“I simply overlooked the reach of the air from Leningrad, but when looking at the position I noticed that there was a fig on a carrier in z113, so not all 6 air could attack. I notified my opponent about this, who immediately simply stated that he’d undo the edit and continue with the attack”. What he really did was to state that I could only attack with 3 of these since air crafts since he had grossly miscalculated the whole scenario, when indeed 5 (or 6) could attack. Why is this important? It is because it proves that my edit of the US fig did not affect his calculated odds in the attack at all. He had overlooked the whole air fleet from Leningrad in the first place. Now he is simply trying to even out the attack a bit in retrospect.
I did not say such a thing. I said that only 3, not 4, of the planes could land in z113. In that statement it’s obvious that the other 2 planes could attack because of the UK-carrier included in the attack, ergo, my point was that only 5 planes could attack from Leningrad, not 6. Not entirely true though. Loosely translated you indicate that 3 planes could land on existing carriers and also correctly stating that newly built carriers are not eligible landing spots in the same sentence. This, at least, implies that you missed the existing UK carrier of which cargo will land safely in London, leaving two additional landing spots for Leningrad planes. This is important, as mentioned before, since it means that (at least) two additional planes could participate in the attack which were not accounted for. The only other plausible scenarios I can think of are a: that you would invite me for a 80% attack from the beginning or b: you missed my whole Leningrad stack (which has been indicated before) and only in hindsight tried to mitigate as much as possible by denying my extra spot on the US carrier.
[…] **In this particular instance deciding scramble orders is when things are a no-go to him. Reverting back to my example in our other game when he was allowed to cancel an entire attack after dice were rolled, hmm…**
Do not really understand the argument here… Apologies, bad sentence. What I meant is that in this particular scenario you suddenly came up with a rule of thumb stating that when scrambles are asked for, there are no more edits allowed pretty much. Then I compared to the now known scenario in our last game where basically a whole CM with dice rolled and everything was changed. Quite a leap!
"I believe this situation is really pretty simple when looking at the hard facts. It’s the player’s responsibility to handle the rules, not the client’s. Ergo, “the bug” is irrelevant. The question of fair play is another matter, but I don’t think it’s a strict part of the issue. Previously allowed edits does not prove a point either, since the circumstances are very different (like in the example of being allowed to cancel a fully successful attack, but where the landing air would be compromised, in a game I was clearly losing by then). Another subjective opinion. I don’t remember trulpen being in a definite losing position at the time. What it does though is solidifying my opinion that fair play seems to be a one-way street
Not a fair point actually, since I’ve also allowed a lot of edits in my days, also in games between said parties. Absolutely, we have always been on the same level regarding edits, which but once again proves my point, why suddenly go all rule-Nazi and for a much, much lesser thing than what we have allowed before?
However, I do agree that my decision here might seem highly inconsequential, since I usually allow almost all edits put forth. I always do look at the position though, and if there is any irregularity or impact I might deny an edit. Doesn’t happen very often, but it does happen from time to time. Then please go ahead and justify your sudden change in philosophy
