sicily is dislodged.
10.N. TEST CASE, USING CONVOY INSTEAD OF DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER CUTS SUPPORT
If a difficult passable border is by-passed by a convoy, then it cuts support.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples - Sicily F Tyrrhenian Sea Convoys A Naples - Sicily F Ionian Sea Hold Turkey: F Sicily Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
Since the army in Naples is using a convoy, the support of the fleet in
Sicily is cut. That means that the Italian fleet in the Ionian See is not
dislodged.
10.O. TEST CASE, SUPPORT ON ATTACK ON OWN ARMY OVER DIFFICULT PASSABLE BORDER DOES NOT CUT SUPPORT
A movement over a difficult passable border does not cut support. But what if the movement was supported by an army of the same power of the army that is attacked? I think it should still not cut support.
In Loeb9:
Italy: A Naples - Sicily F Ionian Sea Hold Spain: F Tyrrhenian Sea Supports A Naples - Sicily F Sicily Supports F Ionian Sea Turkey: F Greece Supports F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea F Aegean Sea - Ionian Sea
The support of Sicilia is not cut, that means that the fleet in the
Ionian Sea is not dislodged.
11. BUILD IN ANY SUPPLY CENTER VARIANT
Some variants allow building of units in any supply center that is owned.
The Chaos variant uses this rule.
11.A. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER
Since there is no notion of 'home supply center', the 'civil disorder' rules changes. It is expected that any owned supply center is treated as home supply center.
Chaos:
Berlin owns Naples as only supply center.
Berlin power has a unit in Prussia and Apulia.
In Civil disorder the unit in Prussia should be removed.
12. 1898 VARIANT
In the 1898 variant all powers start with one unit. The
home supply centers have to be captured first, before it
is allowed to build there. The problem with this variant is
that the home supply centers, the starting units and the
starting owning supply centers are not the same anymore. It
should be possible to distinguish those in the data files
that describe the variant.
12.A. TEST CASE, HOME SUPPLY CENTER HAS TO BE CAPTURED FIRST
The home supply centers should not be marked owned when the game is started.
1898:
Germany did not yet captured Munich, but may build one.
Germany: Build A Munich
Build fails.
12.B. TEST CASE, BUILD IN NON-STARTING POSITION ALLOWED
Builds are restricted to the home supply centers and not to the starting positions of the units.
1898:
Germany owns Munich, Munich is empty and Germany may build one.
Germany: Build A Munich
Build succeeds.
12.C. TEST CASE, COUNTRIES CAN STILL ONLY BUILD IN HOME SUPPLY CENTERS
The notion of home supply center still exists. That means that builds in other supply centers are not allowed.
1898:
Germany owns Warsaw, Warsaw is empty and Germany may build one.
Germany: Build A Warsaw
Build fails.
12.D. TEST CASE, CIVIL DISORDER STILL BASED ON HOME SUPPLY CENTERS
When a unit has to be removed according to the civil disorder rules, then the distance should still be calculated from the home supply centers and not to the owned or starting supply centers.
1898:
Russia owns St Petersburg and has a fleet in the Black Sea and the Norwegian Sea.
Russia has to remove one unit but does not order anything.
The fleet in the Norwegian Sea is removed.