interesting start
PTV Art of War (Ax+5) v Nikola (Al)
-
Scramble 3 fighters from Algeria and 1 from SZ 94 (4 all together) to Morocco.
No Pacific scrambles.
-
-
-
@artofwar1947 How did you attack with a fighter which was not able to land? That was not a legal move. Don’t tell me that you tried to sink a whole fleet with that one sub and then get through with a carrier to land on it :)
-
That is the rule exactly.
-
Well, planes can only move if they are able to land after the battle phase. You are not allowed to send fighters on a suicide mission.
Sending sub on a theoretical mission to sink the whole fleet and counting on that is a suicide mission. There is no way you could have expected that the sub will win that battle and that you will be able to pick up the fighter with a carrier after that.
You are using a lie to a fighter pilot, to me, and to yourself, in order to win the battle (and a game). Is this the way you want to play the game? I think not.
-
The rules specify that a fighter can move to move make an attack if a carrier COULD be there for it to land. The attacking sub makes it possible, however unlikely, the CV could be there for it to land. This strategy was used against me early on and has been explained in nthe League General Discussion. Granted the rule does not make sense, but as a player, I do not get to chose only rules that I like.
-
No, I don’t agree. When you have sent a fighter to kill those transports, you have known that you will not be able to land it. It is not that there was a chance - there was not any chance to land that plane. So, you have sent it to kamikaze mission and that is not part of the game.
In case this was used against you in the past, it was not the right thing to do. I don’t wish to play games where technical workarounds are used in your advantage. I don’t thin it is fair - you have sent the plane to kamikaze mission, which is not allowed and I have always played it like that. We are playing the game to have fun, not to find a way to cheat on other player.
-
@ArtofWar1947 Are you technically right? You might be and in that case I am surrendering this game - there is loads of unfairness in politics and business in the real world I live in, I don’t need things like these in games I play :grin:
-
Cheating is not playing by the rules. You can check whether I am interpreting the rules correctly by checking with a monitor.
-
@artofwar1947 Well, I have said what I had to say. You are saying you will land your fighter by sending a sub to make a space for a carrier to pass through?
Play by yourself that way, no problem.
-
Do you think it would be fair to go back on this move?
-
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.
Suggested Topics
