I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up. And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey! What were thsoe dice?” 🙂
Okay, I have created a “Make game record page” which creates records that AACalc will soon be able to log to - another couple hours coding should do it. This also incorporates an optional bidding function.
One question that was raised about bidding in software development forum was whether we should use an “Ebay” style bid where the winning bidder gets their optimal bid - ie. if you bid 0 and the other guy bid 10, then you would get it for 9 - so your bid is how low you are willing to go, but you don’t necessarily have to go that low. It’s an interesting concept, and I could just make a choice on my page for which bid system to use.
Thoughts? Would A&A.org consider switching to this bid? It would make the bid less nerve-racking because you know you won’t be leaving money “on the table”. Eg. I just bid 7 for my round 2 game against a player who took the bid for 10 in round 1. If he bid 10 again this time, I could have had it for 9. Of course with that you can’t declare your bid placement with your bid (or you could just get the change in $ to the bank) because you don’t know exactly what it will be yet.
If the attacker retreats and there is no more CV for the planes involved in the defense, all defending figs get one movement point to escape to friendly territory or SZ (if there is a carrier with capacity handy). Since Hawaii is US/Allied control, both the US fig and the Brit fig can land there.
The same would apply in any other cases - say germans attack allied fleet in north sea protected by US planes. If CV is sunk then germans retreat, US planes could escape to UK (or any other adjacent allied territory) on germany’s turn.