Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!

Barca

@LouisXIVXIV Going back to the facts. The official deadline was 12/22. I sent the game file for arbitration at the end of the USA turn in 12/21. Within the official time rules I would not have been able to play another full turn in a day.

I woke up early to fins house the round prior to leaving on vacation and did not plan over the weekend. Plus I had no time to argue.
A request by you for an extension was made prior to the deadline that was denied
It should be evident that i prefer the game to be adjudicated than having to forfeit.
We had similar disagreements in the past (ToC13). Your constant pressure to speed up the game outside the bounds of the rules i do not appreciate to put mildly.
I feel like I played within the bounds of all the rules and was denied my right for arbitration.

LouisXIVXIV

When we are near the deadline everyone is encouraged to get as much of the game done as possible - to completion, if possible. That's written in the tourney guidelines and Deltium's boilerplate e-mail. Players are not supposed to refuse live play, use the full 24 hours/move the last week(s) of play, and then end 2 days early because they would only have 8 waking hours to make USA's move. That's the opposite of hurrying.
Your choice to exaggerate the direness of the situation by resigning when you do not get your way on trivial rulings does not hold anyone hostage. Deltium made an eminently fair, very simple ruling - play to the deadline with normal clocks, take an extra half-day to wind back to USSR if necessary. That's standard. I believe I had a minor advantage by playing the next round because Axis victory would be that much easier to identify for a judge. Your threat and choice to resign, which applies pressure to my legitimate preference to continue to the deadline was rightly ignored by Deltium. The rules should be fairly made and you can resign whenever you see fit.
Regarding your specific arguments: (2.) I offered you to make your moves on any timeframe by end of Monday [today]. You can make a pretty straightforward move in less than an hour if resignation is the alternative - that's you being intransigent. (3.) I received no extension. It's standard to grant a little time (16 hours here) to wind back to USSR. (4.) That is evident. But I didn't force you to resign - no one did. You chose to resign. How you behave based on your own priorities is your business. (5) The games are supposed to be finished. I am applying pressure, as per the tourney guidelines, so that they are more likely to finish. (6.) You were not denied anything. You had a tantrum because Deltium said play one more round and you quit. Who denied you something?
If I was in your shoes, I easily would have just played some conservative simple half-hour moves and sent it to arbitration. That would be better odds for you. You had points to prove about the righteousness of stopping at round 11 or idk what.
A proper arbitration of this game would see Axis win. I was much more sympathetic to your plight in ToC13 because you were ahead and I didn't want to move forward in a bogus way. Looking forward to "proving" Axis advantage when my part in this TOC is over. @ 24 hour clocks.

Louis

Barca

@LouisXIVXIV Before this gets too personal, since I do respect you as a player.

I believe both our positions are valid.
I would like to see cleaner rules with respect to how to end games that are not decisive. Getting back to Bayder point and the reason I entered the public discussion.

There are a whole host of options that should be discussed with all interested players to make for a better gaming experience.

Strict time controls in shorter intervals
longer playing time
Different victory conditions

Barca

LouisXIVXIV

LouisXIVXIV (Axis +9) defeats Epinikion. Resignation round 9. The ~ first 6 rounds were played live, then pbem.

Epi's play style is very aggressive - Barca's is very conservative; a bit of whiplash back to back. A good game, and close. It can be divided between before USA round 6 and after USA round 6.

Before USA round 6 I thought the game was very tightly matched, and I was worried that Allies might have a small advantage (~51%). I had thought deeply into my play sequence based on two assumptions: 1. USA attacks Southern OR 2. USA stacks Egypt. I was comfortable with the strategies I had come up with for those situations, and I believed I was better off if USA attacked Southern. When USA in fact attacked Southern, I thought - okay, now Axis have the 51%, sounds good. However....

Then in Round 7 USSR made a grinding attack and retreat against well-fortified Ukraine as part of an attempted KO combo against Germany. That came as a surprise and as a shock. When the dust settled I counted up what remained to see if Germany could hold against a major UK attack presence. It looked like I could, barely. With USSR and USA involved I would need to play a maximum and perfect defense to the last man, and I plotted the way for all J air to get into Europe to die.

Now, this was a shock - but was it a good move and was it a killing blow? I'm not sure, but Epi and I disagree on this point. He stands by this sequence as a game winning combo. You have to play out the ending in the case Germ does fall - USSR also falls and Japan gets in the game, so it's not so easy to say willy-nilly that Axis are dead on the spot. It depends a great deal on details - exactly when everyone dies and who is left. If UK could take Germ quickly then for sure it's a great killing blow. A mixed effort over 3 rounds with lots of casualties is less clear. The difference between these situations is a handful of German units...

Epi made a mistake in Africa around then by stacking Egypt with too many USA inf. (why we switched from Live to pbem play) We both believe that this was a mistake. He believes it was game deciding, because those USA inf would have made the difference to German collapse and victory. I'm not so sure.

The actual result in the real game -- and btw, Axis had just wonderful, almost flawless dice starting at USA round 6 --- was that Germany was going to take far too long to fall, and Russia WAS going to fall eventually. Too much Allied TUV had died in the gambit. We took a 10 day hiatus over new year and when we came back to the game Epi called it.

A great player and great sport. Always fun. Thanks for a good game Epi.

Game

epinikion

@LouisXIVXIV
thx for the nice report, Louis. I agree completely. Good luck in the rest of the tournament.

LouisXIVXIV

LouisXIVXIV (Axis +10) defeats Polarole. Resignation round 6. All pbem.

Perhaps a summary later with more time. GG Polarole and congrats on a strong tourney finish.

LouisXIVXIV-Polarole ToC 14 Semifinal.tsvg

LouisXIVXIV

ToC 14 Final - Game #1 has begun! LouisXIVXIV (Axis +8 ) vs Bayder.

Will there be a game #2? Check back here to find out by March 31st.

valter

@LouisXIVXIV said in Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!:

ToC 14 Final - Game #1 has begun! LouisXIVXIV (Axis +8 ) vs Bayder.

Will there be a game #2? Check back here to find out by March 31st.

Looks like Axis is back in fashion!

LouisXIVXIV

Hello folks. Just an update since I posted "March 31st" above. Game #1 is ongoing - it's at UK 17 right now. It's a worthwhile and interesting game that I imagine will be fun to take a look at when it's done. Deltium gave us an extension. As I understand he plans to make some youtube videos of these finals with narration - we'll see.

So the game will be posted before long, and if I win there will be another! Meantime, I believe sign ups for ToC15 have started if you want to take a look over there.

LouisXIVXIV

Hello folks.

Bit of a strange outcome here. A rules dispute erupted at UK 17 and in an e-mail exchange on the subject I told Bayder I thought he was "chalk full of BS" among other things and was disqualified from the tournament for "verbal abuse" in a stunning episode of cronyism and corruption. To be fair, though, the e-mail in question was fully unsportsmanlike.

The rules dispute was interesting in its own right. And I was also disqualified for rudely asserting that the judges had ruled incorrectly on the matter. The question was: can fighters land on an allied carrier in a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat; or perhaps can fighters remain on an allied carrier in a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat? I believe the answer is a definite no. I believe the noncombat section of the rulebook as well as the combat section and several others too express that no units may remain in a hostile sea zone in the combat phase without engaging in combat, nor can fighters land in a hostile sea zone in non-combat. There is no "hiding" in a combat zone.

Bayder had argued that he could land his fighters in such a zone in non-combat, or using both movement phases. However, the judges argued that fighters may elect to remain as cargo on the allied carrier and thereby avoid combat (and hide). I strenuously disagree with both arguments, and upon impolitely quibbling with the judges was disqualified.

A peculiar end to... what was actually a very good game! I was Axis, and Bayder was Allies. I think Axis were about 95% to win this game (no matter which rule set you use) despite pretty heavy luck consistently on the part of the Allies starting with a clean kill of the German med fleet on USSR 2 at no cost.

Now, Deltium requested we take notes on this game so I definitely have the resources for an extremely thorough summary, but I will hold off for the moment as he may intend to create a superior record of the game.

And to be clear, if you follow the game up through G17 none of the above rules/disqualification oddities matter. All the issues revolved around the G 17 placement. That was a bit of trick move I like, seizing on Bayder's error of holding a split force in a placement zone (depending on your rule set), to divide his naval force, and the question regarded the movement of his fighters in sz 16 on UK 17, which land where the german fleet was placed to obviate the play. If he plays optimally in my ruleset its about 21 ipc for me. Glancing briefly using his ruleset I beleive the situation will favor him by about 16 ipc. Not a major impact either way.

Anyway the result is that the winning player, the better player, loses! I was suspended from ToC 15 too, and to be honest I don't foresee being able to meaningfully participate in any future competitions here.

To everyone that is not dishonest Bayder, I would like to say it has been a pleasure playing with you and wish you lots of fun in future tourneys! If I'm not completely banned from the site, I will occasionally be available for friendlies - just send a pm and we can arrange a game (including you Barca -- we have a game to finish before I can know in my heart that I won this tourney - no hard feelings.)

Without further ado: ToC14 final #1

To be clear I was disqualified to second place, but the game was not played or judged from here.

Louis

bayder

I agree that it was a good, highly competitive game up until the unfortunate ending. Louis is one of the best opponents I've ever played, there is no doubt. People can look at the file and judge for themselves how this specific game transpired, and how it might have gone.

The ending was unfortunate, and certainly not how anybody wanted it. There are some rules that are not programmed accurately in triplea, and some that are not clear in the rulebook. This was another case of that happening. So, as usual, the tournament directors took it to Panther, who has direct lines to Krieghund from axisandallies.org, who has direct lines to Larry Harris himself. This method is, and always has been, the absolute authority on rule decisions. In the past, I have been on the losing side of some rule disputes, and have never hesitated to accept whatever ruling that group determines, even if I disagreed. I was prepared to accept whatever ruling they came back with in this game and play on. Louis chose another route, and refused to accept the rule decision, and stated that he would not continue playing if the rule decision was enforced. That is why the game ended.

As for Louis' language and tone in many emails to myself and other Mods, I have not, and will not dignify any of that by responding to it. The triplea leaders will deal with that as they see fit. Suffice it to say that I believe it was a highly disappointing situation. It will be even more disappointing if Louis continues any type of communication along these lines. While I wish it had not ended this way, it is over, and we move on.

bayder

Cernel

@LouisXIVXIV said in Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!:

First of all, I'm completely not part of this tournament (neither as a player, nor as a judge, of it), thus here I'm merely posting like any regular (not banned) users can. If your current post is without the rules of this forum and anything needs to be censured within it, I'll leave up to anyone involved in this tournament.

About the rules only:

The question was: can fighters land on an allied carrier in a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat; or perhaps can fighters remain on an allied carrier in a hostile sea zone without engaging in combat? I believe the answer is a definite no.

Bayder had argued that he could land his fighters in such a zone in non-combat, or using both movement phases. However, the judges argued that fighters may elect to remain as cargo on the allied carrier and thereby avoid combat (and hide). I strenuously disagree with both arguments, and upon impolitely quibbling with the judges was disqualified.

1- Fighters can move during Combat Move without ending movement into a hostile (land or sea) zone only if starting their phase inside a hostile sea zone. If, in doing so, they end their movement inside a non-hostile (land or sea) zone, then they cannot move anymore, for the rest of the turn.

2- Fighters can land in a hostile sea zone, as long as there is an allied carrier there with the capacity to hold them.

3- Fighters that start their controller's turn as cargo of an allied carrier, can decide to remain cargo for the whole turn, therefore not attacking any enemy units in the same zone.

About point 1, this means that you are correct that, in the savegame you provided at your post, the following "Combat Move" movement was illegal: "2 fighters moved from 16 Sea Zone to 15 Sea Zone". This movement is illegal because the fighters are ending their movement into a zone where they cannot possibly land (and the TripleA program is wrong in letting them move again). However, as far as I know, you are wrong on all other accounts. I'm talking mostly out of official clarifications given over the years, as I would certainly agree that, on most of these points, the rulebook is far from clear.

I also want to point out that I'm not entitled giving official answers.

prastle

@Cernel and @LouisXIVXIV the reasons the judges made the decision they made as I explained before was very simple( which I will repeat again here ) The TripleA engine does not support cargo and forces an attack,,,, Thus Bay did his move to avoid the attack forced upon him by your placement, He could have I suppose just flew air in from Moscow and flew air out from acs to avoid the engines failings but why bother? the more important ? as I have placed in the hands of very capable mods is do we change the engine? or do we accept that this is something not worth changing? I also explained this to you. I would appreciate if this continuing farce of yelling and screaming did not continue further for the entire community. Thanks Pras. edited in "In real life no commander in history would fly two allied planes to commence combat vs 2 magically built acs and 4 flown in aircraft" the game is what it is....

Cernel

@prastle said in Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!:

He could have I suppose just flew air in from Moscow and flew air out from acs to avoid the engines failings but why bother?

What I'm going to say at this post doesn't really matter here, as nobody made this move and, if the aim is having 2 British fighters in 16 sea zone at the end of the British turn, there would be no reason to do so (see point 3 at my previous post), but that move was risky, due to the fact that there is no way for the Russia British fighters to reach 16 Sea Zone, but by taking at least 1 fly over shot each (the same if going from 16 Sea Zone to Russia). However, the British player could have attacked Balkans with the 2 fighters from 16 Sea Zone and 2 fighters from Russia, for a total of 4 fighters (under Low Luck rules, possibly losing up to 1 of them to fly overs in Caucasus and up to 1 of them in the Balkans battle), therefore, under Low Luck rules, assuring to be able to land at least 2 fighters in 16 sea zone (see point 2 at my previous post).

Just pointing this out in case this matter (that doesn't actually matter, as this game already ended for very different reasons) might start any kind of debates around it.

prastle

@Cernel Incorrect because the engine will force the attack. Thus few options are available since if fighters don't move and engine does not support cargo 2 fighters will attack his newly placed fleet

Cernel

@prastle Sure, I was talking only from a rules standpoint (not the TripleA program behaviour).

prastle

@Cernel correct thus the ruling stands his move was appropriate. I will post yours and panthers decisions for the next toc as a general future rule

epinikion

hey community,

i will add my 2 cents. Louis, you say "I think Axis were about 95% to win this game", so I
opened the file and analyzed. This is such a close game. Its close to a stalemate in my view. Your "95 %" is wild imagination.

best, epinikion

LouisXIVXIV

Just coming back here - I see a few posts.

Cernel I appreciate your thinking on this, and I would absolutely love to take you up on discussing the exact rule issue here more carefully; probably will take me a day to get in the right frame of mind for a fun/productive discussion.

Epi, you are mistaken, and I disagree for a few reasons that I will dig into here. Axis basically cannot lose this game (assuming solid play). The most important reason is the tactical situation: the Allies are locked in a death spiral at this point in the game and there really isn't any opportunity to move out of the vise. I think Bayder knows this, but I'm not sure; but it is easier to feel these things when you've been actually playing the game. For starters though, even a cursory analysis should favor Axis quite strongly because having near equal TUV and Axis income advantage, or even income tie, this late in the game is a pretty sure sign of Allied defeat. The "income future" is also favoring the Axis. Thinking of the game as on a scale it is already swinging down from a balanced position. But the more important element here is the vise -

I'll elaborate: none of the allied powers are able to move any units away from their current position -- UK in northern Europe/Russia, Russia in Russia, and USA in Africa. That will simply never change, unless the Allies are willing to suffer ipc loss levels they cannot sustain. Each passing round makes that situation more severe as Germany firms against a possible landing and Germany and Japan pool units in the center of the board, forking the Allied powers. One way of thinking of this is that the US is never going to be able to move to a more relevant position without massive losses and the more units on the board the worse this problem becomes. Meantime the other powers are the income-worst defensive position of simply stacking in russia - for the most part. In fact, this game is a handful of rounds from being "critical" for Allies as Japanese tanks swell in Caucasus and J units in Asia generally. The game is in a steady state for some time however; Axis cannot yet rush Russia. Moreover, it won't just be generic stacking - on the current board the axis gains will lead to real income gains in short order, particularly as Eastern Europe is dominated. Even if some of these things were true, for example a vise but allies has income advantage, Axis would still win; but as it is pretty much every measure will favor Axis before long if it doesnt already. So, respectfully, I don't agree at all with your assessment. There is nothing wild about my richly considered opinion.

All to say I would absolutely bet the farm on this game; I only say 95% instead of 100% because of the possibility of completely unforeseen strategic surprise -- not because of dice. This game is not within the reach of Bayder even if he continues to get lucky at +10ipc/round because, as I say, Allies are in a vise - allied luck will only prolong the game.

The truth is Allies had likely lost this game at least since USSR 4 and I wrote to Deltium telling him as much at the time, though regarding another topic. I don't know % then but in human terms I considered Axis a heavy favorite from that point. This is nowhere near a tie.

Bayder - I will tread lightly and simply say that that is not what occurred in leading to my disqualification; it's an intentionally misleading characterization. I had accepted Prastle's offers. Your refusal to play with someone "verbally abusive" was the key item.

Prastle - to my way of thinking the way the program runs is not material to the issue at hand - I'm basically on the same page as Cernel. All that need be done is determine the correct book rule and all problems are resolved. As far as the ToC final goes anyway. You seem presume the cargo rule from the outset, but that's the very subject of contention. In terms of farces -- it would be nice if tourney outcomes weren't determined by who is friends with whom.

epinikion

I suggest you say 97% instead of 95% to bring it closer to what your point of view is. I still evaluate it only 50-50 because axis also cant change their current position without risking and loosing Income or TUV in future (as you mentioned "allies cant"). Saying "this is 95 % for Axis" is below your level...

epi