12L, AA50-41, Ol' Blood&Guts (Axis) vs. Boldfresh (Allies+7), no tech, + NOs

[boldfresh]

one aa shot and everything else whiffs.  well, better than nothing i guess….  :lol:

[boldfresh]

i see the marker is missing from kia for japan, i put it back

R2 - with 31 buys 4 inf, art, 3 arm

CM

ukr () - 6 inf (cau), inf (euk)
bst () - inf (bel)
man () - inf (bry)

NC

bel - inf (arc)
rus - art (arc), inf (nov)
ukr - aa (cau)
cau - 2 arm (rus)
ura - inf (eve)
stc - 6 inf (bry)
z12 - sub (z6)

place 4 inf, art (rus)
place 3 arm (cau)

collect 32, has 32

OBG_vs_Bold_02bR.AAM

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

i see the marker is missing from kia for japan, i put it back

Thanks for catching that…it appears to have went AWOL on the US map. The Italy map still had the flag on Kia.

@Boldfresh:

CM

ukr () - 6 inf (cau), inf (euk)

NC

bel - inf (arc)
rus - art (arc), inf (nov)
ukr - aa (cau)
cau - 2 arm (rus)
ura - inf (eve)
stc - 6 inf (bry)
z12 - sub (z6)

You have an infantry present on Euk. However, with the combination of your 7 inf attack on Ukr (6 from Cau and 1 from Euk) and your noncoms, there are no inf in Euk after Russia’s turn. I will fix it on this map.

Jap2-Buy: cv, dd, 2 inf, 2 art…save 0

CM
1. art Phi/inf Jap/2ftr sz62/ftr FIC => Man inf
2. 2inf Sum => Egy
3. inf Yun => Bur
4. 2inf Bor/ftr FIC/2ftr sz37 => Ind inf
5. cru bb sz50/cv 2ftr sz60 => sz48 dd
6. 3inf Sui => Nin
7. 3inf Sui/ftr FIC => Hup inf
8. inf art Phi => Ngu
9. inf Jap => Kwa
10. inf arm Jap => Fuk

Man
A-inf art 3ftr
Rolls: 2@2 3@3; Total Hits: 42@2: (1, 6)3@3: (1, 1, 2)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)

[Guest]

Man twlo inf

Ind
A-2inf 3ftr
Rolls: 2@1 3@3; Total Hits: 32@1: (3, 3)3@3: (2, 3, 3)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)

[Guest]

Ind twlo inf

sz48
A-cv 2ftr cru bb
Rolls: 1@1 3@3 1@4; Total Hits: 11@1: (2)3@3: (6, 4, 1)1@4: (5)
D-dd
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (3)

[boldfresh]

Oh yeah meant not to take the euk inf to Ukraine and no dice were rolled so the map is what I wanted.  if no dice are rolled I think we should ask if there is a discrepancy between the map and the typing.

[Guest]

sz48 cwol, Ngu twol

Hup
A-3inf ftr
Rolls: 3@1 1@3; Total Hits: 03@1: (3, 6, 2)1@3: (4)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)

[Guest]

Hup
A-2inf ftr
Rolls: 3@1 1@3; Total Hits: 03@1: (2, 2, 6)1@3: (5)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (6)

[Guest]

oops…forgot to delete one inf roll

Hup
A-2inf ftr
Rolls: 2@1 1@3; Total Hits: 02@1: (4, 3)1@3: (4)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (5)

[Guest]

Hup
A-2inf ftr
Rolls: 2@1 1@3; Total Hits: 02@1: (2, 6)1@3: (4)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 01@2: (5)

[boldfresh]

I know that may seem to contradict what I said about typing of combat moves but for me that only applies after a dice has been rolled.

[Guest]

see what I mean about rolling dice better at work  :roll:

Hup
A-2inf ftr
Rolls: 2@1 1@3; Total Hits: 12@1: (5, 4)1@3: (3)
D-inf
Rolls: 1@2; Total Hits: 11@2: (1)

[boldfresh]

Yes u really must make more evening moves…  :evil:

[boldfresh]

To be specific, if the map is different from typing on a move where no dice were rolled, we just ask what was intended.  cool?

[Guest]

Hup twlo 2inf

NCM
cv sz37 => sz35
2ftr Ind => sz35
ftr Ind => FIC
ftr Hup => sz61
ftr Man => sz61
dd cv sz62 => sz61
2ftr Man => sz62

Mobilize
2inf 2art in Jap
dd cv in sz62

Collect: 56

OBG_vs_Bold_02cJ.AAM

[Guest]

@Boldfresh:

I know that may seem to contradict what I said about typing of combat moves but for me that only applies after a dice has been rolled.

@Boldfresh:

i always prefer to stick to combat moves exactly as typed and i thought you were the same?

@Boldfresh:

cuts out all ambiguity.  had kar gone horribly, you would not want those tanks in bst.  so for the sake of cutting out all possible issues, i go with combat moves as typed, including walkins, sbrs, and autokills of transports

I have to say with go with as they are typed and posted. As you stated previously, it includes walk-ins as well and takes out any possible issues.

[Guest]

And it does have a significant effect on the game since the stack of 5 Russian armor are exposed. So it opens the issue of using the Brits to protect them.

[boldfresh]

I disagree.  the map showed an infantry in euk obviously to block.  that infantry can get there in noncombat from Russia so either way it is there.  if you want to enforce that the infantry from euk went to Ukraine that fine but then I noncombat the infantry to euk.

[boldfresh]

here’s the map i want to proceed with (inf from rus noncombats to euk).  i will wait to hear from you in case you disagree - in which case, we can get a ruling from the moderators.  it would be one thing if the infantry were unable to get there from russia in noncombat.  but still, the simple fact that there was a discrepancy between the map and the typing, in my opinion you should have stopped and asked if i intended to not have the inf from euk go to cau in combat or if i wanted to send an inf from rus to euk in noncombat.  i guess i’m ok with you enforcing strict combat move typing (even though dice weren’t thrown) but you cannot in my opinion not allow me to noncombat the inf to euk as the map showed it there (obviously to block).  by walkins needing to be posted in the combat move, it avoids the outcome of the dice to be known before choosing to do a walkin (ie, all my dice went great so i will now say i intended to do a walkin, etc).

it’s really not worth fighting over imho - hopefully you agree and we can keep moving.

thanks

OBG_vs_Bold_02cJ.AAM

[boldfresh]

let me explain my policy on the strick enforcement of combat move typing just so it can be completely clear tha I am not being a hypocrite here.

for me, it’s all about eliminating the possiblity that one can see the results of rolls and THEN add or remove combat moves.  in the case i was referring to, where on your G1 you asked to send 2 more arm to bst, you had already seen results of several rolls before doing so.  i’m not saying you would cheat in any way, but a person could roll some rolls and keept a couple of tanks free in order to noncom then to reinforce certain positions, etc, so after seeing some rolls to say, wait i had two more tanks going to X territory should be off limits.  same thing with walkins and autokills of transports because if some battles went well, then sending a plane to kill a tranny or sending a tank through a couple of territories might be more attractive.

now, if a person had only posted their combat moves but had not rolled dice, to me it is perfectly fine if they add or remove combat moves, as long as no dice have been thrown.  in this case, i posted combat and noncombat/placement in a single post.  the map contradicted the typing.  in that case, i believe it should be addressed by asking the person what they intended to do.  i do not think i should have to move the infantry from euk into ukr on combat since the map shows otherwise clearly.  in addition, it is different to say i want to send more or less to a territory in combat move when it is just a walkin vs. saying oops, i meant to send this inf on a walkin to X territory, especially when no dice have been thrown.

regardless, i am willing to go ahead and put the additional infantry in ukr, but then i will noncom an inf from rus to euk to block, as i obviously intended.  i would PREFER to leave the map exactly as i posted since no dice were thrown and there were no missed walkins, it was just an issue of how many infantry went to ukr.

let me know what you want to do.  i don’t want to get crossways here, this seems very straightforward to me.  but if you want to involve a moderator that is fine with me.

thanks,