Game set-Up:
Bid Spending.jpg
PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al)
-
I’d rather not.
-
@artofwar1947 Well, that is most unfair.
-
You either made a major mistake or do not now the rules (less beleiveable), neither of which is my fault. What is unfair are your unfounded claims that I am unfair or cheating.
-
I did not know the rule and I still think it does not make sense - if that is the rule at all or just a hole in the rules which is not addressed properly and is being misused. You should not be allowed to send fighters to their death.
I would never do this - especially with 10 transports as victim - and that is why I am saying it was not right thing to do.
-
-
Hello gent’s, I happened to stumble upon this, clicked on it accidently thinking it was my game with Artofwar.
I can confirm it is one of a few rules that leaves a person scratching their head, but a rule nonetheless. I have fallen victim to this as well, you will never make this mistake again Nikola. Consider it a learning experience, as I did, and wait for the day to spring it upon a future opponent. Just my two cents, and please excuse my interruption.
-
Well, it was a shocking revelation. I am not sure how this should be solved, but it is against the game’s philosophy of not sending planes into certain death.
-
I don’t particularly like the rule, but is the rule and certainly not cheating to abide by it. It does, though, underscores a moral dilemma: Do you send 1 air crew and 1 sub crew to their deaths for the opportunity to win the war and save the lives of million or not? If I had to make the decision as a real military leader, it would haunt me to sacrifice a good pilot and sub crew (and that of 10 defenseless transports), but for the sake of the general good, I’d have to order the mission. (Thankfully, as an army officer, I never had to make such a decision.) As a part of a game, the decision carries little burden.
-
@nikola1975 said in PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al):
Well, it was a shocking revelation. I am not sure how this should be solved, but it is against the game’s philosophy of not sending planes into certain death.
If the game developers don’t change it, you can call it out at the beginning of any game, agreeing with your opponent to not use it. Other than that, you should simply defend against it.
-
That is the other thing and we can go into philosophy here as well. From the utilitarian point of view, you are right, but I am not a utilitarian, so here I don’t agree with you. Speaking of morality, I highly recommend this Harvard course, it’s great and free and touches things you are speaking about:
https://pll.harvard.edu/course/justiceFrom the game point of view, it does not make sense - as one of the first things I remembered playing A&A is that you can not send planes to certain death. And this “rule” you have played by (or oversee by the authors) is exactly that.
-
-
@artofwar1947 No.
-
-
@artofwar1947 It seems again one of those rules. It is asking for a kamikaze attack on the seazone 36, where I already had all those ships.
So, let me know if you want to send some pilots there.
-
-
By virtue of the amphibious assault on Manilla, the US is conducting an offensive operation in in SZ 36. It does not matter whether the ships were there already or moved in this turn.
1 Kamikaze on the US Cruiser.
-
-
Scramble 2 fighters and tac to Kiangsi.
-
the kamikaze was supposed to attack the US CA (cruiser), not a CV (carrier).
-
Suggested Topics
