In other news... Mike and I have been chatting a bit about the game and some of his previous comments about being upset about issues in the game have been clarified. It seems he actually got angry about my reply to his question as to whether or not I was reinforcing Singapore. He asked and I obviously replied that, yes, I was and took the opportunity to point out that as my empty ( although I didn't tell him that ) weren't showing troop losses when sunk this showed that I was moving supplies into Singers to have it hold longer. It seems that his previous opponents would, in such a situation, answer him honestly and say something along the lines of "No, I'm evacuating Singapore and reinforcing Palembang". Frankly such a reply would astound me. Its a wargame, telling your opponent your plans is not only stupid but it removes the challenge of the game.
In any case seeing as this upset Mike and since I'm not interested in playing a game which is unenjoyable to him I'm going to be very careful from now on to avoid such questions entirely or give him an obviously joking response. A question though --- would most people consider it "fair game" to not answer a question like that honestly within the confines of the game.
I mean if he were to ask me "Which islands are you going to invade over the next week?" it would be pretty silly of me to give him an honest answer.... Well, in my view it would I suppose but I guess everyone's different.
Mike made a number of comments in his AAR, as I mentioned to you once before, about the "test" nature of the game.
As he put it- "The intent is to test out AE for Fionn to port over his EA mod."
He also commented that the two of you had been having some "pretty candid discussions of the map and game".
I have the impression that the two things taken together led him to the false assumption that you wouldn't take the opportunity to plant misinformation during the course of what he believed were candid discussions. And, when you did he saw it as a bit of 'bait and switch', so to speak.
Now that he knows that your discussions aren't as candid as he thought they were, I doubt the two of you will have any more problems.
As to your question, all I can say is that it depends on the nature of the game you two have established.
In playing war games with my friends, when were were both climbing up the learning curve with a new game as you two are, we were frequently very open about our strategies because learning the game mechanics was the primary goal and bouncing things back and forth was sometimes helpful to that process.
The nature of the game we had established on such occasions was "learning experience" and victory in such a game wouldn't count toward gloating rights.
It was only in later games, after we had both learned how to play, that we both became more secretive and our interaction took on the cast of cut-throats willing to do anything to win. I suppose one could consider the nature of those games as "death struggles" where anything and everything was fair.
But, we both knew which sort of game we were engaged in.
Perhaps the above has also been Mike's experience, and the candid discussions you two were having informed his belief that the nature of the game you were playing was "learning experience" instead of "death struggle", even though you'd not really given him any real reason to believe that was the case.
You certainly didn't do anything wrong, but I suspect that your willingness to engage in candid discussions with Mike about the game inadvertently skewed his idea as to the nature of the game you two are engaged in.