GJS'44 Campaign Main Thread - Final June 16th 1944 Tournamen

[GottaLove88s]

Gold is done, Alex will probably post the results. I just wanted to note that 857/346 had an extra Puma in their roster, which shouldn't have been there, and was responsible for their only kill during the game. I only realized it later in the game when counting kills and known enemy positions.

Thanks for the heads up KingT, I'll check the Gold .BAM this evening. Was the Puma on the eastern flank? I remember experimenting with one there, when I was trying to figure out how to make the %$^£*& squads.csv work with normal morale and low morale units at the same time... Apologies if yes, it should have been deleted.

I'll wait until Alex posts results. If you're ok with it, do you mind allowing Alex to have his one kill? Did you really say "their only kill"???
Sounds like congratulations are in order... and I assume the beach has now officially changed hands...?

[kingt]

Gold is done, Alex will probably post the results. I just wanted to note that 857/346 had an extra Puma in their roster, which shouldn't have been there, and was responsible for their only kill during the game. I only realized it later in the game when counting kills and known enemy positions.

Thanks for the heads up KingT, I'll check the Gold .BAM this evening. Was the Puma on the eastern flank? I remember experimenting with one there, when I was trying to figure out how to make the %$^£*& squads.csv work with normal morale and low morale units at the same time... Apologies if yes, it should have been deleted.

I'll wait until Alex posts results. If you're ok with it, do you mind allowing Alex to have his one kill? Did you really say "their only kill"???
Sounds like congratulations are in order... and I assume the beach has now officially changed hands...?

It was stationed in the village, next to the church at the time I have spotted it. Came out, killed, went back for cover, died next turn.

Nope, I don't mind it at all, I just told you in case you want to update the battle for regular MP, although this one will be a very annoying game for the players that pick the German side.

Yes, Gold is ours.

[kingt]

Thanks kingt, apologies for the Puma - we will need to be much more astute in counting force mix units as you have already demonstrated. Again, apologies.

Alex, will as per protocol, publish the results.

No worries really. It didn't alter the course of the battle.

[alex0809]

Indeed, I did pretty horrible.
I have to credit Kingt, he knows how to attack properly.

Kingt lost 1 Universal Carrier (to the Puma which was apparently shouldn't have been there, your decision if to count or not)
and he killed every last man of me. Well, actually 90 % of those cowards surrendered. But I can relate

[GottaLove88s]

Gold is done, Alex will probably post the results. I just wanted to note that 857/346 had an extra Puma in their roster, which shouldn't have been there, and was responsible for their only kill during the game. I only realized it later in the game when counting kills and known enemy positions.

Thanks for the heads up KingT, I'll check the Gold .BAM this evening. Was the Puma on the eastern flank? I remember experimenting with one there, when I was trying to figure out how to make the %$^£*& squads.csv work with normal morale and low morale units at the same time... Apologies if yes, it should have been deleted.

I'll wait until Alex posts results. If you're ok with it, do you mind allowing Alex to have his one kill? Did you really say "their only kill"???
Sounds like congratulations are in order... and I assume the beach has now officially changed hands...?

It was stationed in the village, next to the church at the time I have spotted it. Came out, killed, went back for cover, died next turn.

Nope, I don't mind it at all, I just told you in case you want to update the battle for regular MP, although this one will be a very annoying game for the players that pick the German side.

Yes, Gold is ours.

Thanks KT, that must be the Puma I was experimenting with to get the "low morale" system to work (you wouldn't believe how much of my sunday that took, sigh! ). Sorry about that. I'll remove it from the master copy, which will be re-uploaded with the new scenarios for the second wave of battles on June 7th... Thanks for letting Alex keep his one kill... Sounds like you gave the poor lad quite a beating... Congratulations to the Allies...

[leci]

I'm guessing you don't wanna replay the Battle....... Actually, good argument that we should replay i.e. 'carry over', 'in error Puma' influenced German tactics.....

[GottaLove88s]

Indeed, I did pretty horrible.
I have to credit Kingt, he knows how to attack properly.

Kingt lost 1 Universal Carrier (to the Puma which was apparently shouldn't have been there, your decision if to count or not)
and he killed every last man of me. Well, actually 90 % of those cowards surrendered. But I can relate

Thanks guys,

If I understand correctly, 857/346 is eliminated from the campaign (including an extra Puma that I've just fixed on the .BAM).
9/3 emerges victorious, minus one Bren carrier (which technically was taken by the Puma, but KingT is kindly letting Alex claim it as his one kill).

With Gold beach taken, 8/3 may now continue its move to Courseulles unimpeded.

Mac will update our Strat Map for "Day's results"...

[leci]

Hold your horses- see my last post. Clearly, it turns out that the Puma was not a result of a German error and ergo the map was flawed. Alex, please accept my apologies for suggesting it was your fault.

Thinking ahead, we need to establish a clear battle baseline and allowing this mistake to influence a battle may set a precedent, a precedent which will only lead to acrimonious future debate. Gamesmanship apart, players must not be subject to subjective battle outcome decisions - especially where this game enjoys comprehensive rules. Better to play than have constant debates.

I thereby formally request a replay of Gold.

[GottaLove88s]

Hold your horses- see my last post. Clearly, it turns out that the Puma was not a result of a German error and ergo the map was flawed. Thinking ahead, we need to establish a clear battle baseline and allowing this mistake to influence a battle may set a precedent, a precedent which will only lead to acrimonious future debate.

I request a replay of Gold.

Leci, please tell me that you're kidding, right?

The Puma was an extra German unit that gave the Germans an advantage, and was actually responsible for taking the only German kill of the game, apparently. I would argue strongly that it's up to the Allies whether they would like to replay Gold or not. But if you really want to push this, we can have a 4-way discussion between you, KingT, and the 2 GMs (Mac and me), as per the new conflict resolution process.

I'm going to discuss with Mac and then add a rule similar to, "At the force selection stage, it is each player's individual responsibility to verify that they have the correct type and number of units that should be available to them. Any errors must be reported to that day's GM, so that he can correct and republish that scenario. If players intentionally or misadvertently play a game where there was an error in force selection, the player that was disadvantaged will be given the option to choose whether he would like to replay that game".

Under these circumstances, it's hard to argue that an extra Puma disadvantaged Alex. And our new rule, will cover future slip ups, which are bound to creep in occasionally...

[Brummbar44]

Map updated.

Although the Puma wasn't an Axis error it was in the Axis favour, no replay required.

[Brummbar44]

"At the force selection stage, it is each player's individual responsibility to verify that they have the correct type and number of units that should be available to them. Any errors must be reported to that day's GM, so that he can correct and republish that scenario. If players intentionally or misadvertently play a game where there was an error in force selection, the player that was disadvantaged will be given the option to choose whether he would like to replay that game".

Agreed. Let's adopt and implement effective immediately.

[morge4]

And I thought normal Para's were tough...but now at 200 morale! Vimont will be interesting.

[leci]

I agree that the new rule will resolve the matter - good stuff - and as such defines the dynamic nature of the game and the supreme efforts of the GMs. However it cannot be retrospective. On that basis, future rule amendments/enhancements (to be determined over time) may well be argued to have influenced battle outcomes from D1 when we find ourselves at D10 etc. when such future rules are enacted.

As Mac has just posted 'immediately' but not retrospectively - see above. And Jon, you used the phrase '...future slip ups..' - i.e. not retrospective and acknowledging a 'slip up'.

The salient point in this instance, is that the map was flawed and therefore should not have been played. Any outcome of Gold apart, the map was not fit for purpose.

Clearly maps and associated assets will influence (tactics etc) +/- of the associated players of a particular scenario/map.

My request stands.

[GottaLove88s]

I agree that the new rule will resolve the matter - good stuff - and as such defines the dynamic nature of the game and the supreme efforts of the GMs. However it cannot be retrospective. On that basis, future rule amendments/enhancements (to be determined over time) may well be argued to have influenced battle outcomes from D1 when we find ourselves at D10 etc. when such future rules are enacted.

The salient point in this instance, is that the map was flawed and therefore should not have been played. Any outcome of Gold apart, the map was not fit for purpose.

Clearly maps and associated assets will influence (tactics etc) +/- of the associated players of a particular scenario/map.

My request stands.

Thanks for agreeing to our quick rules fix, Gilles. We note that your request stands.

Let's do this fairly. Here's GJS'44's new Conflict Resolution process to ensure that we all spend more time on war, war, not jaw, jaw...

1. Any commander can raise an "issue" by privately emailing the two GM's, cc-ing his opposing commander.
2. In his email, the commander should state the nature of the issue, explain any unfair advantages/disadvantages to either side, and recommend a solution.
3. Players involved or affected may wish to input to their commander in order to contribute to this email.
4. His opponent may respond to this first email, if he wishes to, cc-ing the two GMs.
5. The opposing commander may wish to consult his own team, by private email or private thread, to seek their input.
6. The two GM's are free to comment once both commanders have swapped these emails (each commander and GM is only permitted ONE email).
7. At that point, the lead GM will conduct a vote of the four of us (2 commanders, 2 GMs).
8. If necessary, the rules will be improved, or other changes will be made, to reflect the result of this vote.
9. If this vote is tied, then the 2 GMs will take the issue out to a broader vote of all players.

Please ask Alex to input into your opening email and follow Step 1.
We'll do this by the book... and get back to fighting asap...

*** PROVISIONAL PROCESS SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT BY COMMANDERS AND GM'S ***

[kingt]

I wouldn't want to play it again just because I think we're losing time with this particular battle. The Germans are not in a position to do any damage. The game was done with 10 turns to spare despite Alex's best efforts, and he truly put up a great fight, but lacked the units to deliver any kills/surrenders.

If you really want to play Gold again, I will not object to it, but I don't think the result will be any different on this day, with these forces.

Also agree with the new rule addition regarding the force selection stage. I for one decide the units that go into battle well ahead of the actual selection process.

[leci]

Clarity re 'commander'? You mean the 'commander' of a particular/relevant BG? Or 'high commander' and or BG commander?

[GottaLove88s]

Clarity re 'commander'? You mean the 'commander' of a particular/relevant BG? Or 'high commander' and or BG commander?

Team commander... So for this campaign, that's you (Leci) & KingT...
Done this way, (i) to keep things simple, and (ii) to avoid washing any dirty laundry on an open forum thread...
Hope that's ok?

[leci]

Focusing on 'team' - I will be led by Alex's view. If he is ok with the situation, the matter will be formally closed and advised by myself. By this, my initial response, please be advised that I abide by the new rule conflict resolution process - however, grateful if you would amend/enhance the 'commander' definition. As such my team members will log all and any issues, problems etc via myself and not via this forum - relevant PM sent to team members.

Until that time, I would be grateful if the strategic map does not show the current Gold outcome.

[alex0809]

No, I'm fine with leaving it as it is. Apart from that, I'd say that kingt is the one who suffered from it and not me
Replaying would be stupid because BA is very much a game of luck, too. If I now got lucky and killed something more valuable with a hidden Panzerschreck or FlaK, Kingt might (rightfully I'd say) feel cheated so...
I will make sure to control my forces before battle next time.

[GottaLove88s]

Focusing on 'team' - I will be led by Alex's view. If he is ok with the situation, the matter will be formally closed and advised by myself. By this, my initial response, please be advised that I abide by the new rule conflict resolution process - however, grateful if you would amend/enhance the 'commander' definition. As such my team members will log all and any issues, problems etc via myself and not via this forum - relevant PM sent to team members.

Until that time, I would be grateful if the strategic map does not show the current Gold outcome.

Understood. I'll clean up "commander" to "team commander" and book the new rule. Mac and KingT have already declared their acceptance of this.
Let us know your team's decision on whether they would like you to follow a Conflict Resolution. Am happy to execute as required.
Mac will suspend the Strat Map until we hear from you (is that ok, Mac?).
Thanks for dealing with this so calmly and swiftly, all. It's much appreciated.