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

[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.

[Pejon_88]

@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 :)

[Adam514]

@pejon_88 That’s interesting.

[Pejon_88]

@gamerman01 would this affect anything?

[Adam514]

@pejon_88 It doesn’t change my conclusion.

[Pejon_88]

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 Zone

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Savegame

[Pejon_88]

@trulpen I removed one fighter from the battle. Scramble?

[trulpen]

@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.

[Pejon_88]

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 Zone

    Combat - British
        Germans scrambles 3 units out of Western Germany to defend against the attack in 115 Sea Zone
        Battle in Greece
        Battle in Crete
        Battle in 115 Sea Zone
            British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 8 fighters, 3 submarines, 2 tactical_bombers and 2 transports
            Germans defend with 3 carriers, 1 destroyer, 6 fighters, 4 submarines and 3 tactical_bombers
                British roll dice for 3 submarines in 115 Sea Zone, round 2 : 0/3 hits, 1,00 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 3 destroyers, 8 fighters, 2 tactical_bombers and 2 transports in 115 Sea Zone, round 2 : 6/15 hits, 7,33 expected hits

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

British regular : -2,33

Savegame

[Pejon_88]

6 hits. Casualties?

[trulpen]

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

6 hits. Casualties?

Max d blir bra.

Skada 3 ac och sänk 3 sub.

[Pejon_88]

@trulpen Så. Concede.

[ksmckay]

@pejon_88 utterly shameful gamesmanship and hypocrisy on trulpens part.

If it hadnt been for one battle in china (that obviously had no impact on these events) then pejon would have been able to do whatever within the bounds of the rules. .

Only the strictest no edit policy (which by necessity the rules must advocate) would support the way things played out. This interpretation of the rules would essentially qualify trulpens edit policy as the strictest I have ever seen on this forum - hence the hypocrisy, since in any other situation or if the situation was reversed trulpen would ask for and complain for the same thing.

Particularly considering how related the ‘bug’ directly relates to the situation.

Basically, trulpen is advertising that he expects others to play with a loose edit policy but they should know that given the opportunity for trulpen to exploit the rules to give himself a game advantage he wont play with the same rule policy.

Absolutely ridiculous and shameful but within the league rules.