Tournament of Champions (Season 4) for AA 50 Anniversary '41 version

[General_Zod]

Here's one more for ya. If we do in fact use calculations to determine eligible CM's in a LL game.

I'm definitely not a mathematician so, correct me if I'm wrong.

The calculations inside the triple A battle calculator are not guaranteed to give the same result each time a battle is calculated as long as there's some luck involved. There is variance in results between calculations of the same battle. How much also depends on the run counts setting in the BC.

Can we also address how to handle this as well. (I suggest arbitration if ever got to this.)

eg. My calculation says 100% not possible, and opponents calculation says 99.1% not possible. (Yikes, this also involves a bit of honor system and trust. )

What is the official allowable margin of discrepancies between calculations anyways?

What shall we set run counts setting to?

Btw for obvious reasons, I wish I didn't think of this one, lol. But what can I say, I like to share.

[redrum]

@general_zod Exactly that's what I was getting at. The calc just does a number of simulations and you can even change the default number of simulations. Which is why the carrier should just have to enter battle and not worry about if it has >0% survival chance.

[General_Zod]

@redrum
Yes. It does seem like the best solution of our imperfect possibilities. As related to LL and dice actually.

[prastle]

I will leave this to @Deltium to answer. But you are both forgetting it is low luck it is quite easy to get a 0% in low luck

[prastle]

@General_Zod @redrum either way hepps is here stop arguing something 10 years old and lets conti

[redrum]

@prastle For small battles, its easier to figure out. If I attack 10 destroyers with 1 carrier then I know it'll die and has 0% chance. But this can get very complex if you have large scale battles and then you have to decide even if you say have a 1% win chance could the carrier even be one of the remaining units given that to get that 1% you probably have to use an OOL which kills the carrier. So I'm sure you can imagine that it just leaves things open to ambiguity.

[prastle]

@redrum it is mainly there for the 1 ac fly two planes thing it is very rare it comes in contention
but if ya need a judge np

[prastle]

@redrum also i just confirmed with bayder all his tocs had same rule as well with ll
I guess we could ask @wirkey about the ones he ran if ya wish.

[prastle]

@redrum also your example is over examining the rule. We are not saying you cant do that or require ool. we are saying there must be a slimiest chance the ac survives. Now stop arguing my fr and lets conti everyone is in lobby,

[wirkey]

@prastle Hi, I just had an excel file to calculate the ladder points. Had to manually include every result.

[prastle]

@wirkey kk ty for the info in our chat i will leave up to @ deltium to decide bay did one way you diidnt red wants this but makes no sense in ll (jmho red) i shush

[Ondis]

Sign me up if someone drops! Ready and waiting!

[prastle]

@ondis added your number 2 number 1 who asked first is Silent Storm

[Deltium]

All, thanks for all the great questions and comments. First, on a general point, and as I stated in the rules, kamikaze figs are not allowed. This is consistent with the rulebook on page 14, which states,

An air unit’s movement in any complete turn is limited to its total move value. Thus, a bomber with a normal move value of 6 cannot move six spaces to get to a hostile space. It must save at least one movement point to get to a neighboring friendly territory where it can land. A fighter can move its full four spaces to attack instead of saving movement, but only if a carrier could be there by the conclusion of the Mobilize New Units phase.

Furthermore, on page 26,

"You cannot send air units on 'suicide runs' deliberately moving them into combat with no place to land afterward. If there is any question about whether an attack is a 'suicide run' then in the Combat Move Phase, you must declare, prior to rolling any battles, some possible way (however remote the possibility is) for all your attacking units to land safely that turn. This could include a combination of combat moves. It could also include noncombat moves by a carrier. If it does include noncombat moves by a carrier, then the carrier cannot move in the Combat Move phase"

With respect to the questions, I will do my best to answer, as follows:

Question: "Do ACC have to move to pickup location during CM?"
Answer: No. Since you have the option to move the carrier there in non-combat, you do not have to move the AC solely in combat to a sea zone where the figs can land safely, but for clarification, it must be possible in either combat or NCM.

Question: If above is false, then does the ACC have to move to pickup location during NCM, even if the fighters that were supposed to land have been killed?
Answer: No they do not if ALL the fighters were destroyed, but if one or more figs survived, then the appropriate number of ACs need to be moved there (e.g. one AC for 1-2 figs, 2 ACs for 3-4 figs, etc.)

Question: If point 1. is false, then what is the rule on a double enemy block of ACC, e.g. the ACC begins the turn in sz A and wants to pickup fighters in sz C. However sz B has an enemy ships blocking the path to sz C, and there is also enemy ships in sz C (pickup location).?
Answer: good question! If sz B is blocking sz C, then there is only one possibility to go to sz C to land the figs, and that is the case where other naval or air units clear both sz B and sz C, so that the AC in question can then legitimately move to sz C in non-combat. This is consistent with the rule book, but for avoidance of doubt, that AC in question cannot be involved in combat, as it cannot move in both CM and NCM.

Question: is the battle calculator inside triple A game the only officially allowed demonstration of results?
Answer: no, any legitimate battle calc can be used, but at the end of the day, it's just math, so if there any dispute on the >0% number, I can run the numbers in excel for anybody.

Question: is RL and LL treated the same?
Answer: Yes

Question: Does the software automatically address these contingencies, or do we need to monitor and enforce this rule ourselves?
Answer: As this is a complex set of contingencies, you will need to monitor and enforce this manually. Perhaps in a future version of the software, we can address this, but for the time being, it needs to be enforced manually. THEREFORE, the rule shall be as follows, IF a player violates the AC / fig rule stated above (whether it was intentional or accidental), that particular battle must be re-rolled and the original results will not stand. This entails making an edit to the game file, if such a scenario occurs. That being said, if a player continues with his/her next move and does not challenge the battle results, then the result will indeed stand, and a retrospective challenge beyond one power's turn cannot be done (e.g. if this issue happens during the UK turn, and Japan does not challenge it in his/her turn, then the US/Russia may continue). This is to ensure that everyone does indeed take responsibility and check the moves by his/her opponent in the "history" section of the software.

In summary, the best thing to do is to be very careful with your combat and non-combat moves in order to avoid a dispute like this. Each opponent should proactively communicate with their opponent in such scenarios.

[prastle]

@deltium GLHF in your next game @Pherman1215. @prastle wins vs @Pherman1215

[a432]

I have won. Riverrat conceded with the allies on japan turn round 8. @a432 wins vs @riverrat

[Cernel]

@deltium I'm strongly downvoting this, with all due respect to the fact that the organisers have the right to decide the rules, and, anyways, I'm out of this.

I'm not involved in this tournament but, just to let you know, if someone would want to play a game with me with that Bayder's rule, I would tell him that the game is saved and we can continue it anytime he agrees to play it normally. If it is a multi, someone would need to substitute me.

That rule doesn't make any sense, on multiple levels:

1: You cannot enforce it, because on big battle you may not be able to know if it is a 0% or something slightly above it.

2: It's a game-changer, practically rewriting the rules, because, in dice you can attack past 10 destroyers if you send 1 destroyer to attack them, assuming that the 1 destroyer might beat the 10 destroyers, but, then, low luck would not allow you to perform a move that would be totally legal, under the normal rules, practically playing a different game.

3: It's absolutely self inconsistent, as you are applying LL to only part of the rulebook, in a totally arbitrary manner, as, for example, if you say that in this occurrence you have to apply LL calculations on the basic rules, then you should rather do it consistently, and, in such a case, you would end up with that, then, sending 1 fighter to battle 3 destroyers, with no possibility to land, would be surely legal, as low luck assures you that the fighter will die, thus you are not unable to land it.
Meaning that it is inconsistent and wholly arbitrary that you say that you use LL calculation to determine if carrier movement is kamikaze or not, while you, instead, keep using dice calculations to determine if the movement of the fighters is kamikaze.

I suggest you not using that Bayder's rule, but simply sticking with this clear principle:

"A move illegal using regular luck (dice) is illegal under low luck too. A move legal using regular luck (dice) is legal under low luck too."

In the specific case, the rule should be that you can always assume to be able to move through a hostile sea zone if you send a combat unit to do combat in it, both in dice and in low luck all the same (no matter if in low luck you may be sure to lose the battle).

Anything else makes no sense, to me, at least, but, again, not involved in any ToC, so this is just a suggestion.

This matter has been discussed extensively in the old WarClub, with Bayder pretty much saying that this is the rule because this is what he prefers.

[Cernel]

I mean, great to see this nice tournament going on with so many people in it. Was just talking about the rule and rewriting what I already told Bayder in the past.

I mean, the downvoting is for that particular rule only, of course not for the ToC.

[Beck]

@cernel IF ya want those rules i guess the last 5-7 tocs are invalid

[Beck]

ll is the TOC basics,with option if 2 players agree on dice before hand pre normal period