I can’t see a reason why the scrambled fighter can’t land in Normandy.
L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V
-
@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”.
-
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.
-
No stress on my part.
Happy and encouraging thoughts sent!
-
@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.
-
@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 Please see again: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/1514607
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
-
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 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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
@adam514 Thank you for your input.
Just to clarify that even in this scenario where I have shown that when the edit is done on the current nation’s turn, the engine gives out different/faulty information compared to if the edit is done a previous nation’s turn?
The blue arrow in the screenshot shows the yellow triangle indicating that not all selected planes from Leningrad can participate in the attack due to lack of landing spots. Note that I have built a carrier, but still the attack is (correctly) indicated as illegal :)
-
@pejon_88 That’s interesting.
-
@gamerman01 would this affect anything?
-
@pejon_88 It doesn’t change my conclusion.
-
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post: British round 6
TripleA Manual Gamesave Post for game: WW2 Path to Victory, version: 6.1.0
Game History
Round: 6 Combat Move - British 1 bomber and 2 fighters moved from United Kingdom to 115 Sea Zone 4 fighters and 2 tactical_bombers moved from Leningrad to 115 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Shan State to Malaya UK_Pacific take Malaya from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Shan State to Siam UK_Pacific take Siam from Japanese 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Shan State to French Indo China 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Burma to Yunnan 10 infantry moved from Shan State to Yunnan 1 armour and 2 mech_infantrys moved from Anglo-Egyptian Sudan to French Central Africa 1 infantry moved from Alexandria to Tobruk British take Tobruk from Italians 2 infantry moved from Egypt to 83 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 83 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 101 Sea Zone to Greece 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to 83 Sea Zone 1 artillery, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 83 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 101 Sea Zone to Cyprus 1 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to 83 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 83 Sea Zone to 100 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Alexandria to 100 Sea Zone 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 100 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 101 Sea Zone to Crete 1 battleship and 1 cruiser moved from 83 Sea Zone to 101 Sea Zone 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 2 fighters, 3 submarines and 2 transports moved from 113 Sea Zone to 115 Sea ZoneCombat Hit Differential Summary :
-
@trulpen I removed one fighter from the battle. Scramble?
-
@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:
@trulpen I removed one fighter from the battle. Scramble?
What I remember I don’t really have any choice either way. Full scramble, please.
Suggested Topics
