L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V

[AndrewAAGamer]

@trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

I think you are very right in most things you say here, if not all. I didn’t feel good about claiming that time-limit. Might have been a little rash in a bit pressed life-situation.

During the weekend, before the USN-slaughter, I had the option for several days, yet abstained.

I may reconsider, although it might also be too late. Especially since I realize you waited for me to offer the null.

Unfortunately I can’t make this conversation justice at the moment, since I lack the time for it, but will try to later. If you don’t want me to, of if you do, then feel free to tell.

Trulpen - We have a saying in America… “It takes a big man to admit his mistakes.” We all get upset at one point or another and sometimes, unfortunately, we say or do things we really wish we hadn’t said or done. I hope this is that moment for you.

I will await your more detailed conversation. Until you do send that let me throw in my two cents. I see no fair way to officially continue this game. If we do not null the game and only go back and correct my colossal blunder and let me place my ANZAC fighters on the US fleet that is inherently unfair to you as we did not correct your colossal blunder as you turned down my offer. However, since I did offer you to null the game it is only fair you make the same offer to me. Thus the only fair conclusion now is to null the game so neither one of us has to take the loss.

In retrospect I think I made a mistake in not insisting we null the game after your colossal blunder. I was so caught up in admiring your courage to accept your mistake and play on that I failed to consider the long term ramifications once we concluded the game. Unless somehow you could come back from your colossal blunder you of course would have hard feelings that the game continued and rightly so. We should have stopped then. My apologies on that for not thinking it all the way through.

[trulpen]

It’s easy to misinterpret, but for me it was never about the point itself, but rather something about following rules strictly. I know, 'twas silly and stupid.

I still am trying to express myself more thoroughly. Sorry it takes time.

Anyway, meanwhile, I can inform you, in case you haven’t seen it, that I’ve declared to withdraw the time-limit claim in the post-results-thread.

[trulpen]

It has now been 3 weeks since my initial reply. Please excuse my prolonged ponder.

I didn’t really understand the immensity of your previous null-offer at the time. I appreciated it then, but more so now. There are simply put a lot of things I don’t understand. A socratelic knowledge which makes my reasoning rather divided, since I try to understand this issue from all different angles and depths.

Earlier I thought the 3 aussie-figs were heading for Calcutta. This turn I didn’t consider (or even see) that they were unmoved in mainland China. The attack on the USN wasn’t executed with glee, but rather desperation. I would’ve still made it with 3 more figs on it and even without those figs it was an objectively very pyrrhic battle. The turn was a very quick one without much reflection. Everything was rather straight-forward. I believe it more or less shows by my changes of the positioning of tr etc before the battle.

A statistical outcome of the battle would’ve left Japan with a lot less air and they would’ve been screwed for certain. Now it was an outcome like one in a million. The japanese demise might still be the case because of the huge income difference, but maybe Japan now has a small shot at fighting for survival.

Missing out on the 3 figs was not even close as big a blunder as losing 120 TUV of fleet for almost certainly free because of a new obscure build-rule. Of course, it was still a blunder and obviously so. Anyhow France, Germany and Russia had moved, so moving them back to the fleet afterwards is not an option in regard to your editing-policy.

I think it’s a very interesting game, despite the previous horrible dice in Calcutta, twice, which shot Japan back to the Medieval Ages.

I suggest that we continue. I will likely lose, but don’t care much about the points.

Lastly, I’ve mulled a lot about the null-option. It’s interesting, but don’t feel it’s the way to go. If we do, I would just resign immediately.

When playing a competitive game in chess (as a suitable analogy) cancelling a game is never an option unless there’s some kind of force majeur. However, in chess it’s possible to agree to a draw. A nullification of this game could be considered a draw.

What do you say we continue this game for now and I’ll continue to try to reflect upon a possible nullification? It’s of course open for discussion as well, although you’ve already presented striking arguments.

[trulpen]

The map has changed with z38 being divided into z38 and z132. The fleet built should be in z132 then along with a sub moving there.

Another option is to disregard the change, as well as the new J NO, and handle eventual moves by edit.

[trulpen]

@AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

In retrospect I think I made a mistake in not insisting we null the game after your colossal blunder. I was so caught up in admiring your courage to accept your mistake and play on that I failed to consider the long term ramifications once we concluded the game. Unless somehow you could come back from your colossal blunder you of course would have hard feelings that the game continued and rightly so. We should have stopped then. My apologies on that for not thinking it all the way through.

You offered to null the game. I refrained, which was a choice. No hard feelings.

[AndrewAAGamer]

So, I am frankly very disappointed in your response. Especially after I gave you credit for realizing you were being a dishonorable jerk and gave you the opportunity to make amends. Twice now you have hugely disappointed me. There will not be a third time.

Before I say goodbye forever let me address one item first. You are almost correct when you say…

Missing out on the 3 figs was not even close as big a blunder as losing 120 TUV of fleet for almost certainly free because of a new obscure build-rule. Of course, it was still a blunder and obviously so. Anyhow France, Germany and Russia had moved, so moving them back to the fleet afterwards is not an option in regard to your editing-policy.

Yes, the blunders are not comparable but not the way you state. Your blunder resulted in a TUV advantage of +$78 in my favor. Go back and look. For my blunder the expected outcome if my 3 fighters were on the US fleet was -$53. Instead the result was +$185. That is a $238 swing or 3 times as much as your blunder. So, don’t even try and say your blunder cost you more than mine did. Mine cost me three times what yours did.

So, when you had a blunder I offered to make the game just a fun game, or null it as I call it. Yet when I had a blunder that was three times as costly as yours, even though I offered to null the game for you, you did not offer to null the game for me. Now even after I have pointed out to be fair you should have offered to null the game you STILL are not offering to null the game.

Well all I have to say to that is to steal from General McAuliffe… “NUTS!”

I am not going to beg you to do what you should do. I am not going to wait for you to man up. I already have had to do too much to point out the only fair thing is for you to give me the same courtesy that I offered you. For you to say “play on” and I will think about a nullification is just pure horseshit. What am I? Some dog groveling at your feet hoping you will throw me a bone? Go jump in the lake. For someone who says they do not care about the points you are going to extreme measures to try and get them.

I play for fun. I am very busy and what little free time I have I want to enjoy myself and be entertained and have some fun, fair and competitive gaming. I do not want to have to argue or discuss endlessly how to play fairly. That is why I have the edit policy I have to avoid arguments and hard feelings. This game is no longer fun for me. In fact, before I was not mad and now I am. I am angry at your response. I am angry at myself for giving you the opportunity to screw me twice over. I cannot believe that after I pointed out that the only fair thing to do was for you to offer to null the game YOU STILL are not offering me that. Only because I do not like to curse am I not saying the things I am thinking about you right now. This is unbelievable to me. I have NEVER encountered someone who was a big as a jerk as you are. What you say and what you do are complete opposites. What a hypocrite you are. I have more respect for a jerk who acknowledges he is a jerk than someone who says they are a nice guy then is a jerk in reality.

DO NOT TALK TO ME AGAIN!!! We are done. Do what you want with the game; it does not matter to me.

[trulpen]

I will not respond to Andrew directly, since he explicitly said (or rather shouted) that I shouldn’t. However, since I’m being shamed in public I will write this for anyone else looking into this debacle.

Firstly, I’d like to point out that Andrew’s response makes me sad. It’s emotional and very degrading of my person and I can’t help feeling sorry for him. I never intended to hurt his feelings or provoke him to fury, but seems these events triggered this effect anyway.

It seems to me that Andrew believes that his measures and conclusions always are the correct ones. In an absolute sense. If that’s the case he’s a divine entity and I should be worried as hell.

I wrote an honest answer trying to explain what I think and also keeping options open and he considered it to be “pure horseshit”. That’s his choice.

I’ve seriously considered to cancel the game, but I didn’t catch that ball when I was offered early on and I don’t believe it’s a proper route in latter stages as well. To my eye I’m still having a worse position, so if I cared a lot about the point I’d just grab the opportunity to cancel any points out.

[trulpen]

Secondly, I have to say I find Andrew’s logic faulty regarding the effects of our blunders. The exaggeration and one-sided argumentation is there, but likely a result of emotional output.

The actual result in UK7 was a 78 TUV-swing, but that’s mainly because of lucky italian dice forcing UK to lose 3 sub, 3 des. It did not matter much however, since it was crushing over-force and the italian navy was soundly annihilated. The expected odds for the battle was 100 % and +100-105 TUV in favour of UK, which this screen-shot shows.

[trulpen]

The reason UK got such a sweet shot at the italian fleet was because I had planned to build 1 des, 1 ac, 1 bs into z99. Preceeding that was the construction of a mIC in Yugo with simply just this point. Unfortunately I missed out on a new rule which I should’ve been aware of, namely that in P2V capital ships can only be built from territories containing both factory and naval base.

Andrew didn’t allow to change Italy’s setup regarding blockers nor make an exception from the rule in this instance. Changes which he of course was fully entitled to decline. There he offered to cancel the game, but I refrained. So, the italian navy was safely destroyed. No risk whatsoever, since I couldn’t afford to stack air on it in a hopeless effort of defense.

[trulpen]

Now over to the present situation with the clash in J12 between the two big fleets in the Pac.

The odds were about 75-80 % with and expected TUV-swing of around 45 in favour of Japan. This was without the 3 aussie-figs. With them the odds were more or less reversed with about 35 % and a negative 30-60 TUV.

As I’ve previously explained Japan’s situation is dire and filled with desperation, so I didn’t even look much at any odds but attacked for what it was worth. The result was one in a million with a 182 TUV-swing for Japan.

With a statistical outcome Japan would have too little left to put up a fight. A pyrrhic battle. This might still be the case because of the extremely strong US-prescence in the Pac, but now Japan atleast got a hey-straw to go for.

Incorporating the 3 aussie-figs into the actual battle result, which is rather fishy, would maybe mean 6 more hits over 3 turns (first round was fully soaked and extra losses in round 2 wouldn’t much impact round 3). So the result would be a 152 TUV-swing instead.

The point is that expected and actual results are very different things. The argument that this blunder resulted in a 3 time bigger loss than the one in turn 7 is just wrong. It’s a later stage of the game were there are a lot more units in play and hence larger TUV overall. More importantly the expected outcomes were very different.

It’s not really comparable to be able to wipe out a huge stack securely for almost free as opposed to an unsure battle which is likely extremely costly.

If I could’ve avoided committing to an objectively terrible battle (yes, even with positive odds), I would’ve, but I really had no choice. Had to attack, no matter what. It was a pure act of desperation and coming out of it extremely lucky.

This is the point. This was about dice, not a blunder. I really don’t see why this would enforce a nullification of the game.

If there’s a third point of view out there, I’d be happy to hear it. I’m open to being wrong, but as long as I have not understood that much I will argue my point.

[trulpen]

@trulpen said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

The reason UK got such a sweet shot at the italian fleet was because I had planned to build 1 des, 1 ac, 1 bs into z99. Preceeding that was the construction of a mIC in Yugo with simply just this point. Unfortunately I missed out on a new rule which I should’ve been aware of, namely that in P2V capital ships can only be built from territories containing both factory and naval base.

Have to add the information that the ships I built had to be put up by Norway instead. That’s serial huge investments for nothing, seriously affecting Germany’s push against Russia (54 IPC less of land units, if the ab in Yugo is still considered sound and still was bought). I’d say that’s pretty big.

[trulpen]

But then I was also offered a nullification.

[Amon-Sul]

Is a solution in which the sea battle dices are applied and ANZAC rolls for its 3 figs on rd 1, and then those results are implemented in previous sz 21 results acceptable to both parties?

[Amon-Sul]

@Amon-Sul said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

Is a solution in which the sea battle dices are applied and ANZAC rolls for its 3 figs on rd 1, and then those results are implemented in previous sz 21 results acceptable to both parties?

I mean,

AAgamer is reluctant do to edit, and when Trulpen made a mistake he offered him a nullification.

Trulpen is reluctant to do nullification, but he can offer edit .

So in this scenario each player is offered by the thing he likes less, but it`s the same, each of them received this type of offer once in the game. I think it is a Solomon solution that should be able to satisfy both sides.

[Amon-Sul]

It seems Trulpen is not a fan of nullification, and AaGamer is.

But what about a draw?

I mean U played so much rounds, why wouldnt U get some points?

Let’s assume u re both thier E.

In that case win and loss against tier E are 7+3=10.

So each of U gets the game registred and 5 points avoided.

Dont know if the moderators will bless this though, but as long as no more points combined are given then it would be if any of u wins, i dont see a problem.

Cheers

[trulpen]

@Amon-Sul It’s kind of you to make the effort to suggest solutions. A cancellation of the game is equivalent to a draw, except for the history of number of games played. However, the game is what it is.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@Amon-Sul Thanks for trying to play peacemaker but there’s no way to continue the game and be fair to both parties. Even if there is a fair way to try and revise the latest combat, which I highly doubt there is, since we did not alleviate Trulpen’s early blunder than alleviating mine in any way and continuing the game is not fair to Trulpen. Continuing the game without Trulpen offering me the chance to nullify the game, since I offered to null the game for him, is also not fair. This is why I say there is no way to continue without one party or the other being damaged. Since both parties say it is only a game and the points don’t matter I do not understand why Trulpen is continuing to insist we play on. That seems contradictory and why I do not believe what he says as his actions do not match his words. As we say in America he talks the talk but he does not walk the walk.

For @trulpen if you don’t see why you are wrong I cannot help you there. Am I right in this case; yes I am. That doesn’t make me right in everything. However, just as I know that humans breathe air, need to eat and drink and go to the bathroom I know that since I offered to null the game when you made a big mistake you should also offer to null the game for me when I made a big mistake. That is just common sense, standard acceptable behavior and what any fair minded person does.

I really do not care anymore; as I have told you now multiple times. You are the one who’s integrity is being damaged, not mine. If you don’t care about that then fine move on. If you do, and to try and help you be a better person, I will make one last stab at trying to help you see your bad behavior in this episode since you seem not to recognize it.

When Person A does one thing for Person B than it is expected that Person B will then do the same for Person A should the case arise. If I pay for dinner the first time then the second time you pay for dinner. If I allow you an edit in a game then later if I need an edit you allow it. If I save your life you are indebted to me until you can save my life. This tit for tat is expected and the honorable way to do things. No one likes a person who does not respond in kind.

Let me give you an example that may sink in for you. You go to a bar with a friend. He pays for the first round of drinks. When the second round comes it is expected that you would pay. In this case your friend paid for the first round of drinks. Then when the second round came not only did you not offer to pay for the second round but after you both are standing there for a few minutes with the bartender staring at you he finally says “Ummm, are you not going to pay for the second round?” Now he should not have to say this and it is embarrassing to him to have to say it but it is your turn to buy the drinks so he finally says something. And you say “Hmmm, lets order another round and I will think about paying for it later; maybe.”

If this happened in a bar any other friend listening in would think “My gosh what a jerk Trulpen is!” Which is why I say you are acting like a jerk. Now it is your right to be a jerk; no one denies you the right to be a jerk. But when you say you are a nice guy and honorable and fair and then you do not buy your round of drinks see how long your friends stick around.

[Amon-Sul]

Ok, i Understand Ur position.

But in case of a draw, U dont have to continue the game.

If I were in Ur place, I would feel kind of pitty for playing so much rounds and the game just nullifies as it havent happened.

But, if U have enough games to play the playoffs and this one is not crucial, then , considering points, its not much of a gain with draw.

Its Ur call.

[Amon-Sul]

i mean its not just about points, but about a one more game finished.

but, its not obligatory, so i understand ur position.

U have that nullification philosophy and its ok. U were honest about it from the start.

I ve played 5 games with trulpen and i really didnt have any problems there, so i just hope U guys solve this in peace.

cheers

[trulpen]

@AndrewAAGamer said in L20 #1 trulpen (X) vs AndrewAAGamer (A) P2V:

if you don’t see why you are wrong I cannot help you there. Am I right in this case; yes I am.

Sorry, I’m probably stupid. I can’t see that I’m dead wrong. I’d like to, but I just can’t. I think however that there are many truths here and some gray zones as well.

Let me give you an example that may sink in for you. You go to a bar with a friend. He pays for the first round of drinks. When the second round comes it is expected that you would pay. In this case your friend paid for the first round of drinks. Then when the second round came not only did you not offer to pay for the second round but after you both are standing there for a few minutes with the bartender staring at you he finally says “Ummm, are you not going to pay for the second round?” Now he should not have to say this and it is embarrassing to him to have to say it but it is your turn to buy the drinks so he finally says something. And you say “Hmmm, lets order another round and I will think about paying for it later; maybe.”

Ok, so we’re in the bar. My friend buys a first round of drinks. I thank him for his gesture, but decline the drink and say that water will be fine with me. When my friend then orders the second round of drinks the aforementioned situation arises. It’s very awkward indeed. I’m expected to pay for the drinks although I do not drink myself. I could do that, but if my friend tries to force me into paying for the drinks he isn’t much of a friend, isn’t he?

I don’t believe the observer would come to the expressed conclusion.

It’s of course only an analogy. Precise or halting, it doesn’t matter. In the game the blunder was big, but not at all game-changing. I’ve pointed it out already that the only thing that was game-changing and might have saved Japan was the dice. Hail Mary luck. The blunder of leaving out 3 figs in a battle with over 100 units participating had nothing to do with it. Zip. Zilsh.

And I say “might have”, because what I can see Japan looks pretty much screwed anyway.

The two blunders aren’t comparable. It’s not fair to claim they are.

To my mind there’s no objective call for a nullification.

If Andrew would’ve done a similar or comparable blunder, I would’ve first gone to lengths to correct it, and if he wouldn’t allow it in regard to his editing-policy, then I would offer a nullification without a blink.