[10] Zach, Mr.Q attack #5 Loire (Axis Defeat)

I had the order to post this attack.

Last edited July 30, 2012 at 11:02 PM by Cranialwizard

Doodle

http://doodle.com/v88x4rmhie2u4kbm

Yikes D:

Pick one lads

I've put Sugary and Schneider to defend this.

Mike 4 Sugary. Sugary and I agree that there are not enough dates for us. ME and him work our jobs and can't do until later times. Specifically Saturday and Sunday

MichaelCycle wrote:
Mike 4 Sugary. Sugary and I agree that there are not enough dates for us. ME and him work our jobs and can't do until later times. Specifically Saturday and Sunday

Hmm... Looks like I gotta put pressure on Goering then if you're going to be over here. Or get Sugary over to the match on 9.

Cough

So are you's going to find a replacement for Sugary or? Because the times we posted are the times we can do it. So pretty much all Sunday is what we have left.

Zach wrote:
So are you's going to find a replacement for Sugary or? Because the times we posted are the times we can do it. So pretty much all Sunday is what we have left.

I'm gonna text Goering right now and see if he can actually play.

Goering can play on Sunday. He will post later.

reporting for duty gentlemen! doodled up and ready to go.

Goering is already committed to an attack, even if it is knocked down to a 2v2 and he doesn't play. We initially had to commit 3 people to the attack and now don't have the opportunity to send our 3rd unnecessary player to another zone so you shouldn't either.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
Goering is already committed to an attack, even if it is knocked down to a 2v2 and he doesn't play. We initially had to commit 3 people to the attack and now don't have the opportunity to send our 3rd unnecessary player to another zone so you shouldn't either.

To be honest I think we should just let goering be transferred. If he isn't they will loose 2 territories without a fight. If Zach and Goering just play a 1v1 it will be better than 2 territories becoming ours by default.

Goering be on CoH at your first available Sunday time (1 hour from now, that or just come on at the time closest to when you read this post) and I'll get Zach to give you a 1v1. If the game isn't accepted I'm sorry Goering but I've done everything I can do.

If one exception is made, others can sneak in. AFAIK, you guys have plenty of players. One person playing both matches is as bad as ghost armies.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
If one exception is made, others can sneak in. AFAIK, you guys have plenty of players. One person playing both matches is as bad as ghost armies.

Yea, a guy can't set up an attack twice.

You guys have just about equal to or even greater than the amount of players we have at this point.

I'm in-game if you guys need me.

Cranialwizard wrote:

GodlikeDennis wrote:
If one exception is made, others can sneak in. AFAIK, you guys have plenty of players. One person playing both matches is as bad as ghost armies.

Yea, a guy can't set up an attack twice.

You guys have just about equal to or even greater than the amount of players we have at this point.

Hold you're telling me he's playing in both games, I thought he's only playing in one.

What I've been told is that I'm reassigned to this game. And I'm definitely not playing two games in the same week. it has been and will allways be either area #9 OR #5. Hope this makes things clearer :)

Last edited July 29, 2012 at 2:21 PM by Goering

Is this match going to happen? Or is it a violation of rules? Or are we not ready yet?

What is this BS, trying to make it into a forum war? Tourney rules clearly states that a player who have not been engaged in combat will be available for it. And attackers not showing up for an attack forfeit the territory to the previous owners.

Mr.Q and JB are online if I'm not wrong

Of course he's not playing two matches. jesus, what the hell?

Why is it a problem that a player changes which match he plays? I mean, seriously, both sides have been bringing in replacements since the start of all of this, and now it's a huge problem all of a sudden. Convenient that the allies gain two territories from it.

You know what, screw you. I'm out of here, this is just a plain waste of my time.

i think the issue here is Goering was originally part of our game. Both teams dedicated 3 ppl to that sector. Then suddenly Goering got reassigned to this sector. However the allies still had 3 ppl on our sector while we had 2. So theoretically the allies lost 1 attacker for no reason (even though he wasnt going to be here anywho as he told us that). Thats the "issue" here

He wasn't a part of our game, he was a part of our plan ...

Only one of the 2 allied commanders have signed for this fight, whilst both axis commanders have. However only Mr.iousQ and Gooering seem to be available. Yet Goeering is too "battle hardened" typing a sentence in a forum to be fought in a real time battle? No? Don't see a rule for that.

Last edited July 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM by Hietler

We even played a round vs a player who was originally on Eastern front and just to get the things going we let him play on West (Darcreaver). There was no problem for Axis nor Allies, we just wanted to play that game. Here we have players, date&time and another theater act is going on again. If JB is commander of West, let him take the decisions cause his offer was fair and makes sense. For some, Free sectors became an addiction I guess.

I give JB free reign in the West generally because he is doing well as commander but make no mistake about thinking he is not still ultimately under me in the command system.

This has nothing to do with winning free sectors, this is about being fair. Defenders should've been selected to fight here last Thursday, let alone announcing that a player who is already assigned to a defense be positioned here. This means that you can defend more sectors with less people and is not fair to the Allied players that stick to their attacks/defenses. The incident with darc is actually what caused a crackdown on rules and I'm sure Crani would've voided the attack had Axis not won that battle anyway.

The fact of the matter is, that Goering was assigned to another battle. Whether or not he actually played that match is moot because he was assigned there. I understand that Sugary couldn't come to this attack and that's fine but the replacement needs to come from someone who is not already assigned. The campaign has rules and structure for a reason.

So...........Doesn't count because #4.