I went back a few pages looking for the illegal Italy move - might be the NyQuil - but I didn’t get it - what was illegal about it? Plus - as I said - if a move is illegal, it probably should be corrected - assuming you have not moved too far along…
MM
The game was over as you had activated the true neutrals and I was in position to take all of them at the time.
jeff, i activated the true neutrals on the immediate german turn to that italian turn so your position did not change at all, you were in the very same position to take them all. and i did it to set up the very move i am making.
I went back a few pages looking for the illegal Italy move - might be the NyQuil - but I didn’t get it - what was illegal about it? Plus - as I said - if a move is illegal, it probably should be corrected - assuming you have not moved too far along…
MM
MM, the issue was something that almost no one currently playing global would have understood completely. the issue is this, on the turn you attack a true neutral, you cannot fly over the territory on combat move except to attack that territory. what i had done was declare war on the neutrals and then flew over turkey with a fighter from southern ital to attack NW persia. it was 4 spaces to NW persia from southern italy and i had a landing spot in the middle east. without flying over turkey, it is 5 spaces from southern italy to NW persia.
so basically, with the fighter, i had a 50/50 shot at clearing NW persia which would have allowed a crushing blow to an allied stack in iraq.
as it turned out, i didn’t clear the territory with the italians, but then soon after was reading up on the rules and decided to find out for good if what i had done was legal. after much discussion and confusion, krieghund (the final authority) stated definitively that you cannot fly over a neutral on combat move unless attacking it. HOWEVER, you can fly over it in NONCOMBAT move if you have attacked it. the problem was, TripleA allowed the move incorrectly. i told Jeff i truly would not have attempted the move if tripleA hadn’t allowed it because i would have had only a 25% chance at clearing NW persia. it was not something i felt i needed, but i thought at 50/50, it was worth the risk. but at 25% it was not.
anyway, i requested that jeff consider the full situation and after mutual agreement, we did an italian move redo although i did edit in the infantry hit he had made on the first move in normandy. and i did not use my air elsewhere, when i had some other options with it.
I have only seen that come up one other time - and in that game, when it was asked - the attacker just decided to agree it probably wasn’t legal and redid the whole move.
It is always a tough situation where the AI in the game allows you to do something that is illegal per the rules. TripleA has several of these bugs - and the good news is they rarely come up or everyone knows how to work around them (or both).
If I may - one of the things I do each summer is go to GenCon to help my good friend run all of the A&A tournaments there. One of my responsibilities is to also make rulings when needed. In cases where someone has made an illegal move - if it is caught right away, you can go back and fix it. If any dice or pieces have been moved - typically the move has to stand - because unlike on this board, it is hard to guarantee you can get the board back to exactly the way it was.
That being said - in the case of Italy - this illegal move was revoked and rightfully so. I do not even consider that to be a fudge or edit, because you are just correcting an error in the game. In fact - lets say that your attack worked - and you cleared the space. Then the Allies get hammered. THEN you find out it was illegal - in that case - to me - you have to go back to that point of the game and continue from there. But ONLY because there was a rules violation.
Some would argue that YOU (as Italy) should have known the rule was there and not made that attack and therefore suffer the consequences - but, as mentioned - the game engine allowed it - and lets face it, it is a very obsure rule.
MM
another thing to consider. there was no follow up to the italian move like there is with this move. had jeff wanted to dig his heels in and insist the bombers died, the game would have continued with my only losses being a tank and 2 bombers. this situation is altogether different, and i hope jeff will not insist that i am being unfair and quit the game, because this is still very much a game. there are a LOT of dice to be rolled to determine how my multipart move will even play out. and in addition, the allies have a massive material lead in this game.
as i said, i have been wracking my brain for many turns to come up with this move. i was declaring war on the neutrals anyway on the german turn in order to wipe out a bunch of transports in z91 (declaring war allowed me to fly my bombers over spain in noncombat and therefor reach z91 on the attack). i did the italy move in conjunction since i was set to declare war with germany the following turn anyway so there was no difference regarding the neutrals as it related to jeff. to me the NW persia attack with italy was a 50/50 shot at eliminating his iraq stack with my max losses being limited to only a tank, ftr, 2 bom. the ONLY reason i requested the move be redone was because it was illegal and that tripleA had allowed it. I stated even then, that it was my responsibility to know the rules and that it would not be fair to blame it on tripleA, but then it became obvious that almost no one knew the rule, which is, i suspect, why Jeff agreed to a redo.
Jeff, here’s the bottom line: it’s crystal clear to me that you did not realize i could attack z91 with my entire japanese fleet. I’m still not sure you have realized this, i don’t know if you simply think that i have placed italians in z91 to stop you from transporting the US ground troops off of gibralter, or what (which in and of itself would have been a wicked move). but had you realized it, you would have pulled everything back rather than sending more to the zone. either that our you would have sent as much to the zone as you possibly could (ie 4 subs that are sitting in z105 instead of z91). honestly, it doesn’t take sherlock holmes to piece this situation back together.
now, to me, the honorable thing to do here is to take your medicine like a man. those of us who have been in the community for quite some time would respect this. use the situation as a learning experience. you said you have been hit by some italian can openers in this area of the board. well, this is a german can opener, probably the first time you have seen it.
i consider myself to be a very fair player and up until now, you have been top notch in my eyes. i can understand that if you realized that this means i will have a 100% chance to wipe out your gibraltar stack with the germans and subsequently have a 100% chance to wipe out your z91 fleet with the japanese, that this might come as quite a shock. even though i have been planning this move for many many turns, i still do not know if this will give me the advantage in this game, but it will most certainly give me a much much better chance of winning. i can however, at least conceive of ways you could still be either ahead or close in this game, even if both battles go according to the odds (a very unlikely event given my long and sordid history with the dice).
cheers
It is always a tough situation where the AI in the game allows you to do something that is illegal per the rules. TripleA has several of these bugs - and the good news is they rarely come up or everyone knows how to work around them (or both).
That’s what I was trying to say to people when defending ABattlemap :-P
Some would argue that YOU (as Italy) should have known the rule was there and not made that attack and therefore suffer the consequences - but, as mentioned - the game engine allowed it - and lets face it, it is a very obsure rule.
Definitely should have known the rule. Don’t rely on TripleA to uphold all the rules correctly. Bold DID suffer the consequences from what I’ve read - he didn’t get the use of his planes for a turn.
Not being able to fly over neutrals, even in the turn you invade, is NOT an obscure rule, though.
Glad to see you have a reasonable, knowledgable, independent 3rd party here to help you out.
Help 'em reconcile and get this game finished, MM :-)
not being able to fly over neutrals the turn you invade them is an obscure enough rule that i trusted tripleA on it. my bad, but still tripleA is worth its weight in gold, so to speak. :-P
<cough>Straight from the rulebook:
“Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it”</cough>
let’s not split hairs on what is an obscure rule or not. what i would say is that the rulebook could be read to be less than perfectly precise on this topic, enough that i do believe many players do not know all the ins and outs of the neutrals rules, especially the flyover rules. as jeff said himself, he would never have thought twice about it, since tripleA allowed it.
regardless, just hoping we can resolve and continue with what has been a great game so far. i by no means would have this won if both battles went to odds. i think i may need to get lucky in both to be in decent shape. but at least i have a chance… :?
Boy, I would have just assumed that if you declared war on the true neutrals you treated them all like enemy territories and could fly over them. The rule being discussed is an exception to the common rule and I would bet easy to miss. Just like the exception that subs have zones of control against lone transports trying to do an amphibious landing.
Avalon Hill would do itself well if it published a short list in an index or something the exceptions to the general rules. :lol:
<cough>Straight from the rulebook:
“Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it”</cough>
yes, ok… but let me explain what i was thinking… and apparently what tripleA was thinking that meant. i thought it meant AT WAR with. either way, as i said, it was an illegal move that we both thought was handled appropriately and was behind us. this is a different issue completely, has nothing to do with a rules violation, has everything to do with stategy.
Karl - good point sir. Remembering that if I, as Germay, declare war on Russia, I can fly my planes and sail my boats over and around anywhere I want to. I am not sure why, when I declare war on the neutrals - as a entire body - that they are not treated the same way…
MM
yes, they are not treated as enemy territories and actually you do not declare war on the true neutrals as tripleA suggests. you simply attack a true neutral. i learned through this that there is a difference between a neutral that you attack and a neutral that you did not attack. a neutral that you attack, if not taken by a land unit, becomes a FRIENDLY territory to the other side. meaning they can LAND planes immediately in the territory. the other neutral territories that were not attacked become pro-allied or pro-axis neutrals.
yes, they are not treated as enemy territories and actually you do not declare war on the true neutrals as tripleA suggests. you simply attack a true neutral. i learned through this that there is a difference between a neutral that you attack and a neutral that you did not attack. a neutral that you attack, if not taken by a land unit, becomes a FRIENDLY territory to the other side. meaning they can LAND planes immediately in the territory. the other neutral territories that were not attacked become pro-allied or pro-axis neutrals.
it’s very complicated, and having just gone through all this, it’s still not sticking great in my head. but get this, you can fly over the neutral you actually attacked in NONCOM. but you cannot fly over any other neutral in combat or noncombat which you did not attack. right gamer? sheesh.
As many hours as you guys all play this game, I would advise that you spend an hour READING THE RULEBOOK
Statements like Karl made that “I would have just assumed” are inexcusable! Read the rulebook! I quoted it as saying, under the short sections for true neutrals and unfriendly neutrals, that
you CAN’T fly over any neutrals unless you are attacking them!
It also says that once you attack one, it’s not a “neutral” anymore.
If you just read what’s in the FAQ thread and don’t ever actually pore over the rulebook, you can expect more unpleasant surprises in the future.
At least Bold knows (usually) to check with somebody who knows the rules before trying anything that might be against the rules (this Italian attack notwithstanding)
but you guys have no excuse for not reading the rulebook yourself. Shame, shame
you CAN’T fly over any neutrals unless you are attacking them!
OK, I paraphrased it and I shouldn’t have, because the actual rulebook is clearer.
“Air units can’t fly over an unfriendly neutral unless they are attacking it”
“unfriendly neutral” is singular
“attacking it” is singular
You were duped by TripleA saying “declare war on the neutrals”. Don’t trust TripleA - it was made by a guy who doesn’t know the rules any better than you do.
I had to explain to Veqryn why his program should force you to roll dice on all amphibious assaults before other battles. He was completely unaware of that rule.
TripleA lets you conduct combat in the wrong order. It screws up sub warfare, making you choose casualties before you see how many hits you score. It screws up SBR’s and mixed planes and AA….
He made it very clear in his program - it is the responsibility of players to know the rules. This is a clear blanket disclaimer that TripleA does NOT follow all the rules correctly.
TripleA lets you conduct combat in the wrong order. It screws up sub warfare, making you choose casualties before you see how many hits you score. It screws up SBR’s and mixed planes and AA….
And, obviously, the programmers were clueless about properly applying many of the neutrals rules, as you are now painfully aware. :-)
interesting situation in our XDAP game. USA attacks a fleet in z33 (caroline islands). simultaneously it is sending a bomber over the carolines for a strategic bombing run. tripleA should FORCE the plaer to roll the bombing run first per the rules. it’s significant in this case because anzac can do a follow up attack. if they were allowed to attack the fleet first, then depending on how that battle goes (say we want to land a bunch of fighters in carolines to scramble against the follow up attack) he could then decide whether he wants to bomb our AB or NB. rather, per the rules, the defender is entitled to know what was bombed and how much damage was done prior to conducting the fleet war.
interesting situation in our XDAP game. USA attacks a fleet in z33 (caroline islands). simultaneously it is sending a bomber over the carolines for a strategic bombing run. tripleA should FORCE the plaer to roll the bombing run first per the rules. it’s significant in this case because anzac can do a follow up attack. if they were allowed to attack the fleet first, then depending on how that battle goes (say we want to land a bunch of fighters in carolines to scramble against the follow up attack) he could then decide whether he wants to bomb our AB or NB. rather, per the rules, the defender is entitled to know what was bombed and how much damage was done prior to conducting the fleet war.
oh and of course the point is, tripleA allows combat to be conducted in any order (except that it requires fleet wars to occur before a land battle involving an amphibious assault).
but STILL tripleA is invaluable. i should think that many of these issues would be very easy to implement as well. another thing you didn’t mention that tripleA doesn’t do correctly is it does not distinguish what fighters are on what acc when there are mixed powers. one would think this would be no different than the transport function where the transports keep track of exactly what is on each.
