I agree with ShadowHawk. As long as the rule requires that you must place units that are required to make combat move legal (regardless if they are still needed by the placement phase), then that eliminates any real abuse possibility that could come of this.
There would still be a few strange exploits, but not abusive ones. Just little tricks.
For placement the rules should be made a followed.
You should place as much units as possible.
If you produced more units then you can buy you must all the following steps after which the leftover units will be refunded.
- If units you bought where required to make a move in the combat movement step legal these units must be placed. ( you will place the carrier somewhere )
This is already the case.
- If you have an undamaged IC any money you have should be put into repairing it so you can place more units. If it is still damaged you take the cheapest unit available refund it and repair the IC. Repeat untill you have no more undamaged IC’s or no more exces units.
This is interesting, but I’d need evidence that the abuse prevented justifies adding this layer of complexity. This seems to me more of a CYA for people who forgot to repair an IC than an anti-abuse provision.
Shadowhawk, first of all, made a great point in response to your post, Krieghund. There is a big difference between intentional and unintentional over-buying.
Shadowhawk said “if units you bought were required to make a move in the combat movement step legal these units must be placed”
This is NOT already the case. You (Krieghund) said you could choose whatever units you want to be refunded. You did NOT say that you MUST place carriers that you bought to make a flight plan legal. You told Wheat that there were NO exceptions to the rule that you could choose whatever units you wanted to refund, which explains the discussion that followed, and the very realistically possible exploits that could occur.
So you could buy 3 carriers for 6 planes to land, attack the opponent in the seazone by your complex, lose the 6 planes, and then get a refund for the 3 carriers assuming you overbought by 3 or more units. Shadowhawk is saying you could require that the 3 carriers be placed and not refunded because they were necessary to make the 6 planes legal.
And… I’m sorry, but there was no reason to believe that you had contacted anyone else, including Larry Harris himself, in that short amount of time and came back with an agreed-upon answer. Wrong assumption, I’m sorry.
Why not let the OPPONENT choose which units are refunded??!
Shadowhawk, first of all, made a great point in response to your post, Krieghund. Â There is a big difference between intentional and unintentional over-buying.
Unless you catch it during the purchase phase, there’s no way to prove whether an over-purchase was intentional or not. If it is undiscovered until the mobilization phase, you still have to deal with it then. This kind of makes the difference a moot point.
Shadowhawk said “if units you bought were required to make a move in the combat movement step legal these units must be placed”
This is NOT already the case. Â You (Krieghund) said you could choose whatever units you want to be refunded. Â You did NOT say that you MUST place carriers that you bought to make a flight plan legal.
I misinterpreted ShadowHAwk’s point. This is an interesting point, and it is worth considering.
You told Wheat that there were NO exceptions to the rule that you could choose whatever units you wanted to refund, which explains the discussion that followed, and the very realistically possible exploits that could occur.
I suggest you read my post again. What I said was that the only restrictions were that you cannot violate other rules. If the new carriers would be the only place you can land planes, the carriers must be mobilized, and other units chosen to return for a refund.
Why not let the OPPONENT choose which units are refunded??!
This would also seem like overly punishing a simple mistake.
Suppose all the Chinese territories are axis controlled, China has troops in Burma, and they have $6. They buy 2 infantry and attack Yunnan but fail to liberate it. They would get their $6 back right?
I suggest you read my post again. What I said was that the only restrictions were that you cannot violate other rules. If the new carriers would be the only place you can land planes, the carriers must be mobilized, and other units chosen to return for a refund.
Oh! Excellent. That pretty much closes that abuse door entirely.
@Shin:
I suggest you read my post again. What I said was that the only restrictions were that you cannot violate other rules. If the new carriers would be the only place you can land planes, the carriers must be mobilized, and other units chosen to return for a refund.
Oh! Excellent. That pretty much closes that abuse door entirely.
wait so is krieg saying that even if the planes whos range was extended by the purchased acc’s DIE IN COMBAT and no longer need a place to land, the acc’s must still be mobilized?
if so, we have no real issue (and one wile.e.coyote is very sad and disappointed)
Wait, not so fast…. Krieghund’s post was in response to a specific question by Wheatbeer:
“1. If you over-purchase, can you choose not a mobilize carrier if one of your planes can’t land without it?”
So I’m not sure that also applies when there are no planes left. Because that also seems to imply that in a similar situation where you didn’t overpurchase but still bought a carrier, you’d have to mobilize that carrier in the seazone where combat took place even when the planes that needed the carrier had died. That would be strange.
Reposting this side by side to clear up the confusion.
1. If you over-purchase, can you choose not a mobilize carrier if one of your planes can’t land without it?
2. If you over-purchase, can you choose not to mobilize a carrier whose purchase was originally required to launch an attack (by creating a hypothetical landing zone)?
1. No.
2. Only if the air units that were going to land on the carrier either no longer exist or have another place to land.
OK, thanks Wheat, I think I did mismatch those.
STILL
This is the problem for us on the website:
If I was playing face to face, I would stop my opponent during the purchase phase if he over-bought. However, if I recall correctly, Krieghund hasn’t said that you can’t over-buy.
Playing on TripleA, however, my opponent has played his whole turn already. So this rule is highly problematic (a big loophole) playing on-line, because you could intentionally over-buy, run all your combat, refund yourself some carriers or transports or subs or whatever, and there’s nothing your opponent could do to stop it.
There is a HUGE difference between intentional and unintentional over-buying, and you choosing your own units to refund or your opponent choosing or whatever, and there is a very simple solution. Over-buying should be explicitly not allowed. If it still happens, accidental or not, the OPPONENT should get to choose which units are refunded.
No matter what Krieghund’s ruling is (you still haven’t cleared this up satisfactorily in my mind), I know what the league’s rule will be. Especially because 99-100% of our games are played online. Overbuying will not be allowed, and the opponent will choose which units are refunded if it does occur.
I agree that disallowing overbuy for League play is a great idea.
Thanks for the feedback, Shin Ji
I’m still hoping to hear from Krieghund whether the intent is against intentional over-buying or not. There’s not a rule against it, as he pointed out.
It seems we’ll need a new feature request for TripleA to prevent overbuying… TBH I’m surprised it’s not there already. It’s not terribly complicated–what one can buy is limited by production capacity and PUs.
triplea does alert you to the fact that you bought more units than you can place although it doesn’t prevent it
you can’t refund the unit it just stays in limbo until it is placed
but you guys probably already know that
Our current thinking is that intentional over-purchasing should not be allowed. That means that all players must verify during the purchase phase that more units have not been purchased than can be mobilized at that time. Since repairs of damaged ICs occur in the purchase phase, those repairs are taken into consideration. However, no events that may or may not happen after the purchase phase may be taken into account. If over-purchasing still occurs, it must be considered accidental and should be dealt with using the current rules.
Suppose all the Chinese territories are axis controlled, China has troops in Burma, and they have $6. They buy 2 infantry and attack Yunnan but fail to liberate it. They would get their $6 back right?
Under the conditions above, the China player would not be allowed to purchase any units that turn, as he/she has no mobilization capacity during the purchase phase.
Then the US issue also needs to be solved as you get your factories to majors after going to war but that is after the buy phase so you would have 9 production where you would actualy have 30.
Under the conditions above, if the US begins the turn still neutral, all of its ICs will still be minors, and its mobilization potential should be calculated as such. Bear in mind that this only occurs if the US declares war without having been attacked first, as a declaration of war against the US will immediately upgrade the ICs so that they will be majors at the beginning of the US’s following turn.
Thanks Krieghund!
That is what I was guessing (about the intent) and already ruled on our on-line league accordingly - that over-buying is not allowed.
Shadowhawk is referring to a Triple A glitch/loophole where the USA factories are not always upgraded immediately upon state of war.
There is no " intentional over-purchasing " only the intend to not place all units.
You would have to know if somebody is intentionaly over-purchasing units wich you don’t know.
( How would you ever find out??)
But there is intentionaly holding back on placing units, and this may occur when the events after purchasing your units are changed to your disadvantage!
For example: you bought an IC Â (as Axis Player) for Romania and start now your combat in eastern Poland and loose horroble and also have nothing between Romania and the hordes of the red army and must now place your IC in your Mob.Phase knowing that russia now can reach and take over.
You then intentionally Holding back on Units wich you should have placed.
But it was not intentionally during your purchasing Phase since you did not now the outcome of combat due to bad dice rolling.
Well we all agree this case is not a comon one.
But it will be still punished as that, that you have to loose not placed Units.
I think the rule (place all units or loose them) is ok, but needs a diffrent Name.
I go for - Sabotage, since Sabotage was performed on any side during WWII and is not as sounding hard as the explanation of it.
It does not leave the bitter taste that you intenionally did something wrong  :-).
And yes, it should be changed for the online game, because you are able to just place them the next turn.
my two cents…
