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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

But then I was also offered a nullification.

@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 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.

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

The only move i am not fan about is truplen s trying to win over bumps, especially after he told U U dont have to hasten.

I fully agree with that and made amends.

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

You are right the blunders are not comparable; mine was bigger. How you can argue that your loss of 78 TUV is greater than my loss of 180+ TUV is unbelievable. Your argument that the 3 additional fighters does not change the battle is hogwash. Since three additional dice would have been added to the Allied defense the entire battle would have rolled differently from the second round on. You are trying to say the same battle occurs with different amounts of units and that is not true. But feel free to justify you being a jerk by your own delusions.

You, my former friend, are amazing. I can tell you’re a very intelligent and logical person, but in this case your logic is very flawed. You hang on to it for everything you’re worth in order to justify that I’m a creep and jerk and fully wrong here.

It seems you didn’t really relate to my arguments here.

I never said the extra 3 figs wouldn’t impact the battle. They certainly would. They would however not change the outcome or huge TUV-change much.

Lets say the extra 3 figs hit statistically, i e 2 hits each battle round. Then the impact would be:

Battle round 1
1 more ac and a des sunk, so 1 less dice in the next battle round.

Battle round 2
12 hits on defense. 4 more units killed for J than in the original battle. Total causalties would be 1 sub, 1 des, 3 cr, 6 fig, 1 tac

Battle round 3
Despite the less dice, every allied unit is obliterated. 3 hits on defence instead of 1, which kills off lets say 2 fig, 1 tac, leaving 8 fig, 7 tac left as opposed to the 12 fig, 9 tac in the original battle.

Allies get an extra -30 TUV and J gets and extra -60 TUV, so the final TUV-change would’ve been +152 in J’s favour.

Of course only an example based on statistical mean value. The 3 figs could’ve hit more or less. In any case the recollection shows I’m right.

I’m also fed up with this tedious discussion about nothing, simply going back and forth not reaching any rational conclusion.

I’ve never heard about a game that is cancelled because of dice. Have you?