@pejon_88 said in L21 #2 trulpen (X+4) vs Pejon_88 (A) P2V:
“I simply overlooked the reach of the air from Leningrad, but when looking at the position I noticed that there was a fig on a carrier in z113, so not all 6 air could attack. I notified my opponent about this, who immediately simply stated that he’d undo the edit and continue with the attack”. What he really did was to state that I could only attack with 3 of these since air crafts since he had grossly miscalculated the whole scenario, when indeed 5 (or 6) could attack. Why is this important? It is because it proves that my edit of the US fig did not affect his calculated odds in the attack at all. He had overlooked the whole air fleet from Leningrad in the first place. Now he is simply trying to even out the attack a bit in retrospect.
Yes, I overlooked the 6 air in Leningrad. As I’ve previously also stated (even seen in the above quote). Why is that important?
I did not say such a thing. I said that only 3, not 4, of the planes could land in z113. In that statement it’s obvious that the other 2 planes could attack because of the UK-carrier included in the attack, ergo, my point was that only 5 planes could attack from Leningrad, not 6. Not entirely true though. Loosely translated you indicate that 3 planes could land on existing carriers and also correctly stating that newly built carriers are not eligible landing spots in the same sentence. This, at least, implies that you missed the existing UK carrier of which cargo will land safely in London, leaving two additional landing spots for Leningrad planes. This is important, as mentioned before, since it means that (at least) two additional planes could participate in the attack which were not accounted for. The only other plausible scenarios I can think of are a: that you would invite me for a 80% attack from the beginning or b: you missed my whole Leningrad stack (which has been indicated before) and only in hindsight tried to mitigate as much as possible by denying my extra spot on the US carrier.
It’s completely true. I addressed only the existing carriers in z113, hence only refered to 3 figs. It was completely evident that 1 UK-carrier was in the battle and therefore justified 2 of the air, supposedly 1 fig, 1 tac.
I’ll quote what I said and then translate it, although this is completely off the issue, of course.
@trulpen 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:
Scramble SZ115?
Sitter på en dålig dator, så kan ha fel, men tycker att det ser ut som att du gjort ett otillåtet drag.
Du har 6 plan som åker från Leningrad.
3 kan landa på befintliga hangarskepp i z113, men det är inte tillåtet för plan som attackerar att landa på nybyggda hangarskepp om det är ända platsen de kan landa på.
Translation:
"Sitting on a bad computer, so might be wrong, but think it looks like you’ve made an illegal move.
You have 6 planes that go from Leningrad.
3 can land on existing carriers in z113, but it is not allowed for air that attacks to land on newly build carriers if it is the only place they can land on."
I’m not addressing 2 of the planes because of said circumstance of an existing carrier in z115. It does not imply at all that I missed the existing UK-carrier. I did not. This is completely evident since I specifically addressed only z113, so it’s actually a mouthful when you say “not entirely true”.
