Tourney: Game of Games (begins!) (Round 2 move orders)

[th-child]

?? But shouldn't the fact I attacked twice change something?

I think Bado's solution is correct as ironz has two attacks, too (the defending default + the reinf).

 

[th-child]

Umm, I think maybe we should think this over again.
In the endgame, I guess there will be battles where for example 5 attacks go against 5 attacks. Following the logic we are using here, the attacker should win all 5 five games to conquer the territory, right?

On the other hand, Jalthise makes a very good point:

?? But shouldn't the fact I attacked twice change something?

In the above scenario it would make no difference, if the attacker uses only 1 attack against the 5 defensive waves -- he has to win all 5 games either way.

So this is worth some more thinking, I guess. I'm not saying at all, that this ruling has to be changed, but it will have a consequence on how to plan your attacks in the later rounds.

Okay, okay, I'm just thinking aloud.

 

[Jalthise]

In the above scenario it would make no difference, if the attacker uses only 1 attack against the 5 defensive waves -- he has to win all 5 games either way.

So this is worth some more thinking, I guess. I'm not saying at all, that this ruling has to be changed, but it will have a consequence on how to plan your attacks in the later rounds.

Okay, okay, I'm just thinking aloud.

I definitely thought attacking multiple times would give me an extra to round to win and have a previous post saying so - otherwise doing so would be completely pointless. It was pretty certain Ironz would defend twice; he defended twice last round and was almost certain to do so again because its the only contested region his Aussie region can reach. If the extra attack doesn't make a difference, I'd really like an opportunity to use it elsewhere.

Getting extra rounds to win for an attacker by attacking multiple times is probably needed to balance the extra rounds defender's can get. Otherwise, people with commands can get entrenched by reinforcing more than 2 times, and then become almost impossible to break.

 

[Badorties]

Umm, I think maybe we should think this over again.
In the endgame, I guess there will be battles where for example 5 attacks go against 5 attacks. Following the logic we are using here, the attacker should win all 5 five games to conquer the territory, right?

On the other hand, Jalthise makes a very good point:



In the above scenario it would make no difference, if the attacker uses only 1 attack against the 5 defensive waves -- he has to win all 5 games either way.

So this is worth some more thinking, I guess. I'm not saying at all, that this ruling has to be changed, but it will have a consequence on how to plan your attacks in the later rounds.

Okay, okay, I'm just thinking aloud.

Yeah this needs to be changed. But not for this round. Maybe it can be 'best-of' with a slight advantage to the defends. So 5v5 would mean the attacker needs to win 3. 6v6, the attacker needs to win 4. 3v3, attacker needs to win 2. 6v3, attacker needs to win 2 over 6 games. 2v2, attacker needs to win both, as defender has the advantage. 3vs2, attacker needs to win 2 as well of 3 games. 4v2, attacker needs to win 2 of 4 games. 8v5, attacker needs to win 3 of 5 games.

Does this make sense? It actually wouldn't change jalthises move.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

After thinking about it, I'm convinced that I had it right the first time, in this scenario, it should be a best 2 of 3.

 

[Jalthise]

Here's the original rule (which I should have referenced sooner):

"If a player ends up attack a region twice (Attacking Greenland from the UK and Canada) then one attack game is played, and if the attacker loses, another attack game is played."

Why does that not mean I get a second match if I lose one having attacked twice? I attacked twice from the same region, but we never differentiated between moves coming from a region and moves given by commands before. And since Ironz gets an extra round as well if he loses one, why is it not a best of 3?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Here's the original rule (which I should have referenced sooner):

"If a player ends up attack a region twice (Attacking Greenland from the UK and Canada) then one attack game is played, and if the attacker loses, another attack game is played."

Why does that not mean I get a second match if I lose one having attacked twice? I attacked twice from the same region, but we never differentiated between moves coming from a region and moves given by commands before. And since Ironz gets an extra round as well if he loses one, why is it not a best of 3?

Exactly. It should be a best of 3. Waiting until next round to follow the rules is screwing Jalthise. (Not that I have any sympathy for him, holding 2 commands as he does ) but fair is fair.

 

[Badorties]

There are 2 games because there are 4 armies in play. 1v1 then a 1v1. If Jalthise, or anyone wants the best of 3 advance, they need to bring more troops. If jalthise attacked with 3 troops vs ironz 2, there would be 5 armies... which would force 3 games.

The orginial rule still stands, but in this case, ironz brought an extra defending army.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I don't agree with that logic. After the first game, there are then 3 armies in play. Then, after the second game, assuming that neither of them wins both of the first two, there are two armies in play. I still maintain that it should be best 2 of 3.

Example. Say jalthise wins the first game. Then ironz attacks with his second army. If ironz wins, then Jalthise still has another attack.......

 

[Cagey]

A flow chart?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

omg. I'm going to smack you, Cagey, lol!

I mean, it's just not that difficult. If they split the first two games, regardless of who wins which game, the loser of game 2 still has another attack, and a 3rd game to determine the winner is required.

 

[Jalthise]

lol, I'm making the chart. I'll post a SS in a few.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn97/Jalthise/GameofGamesFlowChart_zps94dc6f00.png

What confuses me is that Bado's setup leaves me in the exact same spot, chart 1, as if I had only attacked once.

 

[Badorties]

lol, I'm making the chart. I'll post a SS in a few.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn97/Jalthise/GameofGamesFlowChart_zps94dc6f00.png

What confuses me is that Bado's setup leaves me in the exact same spot, chart 1, as if I had only attacked once.

Well yeah, you bringing 2 armies to a 2 army defense. Its no different than bringing 1 to a 1 army defense.

Card, why would there be 3 armies in play after the first game? Are you assuming the winning army of the first battle is unscathed?

 

[Jalthise]

Well yeah, you bringing 2 armies to a 2 army defense. Its no different than bringing 1 to a 1 army defense.

Card, why would there be 3 armies in play after the first game? Are you assuming the winning army of the first battle is unscathed?

The problem is that its the same as bringing 1 army to a 2 army defense.

1v2 as has been played, if the defender loses they get a rematch (no rematch for attacker).

2v2 under your suggested system, if the defender loses they get a rematch (no rematch for attacker, even though they attacked again).



Also, there are 4 armies. If we lose 1 in the first match, don't there have to be 3 in next one? I thought we've assumed the winning players armies are unscathed the entire time, there's been no mention of damage to them earlier.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Well yeah, you bringing 2 armies to a 2 army defense. Its no different than bringing 1 to a 1 army defense.

Card, why would there be 3 armies in play after the first game? Are you assuming the winning army of the first battle is unscathed?

yes, the winning army is still alive to take the tert and fight the next battle. How could it not?

I mean, I guess I don't understand what you're talking about. In battle on MajCom, every victorious army is 'unscathed' to move on.

 

[Badorties]

The problem is that its the same as bringing 1 army to a 2 army defense.

1v2 as has been played, if the defender loses they get a rematch (no rematch for attacker).

2v2 under your suggested system, if the defender loses they get a rematch (no rematch for attacker, even though they attacked again).



Also, there are 4 armies. If we lose 1 in the first match, don't there have to be 3 in next one? I thought we've assumed the winning players armies are unscathed the entire time, there's been no mention of damage to them earlier.

yes its the same, in both cases the defender has the advantage. If ironz hadn't brought back his other defense, it would be revesred... irons would have to win both games to keep the region. Moral of the story is, if you want an advantage, bring more troops than the enemy does.

yes, the winning army is still alive to take the tert and fight the next battle. How could it not?

still alive but in what condition? probably half dead, low on ammo, out of food, just waiting for reinforcements.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

????? regardless, of it's condition, it's still there, in control of Antarctica.

 

[Jalthise]

yes its the same, in both cases the defender has the advantage. If ironz hadn't brought back his other defense, it would be revesred... irons would have to win both games to keep the region. Moral of the story is, if you want an advantage, bring more troops than the enemy does..

But I would never have sent two armies if I thought that were the case, can I redirect one to the horn?

still alive but in what condition? probably half dead, low on ammo, out of food, just waiting for reinforcements.

Why would the attacker who just got there be in worse condition then the defender who just did? There was no mention of an advantage for defense before this round.

Edit:

Well yeah, you bringing 2 armies to a 2 army defense. Its no different than bringing 1 to a 1 army defense.

Again, then why isn't it simply one match for the region like a 1v1?

My issue is that there was no mention of a defense advantage before, and I made my turn carefully. The rule as had played the entire game was, if you sent an extra army, you got an extra match to win. I know of no mentions of anything to contrary in the entire thread. If that's the rule, ok, but I'd like be able to change a move that was wasted because a rule was unclear.

 

[chefsmitty]

Sorry to yell at you about the guard Bado......especially after seeing that! I probably couldn't fire you, as I am not paying your workers comp. and and not getting something in return w/ your one good hand! LOL! JK, hope alls well and you heal up soon!

 

[chefsmitty]

Chefsmitty won Game 8 against Bud for UK.

Game 9 not necessary.