Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Case Name: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Case Brief: - It's the only specific rule that I could find that best fit the issue I have:
Anunia Convention, V.H: (emphasis mine)
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39002#p39002 - my original starting post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39029#p39029 - Montague's initial response post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1917 - thread where Extreme and Lord Montague argued that my post was impossible, and I said to "nevermind" my original post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39106#p39106 - Montague's first post after I said to disregard
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39163#p39163 - Montague's second post after I said to disregard
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39212#p39212 - Montague's third post after I said to disregard
I made my post without doing the necessary research, which I fully admit to. Did Not Do Research.
Extreme and Montague both pointed out that technologically speaking, my post was impossible.
I did not argue against their point until I had at least a basic check of the information, which I did (wikipedia and global security), and it revealed to me that they were most definitely correct. Instead, I simply said, "very well, nevermind", intending to draft up a new starting post when I had the opportunity.
I happen to be in the possession of one scribbled on paper, which I was going to type up and post today with what little time I have on this computer -- my laptop is returning from servicing some time in the upcoming week, so I will have the opportunity to keep tabs on things here more easily once I get it, and thus be able to actually participate. Instead, when I logged on, I was immediately alerted to this whole situation (cheers Andreas and Harvey).
In the mean time, Montague chose to continue off of a post which he condemned as infeasible, and spent the next three days writing about the destruction of my fleet, which I think ought to be equally invalid, since I said to nevermind my original starting post, meaning that my unit ought to still in New Brannum, its designated starting point.
------------
I ask the judges of this recwar for clarification on the matter and a recommended course of action.
Case Brief: - It's the only specific rule that I could find that best fit the issue I have:
Anunia Convention, V.H: (emphasis mine)
Evidence: -H. Where a commander has not responded within 24 hours, the attacker has the right to assume the battle went in their favour and post reasonable losses for both sides. They may NOT assume the opposing army just stood there and was slaughtered – they must assume the army defended itself. But they may post slightly higher losses than they would otherwise have achieved.
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39002#p39002 - my original starting post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39029#p39029 - Montague's initial response post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1917 - thread where Extreme and Lord Montague argued that my post was impossible, and I said to "nevermind" my original post
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39106#p39106 - Montague's first post after I said to disregard
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39163#p39163 - Montague's second post after I said to disregard
http://micras.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39212#p39212 - Montague's third post after I said to disregard
I made my post without doing the necessary research, which I fully admit to. Did Not Do Research.
Extreme and Montague both pointed out that technologically speaking, my post was impossible.
I did not argue against their point until I had at least a basic check of the information, which I did (wikipedia and global security), and it revealed to me that they were most definitely correct. Instead, I simply said, "very well, nevermind", intending to draft up a new starting post when I had the opportunity.
I happen to be in the possession of one scribbled on paper, which I was going to type up and post today with what little time I have on this computer -- my laptop is returning from servicing some time in the upcoming week, so I will have the opportunity to keep tabs on things here more easily once I get it, and thus be able to actually participate. Instead, when I logged on, I was immediately alerted to this whole situation (cheers Andreas and Harvey).
In the mean time, Montague chose to continue off of a post which he condemned as infeasible, and spent the next three days writing about the destruction of my fleet, which I think ought to be equally invalid, since I said to nevermind my original starting post, meaning that my unit ought to still in New Brannum, its designated starting point.
------------
I ask the judges of this recwar for clarification on the matter and a recommended course of action.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
When you said that, I personally thought you meant something with regards to the Alexandria issue. At that point in the thread, we were all discussing the Alexandrian issue. I didn't know you meant for us (as in everyone else other than you and perhaps other anticans) to disregard your original post. Apologies for the miss-communication there.Very well. Nevermind.
Also, just incase Montague also agrees with you, I think its best for you to tell what you plan on doing instead. As in, are your units still at New Brannum or are they enroute or just what your unit is doing.
This does sort of create some problem timing wise. Cause, say you hadn't attacked Lovely fleet in the first place, they would have been near the Jasonian island, perhaps causing headache to the enemy units or perhaps being blown out of waters already. Who knows...
anyways, sorry again for not understanding your intentions properly.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Tell me about it. It sort of really screws things up.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
I took the "very well, never mind" as an indication on the Special forces move too.
I never argued that your post was totally impossible. In fact, I offered alternatives to how you tracked me both in that thread and in an explanatory note on the bottom of my initial response.
My posts and how my I planned my attacks on your fleet were planned and researched. I went through a specific and methodical way in how I planned to attack your fleet. In my first attack, the 30 cruise missiles I fired did not all reach you. In fact only 12 did, less than half. Tomahawk Cruise missiles create a lot of damage and of course your fleet easily had the option of just turning out of their way, which you did not exercise because you weren't there. The attack was meant to disrupt the carrier being able to launch fighters, which it did. It damaged your flight deck. The other ships could respond though but considering they were unaware as to the position of my ships it wasn;t likely.
My second attack, involving Harpoons, was designed to overwhelm your missile defences which they did but still I did not say all my missiles got through. In a realistic attack, your vessels wouldnt be planning a long range attack during that but attempting to get out of the way and deal with the incoming threat. I replicated that in your damages.
My third attack, involving my guns, was pretty much designed to finish you off which it did. Your ships' guns could not match the range of my larger guns at first but when the ships closed distance your vessels did engage my ships with the remaining 2 or 3 guns at their disposal. They also did not have radar capability at this point. I acknowledged they were firing back but they were firing back effectively blind and having to rely on sights, not radar. By the time gunnery connections could be made in ships were everything relies on electronics or radar, they would have been destroyed.
Do you think I was content to just sit there and post your damages because you did not turn up? I posted otherwise in an OOC so I hope you recognise that I was not.
Also, I could invoke the three day rule against you too.
I never argued that your post was totally impossible. In fact, I offered alternatives to how you tracked me both in that thread and in an explanatory note on the bottom of my initial response.
My posts and how my I planned my attacks on your fleet were planned and researched. I went through a specific and methodical way in how I planned to attack your fleet. In my first attack, the 30 cruise missiles I fired did not all reach you. In fact only 12 did, less than half. Tomahawk Cruise missiles create a lot of damage and of course your fleet easily had the option of just turning out of their way, which you did not exercise because you weren't there. The attack was meant to disrupt the carrier being able to launch fighters, which it did. It damaged your flight deck. The other ships could respond though but considering they were unaware as to the position of my ships it wasn;t likely.
My second attack, involving Harpoons, was designed to overwhelm your missile defences which they did but still I did not say all my missiles got through. In a realistic attack, your vessels wouldnt be planning a long range attack during that but attempting to get out of the way and deal with the incoming threat. I replicated that in your damages.
My third attack, involving my guns, was pretty much designed to finish you off which it did. Your ships' guns could not match the range of my larger guns at first but when the ships closed distance your vessels did engage my ships with the remaining 2 or 3 guns at their disposal. They also did not have radar capability at this point. I acknowledged they were firing back but they were firing back effectively blind and having to rely on sights, not radar. By the time gunnery connections could be made in ships were everything relies on electronics or radar, they would have been destroyed.
Do you think I was content to just sit there and post your damages because you did not turn up? I posted otherwise in an OOC so I hope you recognise that I was not.
Also, I could invoke the three day rule against you too.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Chris has been experiencing technical difficulties for the last few days, and has had an unreliable connection to the internet. I'm sure the 'three day' rule can be waived in light of such issues.
Would it not be for the benefit of all to "take it from the top"?
Would it not be for the benefit of all to "take it from the top"?
- Colonel Vilhelm
- Apollo Foundation Administrator
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:27 pm
- Location: Micras
- Contact:
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
I see this as a "play-on" situation. Like in basketball. Someone on Team A is about to score a 3-pointer, but someone on Team B punches the first player in the head as he throws the ball. Whistles should be blown and the game stopped, but given the foul was made by Team B, Team A is still awarded points for a basket in what should be a voided period of the game.
So, in other words,
1. I personally would have Chris' flotilla remain beaten up as Montague proceeded to do, the excuse being the possible alternatives Montague offered in his post.
2. One other solution which I would be willing to see happen would be to agree that none of this ever happened and Monty be awarded a Gold Star as compensation for days lost battering nothing.
3. Finally, we could 3-day rule this, sending all of Chris' fleets back intact home... but I feel this would be unfair to Montague who has been blowing your fleet up for a good while, Chris. We could sent Chris' fleets back home damaged, but that would be unfair to Chris.
I favour option 1. I would like to hear the opinion of Montague and Chris in this matter.
So, in other words,
1. I personally would have Chris' flotilla remain beaten up as Montague proceeded to do, the excuse being the possible alternatives Montague offered in his post.
2. One other solution which I would be willing to see happen would be to agree that none of this ever happened and Monty be awarded a Gold Star as compensation for days lost battering nothing.
3. Finally, we could 3-day rule this, sending all of Chris' fleets back intact home... but I feel this would be unfair to Montague who has been blowing your fleet up for a good while, Chris. We could sent Chris' fleets back home damaged, but that would be unfair to Chris.
I favour option 1. I would like to hear the opinion of Montague and Chris in this matter.
Colonel Vilhelm von Benkern - Preserving the Memories (Regardless of whose those may be)
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
Pro at Cooking!
Antica
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Also, none of the Anticans have thanked me for the good grace of not turning my guns onto the unarmed and now unescorted transport ships carrying a whole chunk of your army. You would have thought that would count for something!
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
If i can suggest, how about:
Chris takes the first day's damages (the one montague gave out using the first 24-hour rule).
Montague takes a gold star.
The distance between Chris and Montague fleet is now very large. Chris has turned back towards New Brannum (or slowed down his chase of Montague), while Montague has sped up his move towards Jasonia. There's enough distance such that if Montague decides to chase down Chris, by the time he reaches his weapons range, Chris is in or very close to New Brannum and whatever defenses of that region has to offer.
Basically, from the story point of view, it would go like: Chris is charging down on Montague. Montague surprises him by moving closer to Chris and firing off a salvo of missiles. Chris is caught slightly offguard, takes damages, and decides its best to retreat for the time being, rather than fight the full strength Lovely fleet. Montague decides that its best to return to previous coast and aid the allies in the region (scott, ardashir and those other units dancing around the Omen), rather than kill off Chris.
That being said, if this solution is adopted, both are more than welcome to change their plans afterwards. For instance, Chris could instead of returning to New Brannum continue on to pursue Montague, while Montague could turn back and chase Chris down to kill and finish him off.
Chris takes the first day's damages (the one montague gave out using the first 24-hour rule).
Montague takes a gold star.
The distance between Chris and Montague fleet is now very large. Chris has turned back towards New Brannum (or slowed down his chase of Montague), while Montague has sped up his move towards Jasonia. There's enough distance such that if Montague decides to chase down Chris, by the time he reaches his weapons range, Chris is in or very close to New Brannum and whatever defenses of that region has to offer.
Basically, from the story point of view, it would go like: Chris is charging down on Montague. Montague surprises him by moving closer to Chris and firing off a salvo of missiles. Chris is caught slightly offguard, takes damages, and decides its best to retreat for the time being, rather than fight the full strength Lovely fleet. Montague decides that its best to return to previous coast and aid the allies in the region (scott, ardashir and those other units dancing around the Omen), rather than kill off Chris.
That being said, if this solution is adopted, both are more than welcome to change their plans afterwards. For instance, Chris could instead of returning to New Brannum continue on to pursue Montague, while Montague could turn back and chase Chris down to kill and finish him off.
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
While I sympathize with chrimigules, I think your position would be a lot better if you'd responded considerably sooner, as in after the first attack post attacking your ships that you believed were not in range. Reversing the situation wouldn't be fair to Monty, as he could have spent the days he used to attack you helping the rest of his allies. And then those allies would have done different things, and then other different things would have happened, and so on.
My personal belief is that we should assume the rest of chrimigules's fleet scatters, removing them from the war. chrimigules could get a new OrBat at home, but only at half strength (12500 points max). The half strengh is to not punish Monty for the damage he did to our side by following the rules. That way, Monty serves his cause and does real damage to our side, but chrimigules can still participate in the war despite his unit's hopeless condition.
I'm not sure if there is any precendence for something like this. After this many recwars I can't believe that there isn't. Well, I think my idea's pretty good. I should suggest it at the charter.
My personal belief is that we should assume the rest of chrimigules's fleet scatters, removing them from the war. chrimigules could get a new OrBat at home, but only at half strength (12500 points max). The half strengh is to not punish Monty for the damage he did to our side by following the rules. That way, Monty serves his cause and does real damage to our side, but chrimigules can still participate in the war despite his unit's hopeless condition.
I'm not sure if there is any precendence for something like this. After this many recwars I can't believe that there isn't. Well, I think my idea's pretty good. I should suggest it at the charter.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
I favour Sai'Kar's idea personally.
Essentially, under the Convention, it will be someone invoking the three day rule with considerations taken into account of the damages incurred during the three day absence.
Of course, it might be judicial ultra vires.
And there is no precedent for this either! lol
Essentially, under the Convention, it will be someone invoking the three day rule with considerations taken into account of the damages incurred during the three day absence.
Of course, it might be judicial ultra vires.
And there is no precedent for this either! lol
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
As I've said, he's been suffering from technical difficulties. This is the first time he's been able to respond.SaiKar wrote:While I sympathize with chrimigules, I think your position would be a lot better if you'd responded considerably sooner, as in after the first attack post attacking your ships that you believed were not in range.
I agree that the engagement should continue, and that neither side should walk away from this unscathed. However, unlike some of the other posters, I believe that we should proceed with a "take it from the top" mentality instead of a "punish Chris for his crappy access to the internet" mentality. It sets a bad precedent, that if someone's internet goes out their unit will be beaten to hell and gone and they have no recourse for something that is completely out of their control.
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
But that's the whole point of the 24 hour rule. It ensures that the war keep moving, and is not endlessly delayed by such problems. If you permit one exception, then you render the whole rule pointless. Whilst I do not doubt Chris' truthfulness this time, who is to say that another person in a future situation is telling the truth?
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
There IS a precedent for Sai'Kar's suggestion. In WW2, I was away for three or four days on an announced LOA, and had given Babs control of my forces. Iehova attacked them - except he got his intel mixed up and talked about attacking Tokians, so Babs didn't notice it was the unit he was meant to be commanding. So Iehova kept 24houring them. When I returned to find my unit annihilated, because the enemy had referred to it wrong, I succesfully negotiated with Iehova that that unit would stay annihalated, but I would be able to start with a new orbat. So Chris starting with a new half orbat seems a viable alternative.Lord_Montague wrote:I favour Sai'Kar's idea personally.
Essentially, under the Convention, it will be someone invoking the three day rule with considerations taken into account of the damages incurred during the three day absence.
Of course, it might be judicial ultra vires.
And there is no precedent for this either! lol
And by the 'Three day rule' you surely mean that if someone hasn't posted for three days their unit is believed to have scattered/disappeared and cannot be attacked, not that they teleport back to their capital or anything .... (technically, if you 24 houred 3 days in a row, all at a real 24 hours, the third day Chris' unit must have scattered/disappeared by).
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
If we allow a new unit to be created (no matter what strength), does it have to be similar in structure to the previous unit, or can it be totally different? For instance, in this case, would Chris be allowed to go with an entirely ground unit? or an entirely air unit?
Also, Andreas, if you remember long back when we were discussing the Anunia laws, I mentioned that units should not dissappear, and that it should be responsibility of other friendly units to provide cover and protection for them. I still think that's how it should be. If you notice that one of your team members is getting 24-houred, then it should be your responsibility to protect him until he returns.
Also, I recommend making a rule that basically says you cannot 24-hour the same unit twice in two days.
Also, Andreas, if you remember long back when we were discussing the Anunia laws, I mentioned that units should not dissappear, and that it should be responsibility of other friendly units to provide cover and protection for them. I still think that's how it should be. If you notice that one of your team members is getting 24-houred, then it should be your responsibility to protect him until he returns.
Also, I recommend making a rule that basically says you cannot 24-hour the same unit twice in two days.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Chrimigules vs Lord Montague
Extreme - I do remember your objections, but we could never find any better option (or anyone else to argue your side) so the Charter stayed as it was, and that's technically what we're fighting under currently. If you'd like to re-open that discussion in the Anunia forum, be my guest.
And I think the rule about double 24houring is good. Or, if that's not enough, certainly one that says you can't triple 24 hour.
And I think the rule about double 24houring is good. Or, if that's not enough, certainly one that says you can't triple 24 hour.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander