But this goes back to our first game.
The whole point of the first game was to test the Japan to Mongolia move.
So I deliberately set up defense for it. But you didn’t use it.
I was prepared to learn why you thought it worked.
Whether it was needed in that game or not I find irrelevant, I still thought you were going to show me. I thought we were testing something in a real game scenerio with unfamiliar players.
But you didn’t use it, and now you use that game as a great example when we didn’t even test what we were going to test.
That’s like me saying Power Africa works because it lets you use a PE strat.
My point is are we playing a game for a “learing experience” or are we “playing to win”.
I was under the impression we are playing to win. So maybe I did do something “desperate”, but it gives me a better chance of winning against someone who has said 22 is not a high enough bid.
I over played for Mon in game 1 and it wasn’t used, you played for PA in game 2 and it wasn’t used.
Seems fair to me.
I have no problem play a “learning” game. We don’t even need a dice roller for that. We can submit turns and just type out what we’ll do and decide fair outcomes on battles. I’m an honest player, I know what battles I should and shouldn’t win. We can do it that.
I was just under the impression, this was my rematch, and I want to win it. If that means “desperate” tactics, then so be it.
See, in your eyes 22 isn’t enough, my job is to try and show it can work. Attacking Kar??? Maybe it was bad, but I can’t possibly believe leaving the UK BB AND sub in the Med was going to help me much.
And if I known I was going to get no hits in Egy, that would changed things as well. I assumed you may have countered there regardless since I only placed 4 inf on Lib to begin with.