L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V

[Pejon_88]

@Panther @gamerman01 @trulpen

Hi both. Could you please look at the dispute between @trulpen and myself. Apologies for forum posts being in Swedish, but I will help translate anything if needed.

So the scenario is as follows. I am playing Allies and during the combat move, turn 6, I moved my six aircraft to SZ115 from Leningrad, which were supposed to land on two US carriers and one UK carrier. So far, so good. What makes things difficult is that I (during the UK turn, which will prove important going ahead) accidentally edited a US fig from London to one of the US carriers even though it is clear as day that I would want to use all available resources in the upcoming attack. Problem arises when that leaves one less spot for one of the six aircrafts coming from Leningrad to participate in the attack. What happened is that I posted the save file (British round 6) with the six aircraft from Leningrad and asked for scramble orders and if possible OOL form trulpen. Please see my train of thought as to why I believe I should be allowed to re-do/skip the edit of the US fig to the US carrier shown in descending order of importance.

1. Please look at screen shot provided in the thread, posted 10 days ago. I have clearly proven that the game is bugged in regards to showing incorrect info for number of possible participating aircraft in the attack due to number of landing spots. As mentioned above I edited the US fig to the AC during the UK turn. I have proven that the game shows incorrect info when edits are done during the current turn, i.e. UK’s. When doing an edit on a previous nation’s turn (China for example), the game correctly states that there are not enough landing spots for six aircraft coming from Leningrad, thus I could have re-done the US fig edit before posting. The post shows how things look when edits are done on previous nations turn’s. I have tried and allocate 4 figs + 2 tacs, but the game correctly allows only 4 figs.
2. Truplen has not yet mentioned whether he wants to scramble or not. Nothing has therefore happened between the post and my explanation of the obvious bug (dice thrown etc.).
3. Trulpen acknowledges to above statement about the bug in a comment, but does nothing to argue against it and when I say that any discussion is irrelevant since I have clearly proven the game bugged he just answers “absolutely”, which indicates that he agrees.
4. Trulpen brings the argument that he has also messed up during the game, but that is not really a valid argument since mess ups and game bugs are two different things.
5. Trulpen says that in a more even game (which by the way is a subjective opinion on his part), he would have allowed the change without hesitation. That proves that he does not even try to think objective when considering allowing an opponent to make an edit.

Simply put, I would like to have an outside opinion since I feel that I have been treated unjustly in the matter. I feel that his sense of fair play is at best questionable. He is known, as am I, to allow edits in any game, which is why I was very surprised when he vigorously argued against. I have been known to accept far worse edits than the one above in our previous games (after dice were rolled, which is usually a point of no return for most players). My main argument is still the proved bug, since fair play is not a hard fact, but rather something to be expected.

[trulpen]

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

@Panther @gamerman01

I agree that it probably looks very strange and bad that I won’t allow to undo this particular edit (especially since I and Peter are, or perhaps were, friends IRL). My game history here is strewn with edits and I usually allow them very liberally. However, I don’t have a written formula or maifesto for edits, but relate to them when they arise.

Anyway, here is my line of thought.

I have allowed the edit of the US-fig to the carrier in z113. Although I did not get a request for it, it’s common in the games I play that such edits are executed freely and usually allowed on an auto-basis, but always with an option of denial.

Then I got the scramble-request for the attack on z115.

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.

I could certainly allow this, but since Axis is on a definite decline with a clearly worse position, I just said no. To my eye the position is locked when my opponent has asked for scramble-orders. He did an edit by choice earlier and it doesn’t matter if it was bad. The one who could deny the edit is the opponent, but I didn’t.

I have waited to unfold my orders of scramble because this issue of how many planes can attack from Leningrad had to be solved first.

Ok, so I made a clear mistake of allowing a devastating attack. Sure, it’s only 80 % with all 6 air from Leningrad, but after the annihilation of the german fleet it’s pretty much game over. With one less fig in the attack, UK still has 60 %, but atleast there’s a fighting chance. If superstitious, Germany would crush it with the full attack and would miserably fail with better odds, so I’m really shooting myself in the foot here. ;)

Anyway, as I see it I made a big mistake and my opponent returned the favour with a less big mistake of putting a US-fig on a carrier, denying one landing-spot.

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).

I have offered the option of cancelling the attack, and if so with further changes of fleet-placement. If however the attack is still to be made, then y stance is that only 5 air from Leningrad may be included.

[Pejon_88]

First of all, only thing we can actually ask from an outside party is to look at any hard facts; in this matter whether the proved bug makes a difference or not. Only reason I brought this up is because I believe that I have something tangible here other than a none agreed upon edit policy. My points 2-5 above were simply added to back my decision as to why I thought I was entitled to at least bring this matter to an outside party’s attention.

Second of all I want to clarify a couple of things from trulpen’s response.

1. “I have allowed the edit of the US-fig to the carrier in z113.” Note that he has nowhere commented on such a acknowledgment until now, when it backs his claim.

2. “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.

Me assigning all 6 Leningrad aircrafts in the attack obviously meant that I had planned landing spots for all of these, otherwise I would not have assigned them. When the game didn’t object I thought everything was dandy as planned and posted.

3. “I could certainly allow this, but since Axis is on a definite decline with a clearly worse position, I just said no.” Who is winning and not is most subjective. To my eye the position is locked when my opponent has asked for scramble-orders. He did an edit by choice earlier and it doesn’t matter if it was bad. The one who could deny the edit is the opponent, but I didn’t." 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…

4. “I have waited to unfold my orders of scramble because this issue of how many planes can attack from Leningrad had to be solved first.” Fair enough.

5. "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

Ok, so this all has come to a rather low level, but all I am trying to do is make ground for my decision to post anything in the very beginning. Of course this can happen when playing with a non-defined edit policy, but I hope that my main points have been made clear?

Cheers!

[trulpen]

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

2. “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.

3. […] 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…

5. "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.

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.

[Panther]

@Pejon_88 @trulpen
As I have been addressed directly I at least owe you a reaction.

I kindly ask your for your understanding, that I will not act as judge for procedural questions in League Play. My role on this forum is time consuming enough - and the league definitely is @gamerman01 's “baby”, so judging about your issue is his part, that I cannot and will not take over.

I simply do not have the time to assist here, too.

However - in case your issue does include a rule question that can be answered by official rule sets I will be happy to weigh in of course. In that case please ask - and I will provide an answer soon.

Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

[Pejon_88]

@panther Thank you for your reply here. I was not sure who was responsible, why I tagged you both. This is definitely not an official rule question, I can say as much :)

Eagerly awaiting a reply from @gamerman01 instead.

[Pejon_88]

“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

[trulpen]

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

“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.

Yes, I overlooked the 6 air in Leningrad. As I’ve previously also stated (even seen in the above quote). Why is that important?

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.

It’s completely true. I addressed only the existing carriers in z113, hence only refered to 3 figs. It was completely evident that 1 UK-carrier was in the battle and therefore justified 2 of the air, supposedly 1 fig, 1 tac.

I’ll quote what I said and then translate it, although this is completely off the issue, of course.

@trulpen said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

Scramble SZ115?

Sitter på en dålig dator, så kan ha fel, men tycker att det ser ut som att du gjort ett otillåtet drag.

Du har 6 plan som åker från Leningrad.

3 kan landa på befintliga hangarskepp i z113, men det är inte tillåtet för plan som attackerar att landa på nybyggda hangarskepp om det är ända platsen de kan landa på.

Translation:

"Sitting on a bad computer, so might be wrong, but think it looks like you’ve made an illegal move.

You have 6 planes that go from Leningrad.

3 can land on existing carriers in z113, but it is not allowed for air that attacks to land on newly build carriers if it is the only place they can land on."

I’m not addressing 2 of the planes because of said circumstance of an existing carrier in z115. It does not imply at all that I missed the existing UK-carrier. I did not. This is completely evident since I specifically addressed only z113, so it’s actually a mouthful when you say “not entirely true”.

[gamerman01]

Guys, normally I would love to investigate your issues and questions and help as much as I can, but very recently including today, my mind has been blown and I am trying to come back down to earth. Either wait several days for me to get back to being my helpful self, or get help from another league player who’s trusted, such as JDOW or Adam514 for example. I hope this helps.

Please send happy and encouraging thoughts my way - they will help me for sure.

Huge thanks to @Panther for again being very careful with your word and deferring league questions to me. Respect.

[trulpen]

No stress on my part.

Happy and encouraging thoughts sent!

[Pejon_88]

@gamerman01 Thanks, no problem. I will add @Adam514 and @JDOW for their input if they want to address anything? As you all can see quite clearly, the issue has blown a bit out of proportion, but not to the extent that it will affect trulpen’s and my relationship. We have spoken outside the forum.

To summarize my side of things. I feel unjustly treated based on how we have previously treated one another during both AAA games and tabletop AA, which I think is clear from my posts. I think that proof of the bug can support my case and therefore brought it up to your attention. All other points are really a matter between players and is hard for someone from outside to judge and would by itself not warrant this discussion. Hope I have made my side clear.

[Panther]

@gamerman01 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

Please send happy and encouraging thoughts my way - they will help me for sure.

Take care of yourself and get well soon. All the best!

[Pejon_88]

@panther @Adam514 and @JDOW Hi all, have you had a chance to look at this? Thanks!

[Panther]

@pejon_88 Please see again: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1514607

[Adam514]

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

@panther @Adam514 and @JDOW Hi all, have you had a chance to look at this? Thanks!

I’ve been quite busy but I’ve taken a quick look, but I don’t quite understand the situation. Could I get a step by step breakdown in chronological order that you both agree on?

[trulpen]

@adam514 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

@panther @Adam514 and @JDOW Hi all, have you had a chance to look at this? Thanks!

I’ve been quite busy but I’ve taken a quick look, but I don’t quite understand the situation. Could I get a step by step breakdown in chronological order that you both agree on?

I can give a try to condensate. Peter will have to confirm the picture.

[trulpen]

• During US6 all 3 figs landed in London.

• 1 US-fig was edited unto a carrier in z113 in the UK6 buy-phase.

• This edit is not protested.

• A full-scale UK-attack was designated towards z115, including 4 fig, 2 tac from Leningrad and a scramble-request was issued.

• 2 of those air may use the UK-carrier involved in the attack, while the other air have to land on existing carriers elsewhere, i e the 2 US-carriers.

• Since air is not allowed to land after an attack on newly built carriers if that is the only space available, only 5 air is allowed to attack from Leningrad (obviously 1 fig).

• Therefore the present attack is illegal, which I pointed out after looking at the situation deciding upon scramble.

• I gave my opponent the option of either using 1 fig less in the attack and carry on (60 % instead of 80 %) or cancel the attack altogether, then including the possibility of changing overall fleet positioning, also regarding the US ships.

• My opponent feels this is unfair and contests my decision, partly because the client did not notify that all air could not attack and partly because of our mutual history of edit leniency.

[trulpen]

@trulpen said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:

• Since air is not allowed to land after an attack on newly built carriers if that is the only space available, only 5 air is allowed to attack from Leningrad (obviously 1 fig would abstain).

[Pejon_88]

Apologies @Panther. I meant to tag @gamerman01.

Well put @trulpen.

Explained in slightly more condensed version based on the accurate facts stated by trulpen, I feel I have a case because the edit of the US fig was done in the buy phase UK6 just before CM UK6 (i.e. not in previous nations’ turns) and that I about 30 seconds later posted an attack that should have been illegal based on the edit, which in itself hadn’t affected anything up until the post. I have proven that the game was bugged (please see the previous post with the screen shot if needed) and didn’t notify me of the wrong CM, which would have been the case if I had edited on US6 or CH6.

However, it was due of the edit leniency we started arguing, which by itself is not a matter anyone else should have a say in since it is based on a mutual understanding. If I had not been able to prove the bug, I wouldn’t really have any other valid arguments since the opponent clearly needs to approve any edits, no matter how small or insignificant they might seem to either player.

To put in in one sentence. I feel that I should have been allowed to undo the edit without any fuss based on our history both as friends and how previous games been handled in regards to edits, but felt needed to use the bug as ammunition to strengthen my argument.

@Adam514 or @gamerman01, what do you say?

[Adam514]

With a strict application of the rules, your opponent must accept for an edit to be legal, even to reverse a previous edit, so he can always refuse the reverse edit.

Beware of trusting the engine to show legal combat moves. Even in the original game there were instances of wrong engine evaluation. In PTV the engine doesn’t even consider it illegal to have to land on newly built carriers for an attack to be legal.