@GeneralDisarray I kill a destroyer and a sub
L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V
-
TripleA Turn Summary: Japanese round 12
TripleA Turn Summary for game: WW2 Path to Victory, version: 3.0.0
Game History
Round: 12 Purchase Units - Japanese Japanese buy 1 carrier, 4 infantry and 1 submarine; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; 6 SuicideAttackTokens; Combat Move - Japanese 4 artilleries moved from Burma to Eastern India 5 artilleries moved from Burma to Yunnan 1 infantry moved from French Indo China to Yunnan 1 marine moved from Malaya to 38 Sea Zone 1 battleship and 1 marine moved from 38 Sea Zone to 21 Sea Zone 1 marine moved from 21 Sea Zone to Manilla 3 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from Malaya to 38 Sea Zone 3 artilleries, 2 infantry and 3 transports moved from 38 Sea Zone to 37 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 36 Sea Zone to 21 Sea Zone 3 submarines moved from 45 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 43 Sea Zone to 46 Sea Zone 1 destroyer moved from 46 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from French Indo China to 37 Sea Zone 3 artilleries, 3 infantry and 3 transports moved from 37 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 36 Sea Zone to Davao 2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from 36 Sea Zone to Manilla 2 carriers moved from 43 Sea Zone to 44 Sea Zone 2 carriers moved from 44 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 2 fighters moved from 43 Sea Zone to 21 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 10 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers and 4 tactical_bombers moved from 38 Sea Zone to 21 Sea Zone 5 fighters and 4 tactical_bombers moved from French Indo China to 21 Sea Zone 6 infantry moved from Burma to Yunnan 22 infantry moved from Burma to Eastern India 1 armour and 1 mech_infantry moved from Burma to Eastern India 8 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Japan to 21 Sea Zone Combat - Japanese Battle in Eastern India Japanese attack with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 22 infantry and 1 mech_infantry British defend with 1 artillery; UK_Pacific defend with 1 airfield, 1 factory_major and 1 harbour Japanese roll dice for 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 22 infantry and 1 mech_infantry in Eastern India, round 2 : 6/28 hits, 6,50 expected hits UK_Pacific roll dice for 1 artillery in Eastern India, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Japanese and 1 artillery owned by the British lost in Eastern India Japanese captures 12PUs while taking UK_Pacific capital Japanese converts factory_major into different units Japanese win, taking Eastern India from UK_Pacific with 1 armour, 4 artilleries, 21 infantry and 1 mech_infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 1 Casualties for Japanese: 1 infantry Casualties for British: 1 artillery Battle in Yunnan Japanese attack with 5 artilleries and 7 infantry Chinese defend with 5 infantry Japanese roll dice for 5 artilleries and 7 infantry in Yunnan, round 2 : 4/12 hits, 3,67 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 5 infantry in Yunnan, round 2 : 3/5 hits, 1,67 expected hits 3 infantry owned by the Japanese and 4 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Yunnan Japanese roll dice for 5 artilleries and 4 infantry in Yunnan, round 3 : 2/9 hits, 3,00 expected hits Chinese roll dice for 1 infantry in Yunnan, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 infantry owned by the Chinese lost in Yunnan Japanese win, taking Yunnan from Chinese with 5 artilleries and 4 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is 6 Casualties for Japanese: 3 infantry Casualties for Chinese: 5 infantry Battle in 36 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 3 submarines and 3 transports ANZAC defend with 1 destroyer Japanese roll dice for 3 submarines in 36 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits ANZAC roll dice for 1 destroyer in 36 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 destroyer owned by the ANZAC lost in 36 Sea Zone Japanese win with 2 carriers, 1 destroyer, 3 submarines and 3 transports remaining. Battle score for attacker is 8 Casualties for ANZAC: 1 destroyer Battle in Davao Battle in 21 Sea Zone Japanese attack with 2 battleships, 10 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 15 fighters, 1 submarine and 9 tactical_bombers Americans defend with 1 battleship, 11 carriers, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 10 fighters, 1 submarine, 9 tactical_bombers and 2 transports Japanese roll dice for 1 submarine in 21 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Americans Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 10 carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 15 fighters and 9 tactical_bombers in 21 Sea Zone, round 2 : 21/31 hits, 17,00 expected hits Units damaged: 4 carriers owned by the Americans Americans roll dice for 1 submarine in 21 Sea Zone, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,17 expected hits Units damaged: 1 battleship owned by the Japanese Americans roll dice for 1 battleship, 11 carriers, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 10 fighters, 9 tactical_bombers and 2 transports in 21 Sea Zone, round 2 : 20/36 hits, 17,50 expected hits Units damaged: 1 carrier owned by the Japanese and 1 battleship owned by the Japanese 1 submarine owned by the Americans, 2 destroyers owned by the Americans, 9 carriers owned by the Japanese and 7 carriers owned by the Americans lost in 21 Sea Zone Japanese roll dice for 1 submarine in 21 Sea Zone, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 15 fighters and 9 tactical_bombers in 21 Sea Zone, round 3 : 20/31 hits, 17,00 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 battleship, 4 carriers, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer, 10 fighters, 9 tactical_bombers and 2 transports in 21 Sea Zone, round 3 : 10/27 hits, 14,50 expected hits 6 fighters owned by the Japanese, 2 cruisers owned by the Americans, 1 destroyer owned by the Americans, 9 tactical_bombers owned by the Americans, 1 carrier owned by the Japanese, 2 destroyers owned by the Japanese, 4 carriers owned by the Americans, 1 submarine owned by the Japanese and 4 fighters owned by the Americans lost in 21 Sea Zone Japanese roll dice for 2 battleships, 3 cruisers, 9 fighters and 9 tactical_bombers in 21 Sea Zone, round 4 : 15/23 hits, 13,33 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 battleship, 6 fighters and 2 transports in 21 Sea Zone, round 4 : 1/7 hits, 4,67 expected hits 6 fighters owned by the Americans, 2 transports owned by the Americans, 1 cruiser owned by the Japanese and 1 battleship owned by the Americans lost in 21 Sea Zone Japanese win, taking Davao from Americans with 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 9 fighters and 9 tactical_bombers remaining. Battle score for attacker is 195 Casualties for Japanese: 10 carriers, 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 6 fighters and 1 submarine Casualties for Americans: 1 battleship, 11 carriers, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 10 fighters, 1 submarine, 9 tactical_bombers and 2 transports Battle in Manilla Japanese attack with 2 artilleries, 2 infantry and 1 marine Americans defend with 1 artillery and 1 infantry Japanese roll dice for 2 artilleries, 2 infantry and 1 marine in Manilla, round 2 : 0/5 hits, 1,67 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in Manilla, round 2 : 2/2 hits, 0,67 expected hits 2 infantry owned by the Japanese lost in Manilla Japanese roll dice for 2 artilleries and 1 marine in Manilla, round 3 : 1/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 infantry in Manilla, round 3 : 1/2 hits, 0,67 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Japanese and 1 infantry owned by the Americans lost in Manilla Japanese roll dice for 1 artillery and 1 marine in Manilla, round 4 : 2/2 hits, 0,67 expected hits Americans roll dice for 1 artillery in Manilla, round 4 : 0/1 hits, 0,33 expected hits 1 artillery owned by the Americans lost in Manilla Japanese win, taking Manilla from Americans with 1 artillery and 1 marine remaining. Battle score for attacker is -3 Casualties for Japanese: 1 artillery and 2 infantry Casualties for Americans: 1 artillery and 1 infantry triggerUKPacificDestroyPUsJapanese: Setting destroysPUs to true for playerAttachment attached to UK_Pacific Non Combat Move - Japanese 4 fighters moved from 21 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 5 tactical_bombers moved from 21 Sea Zone to French Indo China 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from 21 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 3 tactical_bombers moved from 21 Sea Zone to Japan 1 fighter moved from 21 Sea Zone to French Indo China 3 fighters moved from 21 Sea Zone to Japan 1 destroyer moved from 45 Sea Zone to 36 Sea Zone 1 submarine moved from 42 Sea Zone to 38 Sea Zone 5 infantry moved from Burma to Eastern India 1 aaGun moved from Burma to Eastern India 1 aaGun moved from French Indo China to Yunnan Place Units - Japanese 1 carrier and 1 submarine placed in 38 Sea Zone 1 infantry placed in Malaya 3 infantry placed in French Indo China Turning on Edit Mode EDIT: Removing units owned by Japanese from 21 Sea Zone: 1 battleship and 2 cruisers EDIT: Adding units owned by Japanese to French Indo China: 3 fighters EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode Turn Complete - Japanese Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 9 Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 7 Sea Zone. Rolls: 6,3,1,6,6,6,2,6,2,4,6,1,2,2,1,6,2,5,3 Japanese collect 26 PUs (9 lost to blockades); end with 38 PUs Objective Japanese 6 Home Islands: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 3 PUs; end with 41 PUs Objective Japanese 4 Control Dutch East Indies: Japanese met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 46 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 51 PUsCombat Hit Differential Summary :
Chinese regular : 1,00 Americans regular : -3,50 Japanese regular : 7,50 ANZAC regular : -0,33 UK_Pacific regular : 0,67 -
Might add that I was slightly stressed for a meeting (got a bit late), but wanted to finish the turn.
-
@AndrewAAGamer bump#4
-
I’m sad to do it, but rules are rules. I’m taking the point at this stage due to time-limits.
Also, the amazing comeback of Japan might have seriously turned around the clock again. I understand if you feel fed up with the game regarding the dice. Think you recently had another sick big battle where you attacked and got diced in the Pac.
Even with the 3 aussie figs I would’ve med the same attack, despite inverted odds, since just allowing the US to run J over is the same as resigning. A shot is always a shot. With a result more close to probability (about 50 TUV-swing instead of 185), it would still be game over for Japan.
Germany has let the russians a bit free when aiming for Cairo, but has a second strong invasion coming (26-29 land-units per turn), so it’s not hopeless. Rather I’m aiming for a serious pressure against Moscow in a couple of turns, which means that the offensive russian units better head back for the old capital in defensive posture.
Cairo should be a very secure take-down. Maybe already two turns from now, but for certain three turns from now. Then Africa is all wide open and UK will decline rapidly.
Italy looks safe enough and will hold with some small german support.
Japan has a serious uphill-struggle in the trying to regain income. Not an easy feat, but also not impossible. US still has strong presence in the Pac with all that air and still earns a lot. Unfortunately they will have to continue to build about 100 % in the Pac to be able to counter Japan, which means Germany will soon explode.
-
@trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:
I’m sad to do it, but rules are rules. I’m taking the point at this stage due to time-limits.
Wow. Surprising…
You know I could tell you were upset about not being able to do some edits based on your last few posts. Frankly I did not understand your attitude since you knew and agreed to the edit policy. In fact, in an IM you said…
Knowing your stand on the matter, I’d try to be very careful when executing my turns, not counting on after-hand edits.
But for whatever reason you felt justified to be angry about my denying you a couple of minor edits recently. So now, when I just made my obvious blunder and forgot to move the 3 ANZAC fighters onto the US fleet, at first I was surprised with the apparent glee you took in attacking and taking advantage of that mistake. You made no mention at all about it and I thought “Okay – he is upset because he could not make edits however Trulpen is a nice guy and once he calms down he will realize that this game needs to be nulled or we go back to before the battle and put my ANZAC fighters back on the US fleet and play it without it being an official game.” After all, when you made your obvious blunder early in the game, with your German Build in the Med, I offered to null the game and do the same for you.
As you know, since we discussed it in depth, I have an edit policy not because I am mean or strict but because I want a mutually fair and even game with no arguments and no hard feelings. I play to have fun. I want to have fun and I want my opponent to have fun. When the game is over, no matter who wins, I want both players to be happy with the experience.
So when you made your obvious German Build blunder and were unhappy about it, because you were a nice guy, I did something I have never done in all my years of gaming. I offered you the chance to null the game and just make it for fun because I did not want any hard feeling over what was a colossal and obvious blunder. So when I did the same thing, when I made a colossal and obvious blunder by forgetting to move my three ANZAC fighters onto the US fleet, I was expecting YOU to offer to null the game. After all if you are a nice guy and an honorable guy you would offer me the exact same courtesy that I offered you. That is the only fair thing to do since I did it for you; at least an honorable person would think that way.
So I waited. I didn’t say anything about the game or the battle and I waited for you to calm down and realize you had to, in the pursuit of fairness, offer to null the game.
But instead what did I get? You claim victory over a time penalty.
Which is really interesting. Because earlier in the game when I was very busy with work and life and you gave me my first time penalty this is what you said…
I understand. I won’t be harsh with bumps, but mainly wanted to make sure you hadn’t forgotten about the game.
Then later after more bumps even though I told you I was busy you said it was not a big deal; I quote…
Anyway, I wouldn’t worry too much about the bump-thing if I were you.
I have never claimed a game due to time-warnings so far, but I think it mainly has to do with my relation to an opponent.
Basically I’m a nice guy, and I look at games as not the end of the world. Still I, as you, have a strong feeling of urging for what I perceive as fairness.
Most important for me is the good feeling of playing and having fun, which is something I can only do together with others. Winning is secondary.
So it turns out that not only are you not a nice guy. Not only are you not an honorable person. You are a liar.
So much for your fairness and winning is secondary philosophy. I can see how important that is to you.
All this over what? A game? Which means what? NOTHING! No one cares about these games. We play them for fun. Sure we all like winning but playing and having fun is paramount. That is why I strive so hard to make sure there are no arguments in the game and it is fair for everyone so when the game is over, win or lose, both players had a good time and are happy about it.
But apparently this particular game means everything to you. You are willing to be a jerk, you are willing to be dishonorable, willing to piss all over your integrity and you are willing to be a liar just to win 1 game. Amazing.
You know for some reason I do not even feel upset about this. I think I should. Maybe I am just in shock. I just feel sad for you.
I thought you were a really nice guy. I had thought I met a new friend online, like @surfer and @majikforce; instead it turns out you are just a jerk and a liar. How disappointing.
So take the game if it means so much to you; I no longer care. Just be assured I will never talk with you or play with you again. I have no interest in playing with a liar and a jerk.
I will continue to do the Tutor game because that is for the community and I made a promise to do it. However, we talked about switching sides and playing a second Tutor game when we are done. I will not do that with you. I will ask the community if they want a second game and if they do I will find another person to be my opponent.
As far as your Tournament I made a commitment to @majikforce to be his partner and I always keep my commitments so I will continue playing. If you have another one in the future I will not participate.
Adios…
-
I think you are very right in most things you say here, if not all. I didn’t feel good about claiming that time-limit. Might have been a little rash in a bit pressed life-situation.
During the weekend, before the USN-slaughter, I had the option for several days, yet abstained.
I may reconsider, although it might also be too late. Especially since I realize you waited for me to offer the null.
Unfortunately I can’t make this conversation justice at the moment, since I lack the time for it, but will try to later. If you don’t want me to, of if you do, then feel free to tell.
-
@trulpen I would reconsider. While I find playing with no edit rules too stressful (even if I rarely make mistakes), Andrew was very upfront about his policy and you agreed to it. If you were similarly upfront about the bump policy, then this would clearly be a case of ‘rules are rules.’
But instead you made multiple mentions saying the bumps dont mean anything until with no notice given, you changed your mind and applied a rule that in this community is never applied like this and probably should be amended based on this.
-
@trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:
I think you are very right in most things you say here, if not all. I didn’t feel good about claiming that time-limit. Might have been a little rash in a bit pressed life-situation.
During the weekend, before the USN-slaughter, I had the option for several days, yet abstained.
I may reconsider, although it might also be too late. Especially since I realize you waited for me to offer the null.
Unfortunately I can’t make this conversation justice at the moment, since I lack the time for it, but will try to later. If you don’t want me to, of if you do, then feel free to tell.
Trulpen - We have a saying in America… “It takes a big man to admit his mistakes.” We all get upset at one point or another and sometimes, unfortunately, we say or do things we really wish we hadn’t said or done. I hope this is that moment for you.
I will await your more detailed conversation. Until you do send that let me throw in my two cents. I see no fair way to officially continue this game. If we do not null the game and only go back and correct my colossal blunder and let me place my ANZAC fighters on the US fleet that is inherently unfair to you as we did not correct your colossal blunder as you turned down my offer. However, since I did offer you to null the game it is only fair you make the same offer to me. Thus the only fair conclusion now is to null the game so neither one of us has to take the loss.
In retrospect I think I made a mistake in not insisting we null the game after your colossal blunder. I was so caught up in admiring your courage to accept your mistake and play on that I failed to consider the long term ramifications once we concluded the game. Unless somehow you could come back from your colossal blunder you of course would have hard feelings that the game continued and rightly so. We should have stopped then. My apologies on that for not thinking it all the way through.
-
It’s easy to misinterpret, but for me it was never about the point itself, but rather something about following rules strictly. I know, 'twas silly and stupid.
I still am trying to express myself more thoroughly. Sorry it takes time.
Anyway, meanwhile, I can inform you, in case you haven’t seen it, that I’ve declared to withdraw the time-limit claim in the post-results-thread.
-
It has now been 3 weeks since my initial reply. Please excuse my prolonged ponder.
I didn’t really understand the immensity of your previous null-offer at the time. I appreciated it then, but more so now. There are simply put a lot of things I don’t understand. A socratelic knowledge which makes my reasoning rather divided, since I try to understand this issue from all different angles and depths.
Earlier I thought the 3 aussie-figs were heading for Calcutta. This turn I didn’t consider (or even see) that they were unmoved in mainland China. The attack on the USN wasn’t executed with glee, but rather desperation. I would’ve still made it with 3 more figs on it and even without those figs it was an objectively very pyrrhic battle. The turn was a very quick one without much reflection. Everything was rather straight-forward. I believe it more or less shows by my changes of the positioning of tr etc before the battle.
A statistical outcome of the battle would’ve left Japan with a lot less air and they would’ve been screwed for certain. Now it was an outcome like one in a million. The japanese demise might still be the case because of the huge income difference, but maybe Japan now has a small shot at fighting for survival.
Missing out on the 3 figs was not even close as big a blunder as losing 120 TUV of fleet for almost certainly free because of a new obscure build-rule. Of course, it was still a blunder and obviously so. Anyhow France, Germany and Russia had moved, so moving them back to the fleet afterwards is not an option in regard to your editing-policy.
I think it’s a very interesting game, despite the previous horrible dice in Calcutta, twice, which shot Japan back to the Medieval Ages.
I suggest that we continue. I will likely lose, but don’t care much about the points.
Lastly, I’ve mulled a lot about the null-option. It’s interesting, but don’t feel it’s the way to go. If we do, I would just resign immediately.
When playing a competitive game in chess (as a suitable analogy) cancelling a game is never an option unless there’s some kind of force majeur. However, in chess it’s possible to agree to a draw. A nullification of this game could be considered a draw.
What do you say we continue this game for now and I’ll continue to try to reflect upon a possible nullification? It’s of course open for discussion as well, although you’ve already presented striking arguments.
-
The map has changed with z38 being divided into z38 and z132. The fleet built should be in z132 then along with a sub moving there.
Another option is to disregard the change, as well as the new J NO, and handle eventual moves by edit.
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:
In retrospect I think I made a mistake in not insisting we null the game after your colossal blunder. I was so caught up in admiring your courage to accept your mistake and play on that I failed to consider the long term ramifications once we concluded the game. Unless somehow you could come back from your colossal blunder you of course would have hard feelings that the game continued and rightly so. We should have stopped then. My apologies on that for not thinking it all the way through.
You offered to null the game. I refrained, which was a choice. No hard feelings.
-
So, I am frankly very disappointed in your response. Especially after I gave you credit for realizing you were being a dishonorable jerk and gave you the opportunity to make amends. Twice now you have hugely disappointed me. There will not be a third time.
Before I say goodbye forever let me address one item first. You are almost correct when you say…
Missing out on the 3 figs was not even close as big a blunder as losing 120 TUV of fleet for almost certainly free because of a new obscure build-rule. Of course, it was still a blunder and obviously so. Anyhow France, Germany and Russia had moved, so moving them back to the fleet afterwards is not an option in regard to your editing-policy.
Yes, the blunders are not comparable but not the way you state. Your blunder resulted in a TUV advantage of +$78 in my favor. Go back and look. For my blunder the expected outcome if my 3 fighters were on the US fleet was -$53. Instead the result was +$185. That is a $238 swing or 3 times as much as your blunder. So, don’t even try and say your blunder cost you more than mine did. Mine cost me three times what yours did.
So, when you had a blunder I offered to make the game just a fun game, or null it as I call it. Yet when I had a blunder that was three times as costly as yours, even though I offered to null the game for you, you did not offer to null the game for me. Now even after I have pointed out to be fair you should have offered to null the game you STILL are not offering to null the game.
Well all I have to say to that is to steal from General McAuliffe… “NUTS!”
I am not going to beg you to do what you should do. I am not going to wait for you to man up. I already have had to do too much to point out the only fair thing is for you to give me the same courtesy that I offered you. For you to say “play on” and I will think about a nullification is just pure horseshit. What am I? Some dog groveling at your feet hoping you will throw me a bone? Go jump in the lake. For someone who says they do not care about the points you are going to extreme measures to try and get them.
I play for fun. I am very busy and what little free time I have I want to enjoy myself and be entertained and have some fun, fair and competitive gaming. I do not want to have to argue or discuss endlessly how to play fairly. That is why I have the edit policy I have to avoid arguments and hard feelings. This game is no longer fun for me. In fact, before I was not mad and now I am. I am angry at your response. I am angry at myself for giving you the opportunity to screw me twice over. I cannot believe that after I pointed out that the only fair thing to do was for you to offer to null the game YOU STILL are not offering me that. Only because I do not like to curse am I not saying the things I am thinking about you right now. This is unbelievable to me. I have NEVER encountered someone who was a big as a jerk as you are. What you say and what you do are complete opposites. What a hypocrite you are. I have more respect for a jerk who acknowledges he is a jerk than someone who says they are a nice guy then is a jerk in reality.
DO NOT TALK TO ME AGAIN!!! We are done. Do what you want with the game; it does not matter to me.
-
I will not respond to Andrew directly, since he explicitly said (or rather shouted) that I shouldn’t. However, since I’m being shamed in public I will write this for anyone else looking into this debacle.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that Andrew’s response makes me sad. It’s emotional and very degrading of my person and I can’t help feeling sorry for him. I never intended to hurt his feelings or provoke him to fury, but seems these events triggered this effect anyway.
It seems to me that Andrew believes that his measures and conclusions always are the correct ones. In an absolute sense. If that’s the case he’s a divine entity and I should be worried as hell.
I wrote an honest answer trying to explain what I think and also keeping options open and he considered it to be “pure horseshit”. That’s his choice.
I’ve seriously considered to cancel the game, but I didn’t catch that ball when I was offered early on and I don’t believe it’s a proper route in latter stages as well. To my eye I’m still having a worse position, so if I cared a lot about the point I’d just grab the opportunity to cancel any points out.
-
Secondly, I have to say I find Andrew’s logic faulty regarding the effects of our blunders. The exaggeration and one-sided argumentation is there, but likely a result of emotional output.
The actual result in UK7 was a 78 TUV-swing, but that’s mainly because of lucky italian dice forcing UK to lose 3 sub, 3 des. It did not matter much however, since it was crushing over-force and the italian navy was soundly annihilated. The expected odds for the battle was 100 % and +100-105 TUV in favour of UK, which this screen-shot shows.
-
The reason UK got such a sweet shot at the italian fleet was because I had planned to build 1 des, 1 ac, 1 bs into z99. Preceeding that was the construction of a mIC in Yugo with simply just this point. Unfortunately I missed out on a new rule which I should’ve been aware of, namely that in P2V capital ships can only be built from territories containing both factory and naval base.
Andrew didn’t allow to change Italy’s setup regarding blockers nor make an exception from the rule in this instance. Changes which he of course was fully entitled to decline. There he offered to cancel the game, but I refrained. So, the italian navy was safely destroyed. No risk whatsoever, since I couldn’t afford to stack air on it in a hopeless effort of defense.
-
Now over to the present situation with the clash in J12 between the two big fleets in the Pac.
The odds were about 75-80 % with and expected TUV-swing of around 45 in favour of Japan. This was without the 3 aussie-figs. With them the odds were more or less reversed with about 35 % and a negative 30-60 TUV.
As I’ve previously explained Japan’s situation is dire and filled with desperation, so I didn’t even look much at any odds but attacked for what it was worth. The result was one in a million with a 182 TUV-swing for Japan.
With a statistical outcome Japan would have too little left to put up a fight. A pyrrhic battle. This might still be the case because of the extremely strong US-prescence in the Pac, but now Japan atleast got a hey-straw to go for.
Incorporating the 3 aussie-figs into the actual battle result, which is rather fishy, would maybe mean 6 more hits over 3 turns (first round was fully soaked and extra losses in round 2 wouldn’t much impact round 3). So the result would be a 152 TUV-swing instead.
The point is that expected and actual results are very different things. The argument that this blunder resulted in a 3 time bigger loss than the one in turn 7 is just wrong. It’s a later stage of the game were there are a lot more units in play and hence larger TUV overall. More importantly the expected outcomes were very different.
It’s not really comparable to be able to wipe out a huge stack securely for almost free as opposed to an unsure battle which is likely extremely costly.
If I could’ve avoided committing to an objectively terrible battle (yes, even with positive odds), I would’ve, but I really had no choice. Had to attack, no matter what. It was a pure act of desperation and coming out of it extremely lucky.
This is the point. This was about dice, not a blunder. I really don’t see why this would enforce a nullification of the game.
If there’s a third point of view out there, I’d be happy to hear it. I’m open to being wrong, but as long as I have not understood that much I will argue my point.
-
@trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:
The reason UK got such a sweet shot at the italian fleet was because I had planned to build 1 des, 1 ac, 1 bs into z99. Preceeding that was the construction of a mIC in Yugo with simply just this point. Unfortunately I missed out on a new rule which I should’ve been aware of, namely that in P2V capital ships can only be built from territories containing both factory and naval base.
Have to add the information that the ships I built had to be put up by Norway instead. That’s serial huge investments for nothing, seriously affecting Germany’s push against Russia (54 IPC less of land units, if the ab in Yugo is still considered sound and still was bought). I’d say that’s pretty big.
-
But then I was also offered a nullification.
-
Is a solution in which the sea battle dices are applied and ANZAC rolls for its 3 figs on rd 1, and then those results are implemented in previous sz 21 results acceptable to both parties?
Suggested Topics
