@dawgoneit french go
BOOM! G40BM3 Karl7 Axis +6 vs Gargantua and Canuck 12 This is for the 1st Born!
-
I have been asked by Karl to take a look at the situation and I’ll give my thoughts.
-
Obviously a lot of your chat was on whatsapp, so my question is why did Karl reroll the battle if he didn’t want to use the reroll outcome?
-
As the rules say, assumptions leave the defender with the option to ask for rerolls, as it should be. However in this case, both parties seem to agree that not scrambling was the right move, so the attacker made the best choice for the defenders (despite the defenders’ intentions). In other words, with the same amount of luck in that battle, if the defenders had scrambled it could only have gone worse for the defenders.
Conclusion: only looking at this situation and not the rest of the game for favors and sportsmanship, the defenders have the right to call for a reroll, but it would be unsportsmanlike to ask for the reroll given that the battle was already fought to the best of the defenders’ ability in terms of scramble decisions. I wouldn’t rematch someone who would ask for a reroll for worse odds in a battle. The defenders should imagine that had they scrambled, it could only have gone worse.
-
-
With respect did you even look at my text message images or comments?
At no time did I agree or believe my odds were better with no scramble and allowing bombards… so I’m not sure why that’s part of the conclusion?
I have battle calc results showing the opposite… but likely because it was such a swingy battle.
I’m not sure how to take this conclusion.
-
Why don’t the rules just say that the scramble is not the defender’s choice and is only based on what the attacker thinks is best based on the battle calc?
That’s what happened here. Shall we run all games like that moving forward?
This ruling sets an unworkable precedent.
-
Thanks for trying Adam lol…
-
Read what I said, I ruled in the defenders’ favor. If you truly think scrambling is the best move for the defenders, you don’t have to consider it unsportsmanlike either.
Another question I have is why didn’t the cruisers bombard as well? If everything were to bombard then scrambling would have been the better move, that may be wehre the differing calc results come from.
-
Thanks Adam and thanks for clarity.
I have given ALOT of leeway to the axis in this game so I’m going to stick with the reroll.
If that means that everything else I have done carries no weight, and I’m unsportsmanlike with this final call on the line, (despite proving my intent before hand) than so be it.
Aa for the bombards he was limited to two because he only landed 2.
-
And yes , late last night when I made the choice to scramble with my ally, I may have been considering 4 bombards instead of 2.
But all the same, if asked that morning, I would have.
-
@Gargantua True only 2 units landed.
In my opinion, what you would have done isn’t as important as what the best move available is, which Karl made for you. On 5000 runs, I get 45% attackers without scramble and 48% attackers with scramble. Can we agree that not scrambling is the best move in this situation? If so, Karl did his best short of asking the defenders for a decision.
If knowing everything you know now (except the battle outcome) about odds and such you’d still scramble (for example to prevent non-combat moves of the Queensland fleet), then you don’t have to consider it unsportsmanlike.
-
@Adam514 said in BOOM! G40BM3 Karl7 Axis +6 vs Gargantua and Canuck 12 This is for the 1st Born!:
@Gargantua True only 2 units landed.
In my opinion, what you would have done isn’t as important as what the best move available is, which Karl made for you. On 5000 runs, I get 45% attackers without scramble and 48% attackers with scramble. Can we agree that not scrambling is the best move in this situation? If so, Karl did his best short of asking the defenders for a decision.
If knowing everything you know now (except the battle outcome) about odds and such you’d still scramble (for example to prevent non-combat moves of the Queensland fleet), then you don’t have to consider it unsportsmanlike.
Thanks Adam. The primary issue is right vs fact. The fact is not scrambling was the factually correct move, but they think they have the absolute right to give a scram order. Per the league rules it seems a moderator can overrule that for good reason. The good reason here being, again not scramming was the correct move and to insist on the right is just opportunism to unwind the battle.
-
Well the though process for me was this, the US AirPower is far more expendable and replaceable than the Anzac ground forces, and anything I could do to directly reduce the burden of hits on Anzac ground Was a worthy venture.
I would still scramble the 1 @4 to avoid the 2 at 4, if given the choice again right now.
-
The issue of play style hasn’t come up. And just because something doesn’t appear to make sense doesn’t mean I won’t do it.
2 rounds ago i suicides 11 is planes for 11 Japanese ground.
I could have gone in with less, and the battle calc was no different, but the issue was about the threat of where’s and when’s and what’s,
And less about the cost or the calc. -
Unfortunately Karl, assumptions should and do leave it up to the defender to decide for rerolls, based on their honor hopefully (not implying anything, that’s how I interpret the spirit of the rules). If the defenders truly believe it’s their best move to scramble, then it’s not unsportsmanlike to ask for a reroll.
For the record, I often make assumptions and I don’t recall ever being asked to reroll due to my assumption. I would have however asked for scramble orders for that battle, simply because there’s a chance my opponent makes the “wrong” decision in my opinion which would give me better odds.
-
@Adam514 and that’s where you nailed it Adam.
And exactly where I get suspicious.
The most likely outcome was a VERY close battle, one where every hit will count, and slying slipping in the bombards for 2 extra hits to maximize the possible attack (not defense) was the issue!
There is a temporal component too.
2 possible hits round 1 is better than 3 possible hits over 3 rounds. Because of “dice denial”. IE if my men are dead today they don’t get to roll tomorrow.
-
TripleA Turn Summary: Japanese round 20
TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3, version: 3.4
Game History
Round: 20 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 4 fighters and 8 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 3 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 1 armour moved from Kwangtung to 20 Sea Zone 1 armour and 2 transports moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from Philippines to 35 Sea Zone 1 armour, 2 infantry and 2 transports moved from 35 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 1 armour and 2 infantry moved from 55 Sea Zone to Northern Territory 1 infantry moved from Kwangsi to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 2 transports moved from 36 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 2 armour moved from Shan State to 37 Sea Zone 2 armour, 1 infantry and 2 transports moved from 37 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 2 armour and 1 infantry moved from 55 Sea Zone to Northern Territory 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 56 Sea Zone to 54 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 54 Sea Zone to Queensland 1 destroyer moved from 54 Sea Zone to 49 Sea Zone 2 fighters moved from 55 Sea Zone to Queensland 4 fighters moved from 56 Sea Zone to Queensland 11 fighters and 7 tactical_bombers moved from 54 Sea Zone to Queensland Combat - Japanese Battle in Northern Territory Japanese attack with 3 armour and 3 infantry Americans defend with 1 fighter Japanese roll dice for 3 armour and 3 infantry in Northern Territory, round 2 : 1/6 hits, 2.00 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 1 fighter in Northern Territory, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.67 expected hits 1 fighter owned by the Americans lost in Northern Territory Japanese win, taking Northern Territory from ANZAC with 3 armour and 3 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 10 Casualties for Americans: 1 fighter Battle in Queensland Japanese attack with 17 fighters, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 7 tactical_bombers ANZAC defend with 2 aaGuns, 1 airfield, 3 armour, 3 artilleries, 1 factory_minor, 3 fighters, 1 harbour and 4 infantry; Americans defend with 1 bomber and 10 fighters AA fire in Queensland : 0/6 hits, 1.00 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships in Queensland, round 2 : 2/2 hits, 1.33 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 17 fighters, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 7 tactical_bombers in Queensland, round 2 : 20/26 hits, 13.50 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 2 aaGuns, 3 armour, 3 artilleries, 1 bomber, 13 fighters and 4 infantry in Queensland, round 2 : 12/24 hits, 12.67 expected hits 11 fighters owned by the Japanese, 3 armour owned by the ANZAC, 1 mech_infantry owned by the Japanese, 4 infantry owned by the ANZAC, 3 artilleries owned by the ANZAC, 2 aaGuns owned by the ANZAC, 9 fighters owned by the Americans and 1 bomber owned by the Americans lost in Queensland Japanese roll dice for 6 fighters, 1 infantry and 7 tactical_bombers in Queensland, round 3 : 7/14 hits, 7.67 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 4 fighters in Queensland, round 3 : 2/4 hits, 2.67 expected hits 2 tactical_bombers owned by the Japanese, 3 fighters owned by the ANZAC and 1 fighter owned by the Americans lost in Queensland Japanese win, taking Queensland from ANZAC with 6 fighters, 1 infantry and 5 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 58 Casualties for Japanese: 11 fighters, 1 mech_infantry and 2 tactical_bombers Casualties for ANZAC: 2 aaGuns, 3 armour, 3 artilleries, 3 fighters and 4 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 bomber and 10 fighters Non Combat Move - Japanese 2 carriers moved from 56 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 3 destroyers moved from 56 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 2 destroyers moved from 20 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Kiangsu to 19 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shantung to 19 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 19 Sea Zone to 35 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 3 mech_infantrys moved from Anhwe to Kiangsu 2 infantry moved from 35 Sea Zone to Philippines 1 fighter moved from French Indo China to Kiangsu 1 fighter moved from Japan to Kiangsu 1 infantry moved from Chahar to Anhwe 3 aaGuns, 6 artilleries and 13 infantry moved from West India to India 5 armour, 3 infantry and 9 mech_infantrys moved from Burma to India 1 armour moved from Yunnan to India 1 infantry moved from Yunnan to Kwangsi 1 infantry moved from Szechwan to Yunnan 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 54 Sea Zone to 45 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 55 Sea Zone to 45 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 55 Sea Zone to 45 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 41 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 42 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Queensland to 55 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from Queensland to 54 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 54 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone 1 carrier moved from 54 Sea Zone to 45 Sea Zone 1 fighter moved from 54 Sea Zone to 55 Sea Zone Place Units - Japanese 3 infantry placed in Shantung 3 infantry placed in Kwangtung Japanese undo move 2. 3 infantry placed in India 1 fighter and 2 infantry placed in Kwangtung 1 fighter placed in Japan 2 fighters placed in French Indo China Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 55 Sea Zone: 2 destroyers EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 41 Sea Zone: 1 destroyer EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 45 Sea Zone: 1 destroyer EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turn Complete - Japanese Japanese collect 53 PUs; end with 53 PUs Objective Japanese 3 Control Honolulu Or Sydney Or Calcutta Or Western United States: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 58 PUs Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from Philippines: 2 bombers EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to Japan: 2 bombers EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 55 Sea Zone: 3 fighters EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 55 Sea Zone: 2 tactical_bombers EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 54 Sea Zone: 3 fighters and 3 tactical_bombers EDIT: Changing unit hit damage for these Japanese owned units to: carrier = 1 EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from Queensland: 1 infantry EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to Queensland: 1 mech_infantry EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 54 Sea Zone: 2 fighters EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 55 Sea Zone: 2 fighters EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from Japan: 1 fighter EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to French Indo China: 1 fighter EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 55 Sea Zone: 1 fighter EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 55 Sea Zone: 1 tactical_bomber EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 54 Sea Zone: 1 fighter EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to 54 Sea Zone: 1 tactical_bomber EDIT: Turning off Edit ModeCombat Hit Differential Summary :
ANZAC : -2.00 AA fire in Queensland : : -1.00 Japanese : 5.50 -
@Gargantua I’m 100% convinced Karl made that decision because he thought it was the obvious move, not to give himself an advantage.
The battle calc takes into account the relative important of bombards vs defending fighter in the simulation results.
-
@Adam514 haha!
Then you have not read Karl’s Book :) - “The Rum and The Fury”, or slept under the same roof during back to back to back warfare over many weekends, or faced losers privilege, or benefited from the bowels of of his deprecious psyche, intellect, and disingenuous tactics.
No Sir… you have not.
At least… Not yet! :)
Start with the book. Aye a worthy read.
-
Nobody asked me for my opinion, but when has that ever stopped me. How I would have resolved this dispute:
First, from the text of league rules, it is obvious that the right to reroll is NOt absolute. If it were absolute, there would be no need for the language about involving a moderator. the way Cannuck wants to interpret the guidelines would render the “moderator” language mere surplusage. And thats not sound textual interpretation.
Second, it is clear form the text that a moderator’s decision may supercede a defender’s right to require a re-roll where, as here, there is an indication that the right is being invoked in bad faith. In this case, the moderator is being called upon to decide the good faith of the request. (An unenviable position)
I think there is substantial support for the conclusion that this reroll is being sought disingenuously. Cannuck began the argument, NOt by claiming that he would have requested a scramble if asked from the outset, but by invoking past “favors” he paid to the other side, by claiming he was “owed one,” and by insisting that his “right” was absolute in any event. I think Adam, in his gut, senses that the request is pure gamesmanship, but doesn’t want to call it out as such.
Also I would note that Karl offered a compromise that would honor the original roles, while giving Cannuck the putative benefit of denying bombard (i.e., the ability to roll an additional unit for several rounds of battle). the fact that this compromise was reject further underscores the conclusion that Cannuck isn’t interested in stopping bombard: he’s interersted in better dice for the entire battle. Surely if the battle had gone favorably for Cannuck, he would NOt be making this request. League rules shouldn’t be utilized to game the system in this manner.
-
@regularkid said in BOOM! G40BM3 Karl7 Axis +6 vs Gargantua and Canuck 12 This is for the 1st Born!:
Nobody asked me for my opinion, but when has that ever stopped me. How I would have resolved this dispute:
First, from the text of league rules, it is obvious that the right to reroll is NOt absolute. If it were absolute, there would be no need for the language about involving a moderator. the way Cannuck wants to interpret the guidelines would render the “moderator” language mere surplusage. And thats not sound textual interpretation.
Second, it is clear form the text that a moderator’s decision may supercede a defender’s right to require a re-roll where, as here, there is an indication that the right is being invoked in bad faith. In this case, the moderator is being called upon to decide the good faith of the request. (An unenviable position)
I think there is substantial support for the conclusion that this reroll is being sought disingenuously. Cannuck began the argument, NOt by claiming that he would have requested a scramble if asked from the outset, but by invoking past “favors” he paid to the other side, by claiming he was “owed one,” and by insisting that his “right” was absolute in any event. I think Adam, in his gut, senses that the request is pure gamesmanship, but doesn’t want to call it out as such.
Also I would note that Karl offered a compromise that would honor the original roles, while giving Cannuck the putative benefit of denying bombard (i.e., the ability to roll an additional unit for several rounds of battle). the fact that this compromise was reject further underscores the conclusion that Cannuck isn’t interested in stopping bombard: he’s interersted in better dice for the entire battle. Surely if the battle had gone favorably for Cannuck, he would NOt be making this request. League rules shouldn’t be utilized to game the system in this manner.
Correct!
-
@Gargantua said in BOOM! G40BM3 Karl7 Axis +6 vs Gargantua and Canuck 12 This is for the 1st Born!:
@Adam514 haha!
Then you have not read Karl’s Book :) - “The Rum and The Fury”, or slept under the same roof during back to back to back warfare over many weekends, or faced losers privilege, or benefited from the bowels of of his deprecious psyche, intellect, and disingenuous tactics.
No Sir… you have not.
At least… Not yet! :)
Start with the book. Aye a worthy read.
Slander!
-
@Karl7 @regularkid
Let me give you a timeline of events:First the direct:
At 11:29 pm I text my ally - we will scramble 1 at Queensland if he goes all in.At 7 or 8 am the following day there is a dawn strike where no option for us to scramble is given. Starting this debate.
There is 0 denying that the plan to scramble is genuine. It’s offensive sir that you call us disingenuos when there are advantages to Karl’s assumptions we have no control over.
Now the indirect:
A few turns previous Karl played the same gambit in the Mediterranean and in the words Karl7 not a week ago “You can’t change scramble after known dice”
So what would you have me do sir?
And @regularkid with Karl already knowing we are sensitive to scrambles / why would he do this to us again? If it wasn’t disingenuous?
Suggested Topics
