Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!
@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
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.
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.
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...
Hey Epi - this has been a very contentious few days and though we are disagreeing on substance here I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. My basic response to you is that -- you're right. But because of the location of the unit concentrations Russia will eventually face an overwhelming attack force and fall. It's at Axis discretion how to play that, they are in total control of the timing. They could wait until such an attack would be massively ipc beneficial or they could act early and allow usa to move into Asia in the aftermath. Both of those will lead to Axis win.
The Allies are forked. The Axis are in the center. That's the symmetry breaker.
Anyway, that's my view! We will never know...
I’m not sure it’s my place to post my opinion, but here goes…
These are two of the best players in Axis history! It’s really good for the game and our ever small community to see these Titans meet in the tourney again.
To hear that Louis has been banned in the next tourney really sucks. However, in reading his own post, it appears he must have said some really bad things that are not acceptable in the tourney or lobby play. For his part, he acknowledges that and admits to being unsportsmanlike. Unfortunately this would lead to disqualification. All indications are that Bayder acted appropriately.
I, for one would like to see these guys meet in the next tourney (TOC 15). Since Louis publicly displayed his oversight, wouldn’t a “warning” be reasonable this time and banning as options if he further demonstrated unsportsmanlike behavior including time delays?
As far as the game goes:
- In this situation, due to consequences of the decision, was Louis given the opportunity to redo his buy? Kudos to Louis for being creative and seeing different ways of making plays and a case can be made to back up his argument.
- My interpretation on reading the rules is that fighters may land on “friendly” ACs after combat. Fighters are allowed to in-essence “fly from land” to newly built ACs even if the ACs are placed in hostile territory (which is what Louis did exactly per-the rules), so the intent of the rule makers is clear in my opinion, that fighters may land on any carrier open to them after the combat phase.
- It appears that the software coding might be in error when it forces fighters on friendly carriers to fight or flight, hence the “cargo” rule.
- Louis claims to have a 95% winning chance. I don’t see it that high unless it was against me then 95% would be low. It would be a long game as it seems it’s really in a build and hold pattern, but anything can happen. My thinking leads me to believe that in order for Moscow to fall, Japan would have to do the bulk of the fighting therefore leaving a void that USA would quickly fill to either liberate Moscow or take Asia. Obviously, Louis wouldn’t let that happen. So in a game like this, I would think the Allies have a slight advantage in that the Suez could be the Achilles heal of Japan as USA would be in a position to secure the canal. Admittedly though, these are really good players so I’m too humble to state a final outcome or % and both see the game according to their goals.
I’ve played Louis back in the GTO days and never heard a bad thing about him. So it saddens me to see one of my Alumn players in this situation albeit one that he let get out of hand with “verbal abuse” . Understandable that he might be upset with the ruling, but once all the dust settles, he’ll probably realize that he should have just accepted it and try to win the game…incredibly good player.
One thing more to add here:
My experiences here have shown that Tourney admins have been fair, unbiased, and trustworthy. Call-outs for Prastle and Deltium and many others. I appreciate their hard work and dedication to keeping up the site for us normal fellas.
your point "location of units" is nothing i forgot in my evaluation. But even if moscow falls, what needs more than we see now at the board, it will be costly and there are so many ways to continue for allies with the Med in USA-Control. I played really a lot of games after the fall of moscow (if it ever happens here). So i still think your saying "this is 95% axis" is not at the level this great game was played. I think you know the meaning of med-control because all the rule conflict is about med-control.
This is still my point of view,
I'm happy to take a deep dive with you, Epi, but the forum probably isn't the right place for it. I a;so don't want presume on your interest either... but if you really wnat to talk nuts and bolts happy to do that tomorrow some time.
Hey Louis, i think the forum is ready for a deep dive because the forum was told by a TOC-finalist that this is a 95% axis win(adding the file). Please let us all know, why this is a 95% axis win even if you will take - for what costs!- moscow...
I really think you underestimate this forum, Louis. Same time i am interested in your reasons and interests.
Louis claims I misrepresented him when I indicated he would not accept the ruling and keep playing. I'll just post his email response here, and let people judge for themselves.
The idea that UK gets to choose whether or not to STAY & ATTACK, STAY AND NOT ATTACK, or LEAVE is wrong. That's an arbitrary hypothesis with no support in the book (in fact it goes against everything in the book), and generating this "out" to insure those options is just not Axis and Allies revised. The book specifically addresses this situation by saying that units beginning in a hostile space MUST attack or exit -- they cannot hide; in fact there is no situation ever in the game in which units are allowed to hide - when they are cargo they simply do not fire and they die. I mean it's specifically addressed -- at least Bayder had a loophole -- you know a narrow logical possibility he was trying to squeeze a train of camels through. This is just pure bullshit. My move divides the allied force - there is no way around it. The game design includes the move, whether you like that or not. Imagine he had a British battleship instead -- I mean I don't know your quarrel, but it's not rules based. This ruling is wrong and seems corrupt.
I spent all that time shutting down Bayder's specious and I believe disingenuous argument, only to be confronted with this garbage argument. I'm interested in playing Axis and Allies revised. Not Triple A coder potluck with "Louis is an ass" for creative inspiration. Normally, I would just beat Bayder anyway and take this as a handicap - I like those sorts of challenges and if you've been following me on GTO and Triple A you would also know that I don't incline to drama. But this is pure bullshit, and it rewards Bayder's dishonorable conduct and I won't be a part of it.
Formally my position is this: if you do not disqualify me for "rudeness" or whatever, and I am to finish the tourney, I will not recognize the legitimacy of this game when it is coupled with the ruling you've just made unless the German naval purchase can be edited to 32 German IPCS, leaving the fighters in cauc. You may judge the game from it's current place when that change is made, and I will participate, providing battle plans etc. But I will not continue the game even with that edit, and I will not recognize judgment of the game without it, even if the judgment is in my favor. I am winning this game at at least an 80% level, even after you hypothetically remove the german fleet and fighters from the board with an edit; I consider myself favored at above 95%, and I can scarcely imagine a way Bayder wins this game.
Finally, I also will not begin the next game (as my win is not in doubt) until the matter of this rule is resolved in a more elevated way. The ruling is wrong. I would need to see those pages to be persuaded, even if it wouldn't be appropriate in the middle of the game. The ruling is not a book rule and I will not agree to it unless I can be persuaded I am wrong.
Are we gonna start posting? I have some things to post!!
This was my initial reply. Prastle later persuaded me that the ruling was not a kangaroo court but an honest determination and I accepted the ruling.
Bayder is continuing to lie as usual.
I guess I was not part of the email or chat chain where you accepted the ruling, Louis.
If you did accept the ruling, then that's great, this is the first I'd heard that. I'd be happy to one day continue our game in J17 with the fair ruling in effect. Then we don't need to continue the forum debate on who might have won.
What a decision tree. Should I just open the floodgates here and spill all the dirty laundry? I will hold - for now.
In reply, I will say that I was told by Prastle that you refused to play because you had been insulted. That was the key. He was negotiating with me about rebuy, etc; and then abruptly he informed me that you would not play no matter what because you were insulted. Disqualification followed shortly.
Disqualification followed shortly.
Epi what you wrote made me smile. I suppose we can do it here if you like - but tomorrow. I need to take a break from this.
Louis, while I find what you have written here constructive, this comment is not:
Fuck you and your bullshit vacuous arguments, your wannabe certitude and expertise and your false bravado and intimidation. You sir, are chalk full of bullshit and I for one am not impressed. That's my interpretation of your passive-aggressive and fickle themes.
Personally if sent to me, I'm not sure how I could continue in good faith to play against such an opponent. TripleA is meant to be fun, such an atmosphere becomes poisoned with that kind of response.
I regret that an obscure game ruling caused you issues in a game, it is disappointing and not a fun outcome. Be what that may, resorting to that tone/atmosphere is the reason for the disqualification. If you'd like to continue discussing the game rules, please open a new thread to discuss it - it is quite interesting, but should not be continued here.
Full court admin press for out of context e-mail excerpts!
You make it sound like Bayder was just walking on water when I sent that. It's an invitation to me to put Bayder publicly on trial as to whether or not this was warranted -- because it begs the question, why would would I write this to him? I'm not going to do that to him publicly right now.
But you presumed Bayder was an angel and you presumed this outburst was about the rule in question it seems. That's false. I admit the conduct was unsportsmanlike and that I shouldn't have snapped; but there was provocation. We don't talk about that though because Bayder's my buddy, he works here, and Louis, well, I never liked him, right Prastle?
@LouisXIVXIV I refuse to discuss the long winded many emails that were received. many were posted and talked about in the bunker. a ruling will be applied to the next toc as I stated many times. perhaps even an engine change. either way I attempted to allow this game to continue! I failed! end of story
I'm not contesting the result Prastle. I'm simply speaking in the forum against various slanders. I was disqualified for "verbal abuse". You've now publicly posted that verbal abuse. It wasnt about the ruling, other than my tone in that regard. I'm just speaking in the forum...