@gamerman01

Thank you for yeoman’s service all these many years.

@aequitas-et-veritas

If we use badges to represent our interest, then we need to have badge for each possible combination. For example, some players (including myself) might be interested in BM and PoV but not OoB. My recommendation would be:
Infantry = OoB
Arty = BM
Tank = PtV
Sub = OoB + BM
DD = OoB + PtV
CA = BM + PtV
BB = OoB + BM + PtV

That classified Top Secret, but it is a reasonable assumption.

With all those G and J bombers and strong J fleet, I was really sweating it. The Axis was only 1 VC from winning, and the strong move on Hawaii had me scrambling. Thanks for an exciting game.

Thanks for a most interesting game. The constant threat of Allied Atlantic amphibious assaults, the stalemate on the Russian front, the Allied all out attack on Japan, and all those bombers had me really worried for the longest time.
I’d be happy to play again next season.
Best, Art

@666

I’ll give the playoffs a try.

@ArtofWar1947
I am going to have my hands full playing JDOW in playoffs and my ongoing game. But I would welcome a set of re-matches once done with one of these games.

@JDOW

No complaint inferred; I was just trying to respond to your witty comment with an attempt at humor.

FMERommel (AX) over ArtofWar1947 (AL) in a 51-round BM3 marathon. Congratulations to the Field Marshal for a relentless offense. https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33924/fmerommel-x-vs-artofwar1947-l-bm3-19l/776

@axis-dominion
It has not been a a problem.

@gamerman01

Thanks for checking with Administrator LaFayette, Gamerman. I strongly suspect the issue will get more attention coming from you.

@gamerman01

Link did not work because I do not have enough privileges.

@gamerman01

Tried both suggestions and got the same error message: “Error. You do not have enough privileges for this action.”

@gamerman01

I went to TripleA Forum site you cited as having a Marti discussion. However, I did not have the option of making a reply to LaFayette (Admin). I tried to PM him, but got an error message that I did not have enough privileges. Any suggestions?

@trulpen

Thanks for letting me know.

@gamerman01

I use gmail, which has had problems. Trulpen uses hotmail was also listed.

@trulpen

My position about the Round 27 has not changed.

However, what is done about Round 27 seems moot until the issue with Round 21 is resolved.

My point is that claims and counterclaims are not useful in deciding a fair outcome. We need real data to determine what happened.

@gamerman01 said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:

OK, I think I’m caught up and read everything. I go back to the thread where you guys first realized what had happened (round 21).
Art says he got 2 sets of MARTI messages, first with 7 hits, second with 6 hits, “why so?”

/////In my 4:22 PM of 3 April 2022, I actually specified that the two sets of MARTI messages were “for the US round 2.” The mention of 6 hits was a typo; the US/UK got only 4 hits on the “second” roll–almost half fewer than indicated by the first message.

Trulpen says “don’t know, perhaps attack and defense?”

/////There are two tells here.
One is Truplen’s lack of surprise and concern. If he was not aware of the initial better roll by the US/UK, this message should have come as a shock, prompting a careful reading of my email and thoughtful questions. For example, if the police interview the husband of a murdered wife and he does NOT ask key questions (e.g., Are you sure it’s my wife? How was she killed? When and where did this happen?), the behavior is highly suspicious. In this context, key questions might be: Why do you think the two Marti messages are for the same Ally round? What is the subject of each of the emails?
The second interrelated tell is Truplen’s implausible question. Instead of asking questions that would solve the mystery, he asked: "perhaps attack and defense?” Irrelevant, distracting rejoinders are a tool of those with something to hide.

I’m wondering …
Art offers benefit of the doubt and asks if trulpen maybe mistakenly rolled offline, then went online.
Trulpen responds, it’s pretty weird, perhaps I should report it? and tags me and P@nther. Then responds that he did not run local and then online …
If trulpen had deliberately rolled twice because he didn’t like the first result, I don’t think he would have responded the way he did. Specifically, when you (Art) asked trulpen if he perhaps mistakenly rolled offline, then went offline, trulpen said that was not the case. If he deliberately rolled twice, that was his chance to get away with it - he would have said “oh yeah, I accidentally had it in local, then went online” (But now I realize there would be no dice e-mail if you were in local, but apparently you guys didn’t think of that at the time either)

/////I had a situation where an opponent initiated a battle and asked to disregard it, because he thought he was in local mode (and merely trying to simulate a battle) but was in forum mode. It was this type of situation I was trying to ask Trulpen about (i.e. did he THINK he was in local mode to test a combat move but was actually in forum mode). Another possibility just occurred to me: Like Round 27, he started the combat but (for whatever reason) skipped a scramble request and restarted the game (perhaps hoping no MARTI notifications went out, which is plausible–if as he claims–he received no emails from an initial battle).

////In any case, there are three major problems with changing his story.
One is that changing your defense risks getting caught in a contradiction. As any 3-year-old or politician will do: It’s better to deny, deny, deny (until confronted with irrefutable proof of guilt).
A second is that belatedly admitting he initiated a first battle would make him look bad. It would raise questions such as: Why did he not offer the excuse at my first inquiry? Why the initial cover up?
A third reason is that I could then legitimately claim the first dice rolls (highly unfavorable to him and highly favorable to me) should stand. In effect, he would be adopting an alibi that uncover the very thing he was trying to cover up.
In brief, it would have been incredibly stupid for Trulpen to change his story to “it was an accident.” No one is accusing Trulpen, who is smart and a strategic thinker, of being incredibly stupid.

/////Tagging you and P@nther is a smart move. It only backfires IF you (or an AA programmer/tech) check the metadata to see what actually happened.

/////A question that needs to be asked is: Does smell-test analysis or the present analysis align better with the strong circumstantial evidence that can best be explained by cheating. Note that Trulpen now agrees that it is unlikely that a third party initiated the problem, and he did not refute that a bug is almost as unlikely the explanation. In brief, the only way to resolve the disagreement fair to both parties is an objective examination of the metadata.

@gamerman01

I am tied up in meetings all day today and tomorrow. I will try to respond on Wednesday.

@trulpen said in L22 #1 trulpen (X+6) vs ArtofWar1947 (A) P2V:

Another point that can be made is that of the hundreds of games I’ve played here in the league since 2019 there have been some disputes (like with you regarding the map of P2V the previous season), but I’ve never been accused of cheating before. And I have never cheated. Disregarding dice is a glaring offence. Why would I knowingly do so? In a game I was clearly winning? Makes no sense.

I wish there was a more plausible explanation, and perhaps an analysis of meta-data will reveal it. Nevertheless, it is not obvious that you were clearly winning in Round 21 and that the German air force (without subs and ships to soak hits) could afford serious loses (as would have been the case if initial US/UK defensive roll stood).

Moreover, I would think that someone who clearly felt in command of a game would have graciously accepted the initial German sub roll in Round 27 for four reasons: (1) The mistake was on your part, not mine. If anyone should bear a disadvantage as a result, it should be you, not me. (2) Clearly, I planned to scramble 3 fighters. Not scrambling would make no sense. (3) Dice rolls are sacred and should not be ignored without a good cause for which there is a consensus. (4) It looks unsporting when the dice roll is unfavorable. (With the two sub misses, the chance of a German victory drops to less than 50%. But should this matter if you are clearly winning?)

Importantly, your continued insistence on disregarding the German sub roll in Round 27 reinforces the concern you willing disregarded the initial unfavorable roll(s) in Round 27.