Belgium’s frontier was more heavily fortified than that of France. It was more to do with outflanking the French army and sweeping round to attack it from the west.
But didn’t they want to outflank them because attacking the French head on through their forts would of been two slow and costly and they needed to defeat the French quickly? I could be wrong of course, but just watched a documentary on WWI yesterday that indicated that Schlieffen’s solution to France’s fortifications was to go around them.
Also Larry comments on invading Holland in the game. I’m all for having the option to invade Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, ect. when Germany didn’t in the war, but shouldn’t there be some reasons not too? I mean why not invade Holland? It feels just like a quick cash grab for the German’s every game.
The Crux of the problem here?
Always trying to control other people.
I suppose it was your idea for a WWI A&A game too? Wow. lol.
Did you also invent the Zepplin?
The problem is you spamming every thread with something that has nothing to do with you and running up your post count. Also, learn how to spell Zeppelin before commenting.
I’ve no objection to Germany invading Holland, though I don’t think the Allies should be allowed to invade neutrals.
I’ve suggested that Germany is allowed to collect trade income from Holland and other bordering neutrals; if they invade they still get this cash but add 4 units to opposing armies.
It wasn’t so much the forts; they knew that the entire French strategy was a drive through Alsace-Lorraine. So, in order to wrong-foot France, allow them to move east, and then swing round behind them to cut them off from supplies and reinforcements before crushing them.
@Imperious:
The Crux of the problem here?
Always trying to control other people.
I suppose it was your idea for a WWI A&A game too? Wow. lol.
Did you also invent the Zepplin?
The problem is you spamming every thread with something that has nothing to do with you and running up your post count. Also, learn how to spell Zeppelin before commenting.
Waaaaah
Someone’s on edge today. Hope you don’t shoot anyone, that seems to be the American thing to do these days.
I bet that was your idea too.
I’ve no objection to Germany invading Holland, though I don’t think the Allies should be allowed to invade neutrals.
I’ve suggested that Germany is allowed to collect trade income from Holland and other bordering neutrals; if they invade they still get this cash but add 4 units to opposing armies.
It wasn’t so much the forts; they knew that the entire French strategy was a drive through Alsace-Lorraine. So, in order to wrong-foot France, allow them to move east, and then swing round behind them to cut them off from supplies and reinforcements before crushing them.
Again - I’m with you here Flashman on all counts. They’ve definetly introduce some cool concepts into this game, I hope the go the full distance.
Waaaaah
Someone’s on edge today. Hope you don’t shoot anyone, that seems to be the American thing to do these days.
I bet that was your idea too.
More pathetic commentary?
@Imperious:
Waaaaah
Someone’s on edge today. Hope you don’t shoot anyone, that seems to be the American thing to do these days.
I bet that was your idea too.
More pathetic commentary?
Superior intellect actually; and you’re welcome. :)
No education actually. But reading any post from you validates that fact. :roll:
It wasn’t so much the forts; they knew that the entire French strategy was a drive through Alsace-Lorraine. So, in order to wrong-foot France, allow them to move east, and then swing round behind them to cut them off from supplies and reinforcements before crushing them.
Basically this. Though it would have been interesting if France had gone with an plan to basically do the exact same thing as Germany and send most of their army on a flanking move into Belgium, both armies full force would have clashed there, would have been an interesting war.
@Imperious:
Again, how do you know you had them first?
Because they were posted on this site a long time ago and Larry often listens to ideas from people who post here and on his site. Pictures of the original game were posted on his site ( the map has dramatically changed since 2005-6)
Again, you really can’t prove you had the idea first, and not a single person has suggested that you stole your idea from Larry.
You made it independently, cool, but whether or not it came to your head first is unprovable and mostly irrelevant.
Look here:
I’m not trying to prove anything!
I am protecting against accusations in the future, so people don’t think i got my ideas from Larry.
I told you….these claims might come in the future. My posts to this effect are a record to prove a potential issue of somebody claiming i got this from Larry, when i didn’t.
They are not saying this now but they will latter.
Please drop it you just don’t understand. Let me do my thing and stop bothering me.
You want 300 more posts on this?
You take more from Larry than you think…
If your game is at all a game where units roll dice trying to get a certain number or less where you try to control territories and take important cities/territories and get money from them, you are taking plenty of ideas from Larry. Be a bit more grateful instead of needing to separate yourself from his ideas trying to say you had whatever idea first.
BTW If your “thing” is claiming you came up with an idea before Larry, then I really don’t see why your “thing” should go unchallenged.
You take more from Larry than you think…
bla bla bla
BTW If your “thing” is claiming you came up with an idea before Larry, then I really don’t see why your “thing” should go unchallenged.
Wait just one damn minute here vonLettowVorbeck1914, IL has the copy right to “1914” so you are going to need to change your screen name. He thought about the year 1914 once in 1997 so it is his, give it up. Well at least it is hidden because your name is so long, maybe he wont notice :wink:
If your game is at all a game where units roll dice trying to get a certain number or less where you try to control territories and take important cities/territories and get money from them, you are taking plenty of ideas from Larry. Be a bit more grateful instead of needing to separate yourself from his ideas trying to say you had whatever idea first.
The idea you speak of has been in use long before AA.
I didn’t say i had these idea first, i just made them public first. The idea triggered the note, so get over it.
I’ve no objection to Germany invading Holland, though I don’t think the Allies should be allowed to invade neutrals.
I’ve suggested that Germany is allowed to collect trade income from Holland and other bordering neutrals; if they invade they still get this cash but add 4 units to opposing armies.
It wasn’t so much the forts; they knew that the entire French strategy was a drive through Alsace-Lorraine. So, in order to wrong-foot France, allow them to move east, and then swing round behind them to cut them off from supplies and reinforcements before crushing them.
I like that idea for Holland Flashman. At least it’s something to deal with that aspect of history. Germany never needed to invade Holland. What would be the point? A costly sideshow battle with nothing to gain. It needed to move quickly and defeat France. If France was defeated it could take Holland anytime it wanted to later anyway. I guess it’s the basic game mechanic of take territories and gain money that is at fault here.
I still say the forts had a important role in why Germany went through Belgium. You are correct in everything you are saying about the flanking maneuver, but the Germans feared the forts on the French border.
Yes, in WWII the Nazis ruthlessly exploited occupied tt, but it cost more to occupy than it ever produced. Unless you have a sound strategic reason invading neutrals should be more trouble than it’s worth.
@Imperious:
I didn’t say i had these idea first, i just made them public first.
:roll:
@Imperious:
I just don’t want somebody saying i took these ideas, when i had them first. I care about that.
@Imperious:
Funny how these rules are so much like my game. I am posting this only for prosperity so nobody can say who had the idea first.
@Imperious:
I am only protecting the fact that or when somebody says in our game: “did you get this idea from Larry?” i want to be sure who had this idea first so its not me looking like I just got this from Larry. Our game is original.
Protip: When you can’t keep track of what you say, it’s probably a good idea to say a lot less.
@Imperious:
I didn’t say i had these idea first, i just made them public first.
:roll:
@Imperious:
I just don’t want somebody saying i took these ideas, when i had them first. I care about that.
@Imperious:
Funny how these rules are so much like my game. I am posting this only for prosperity so nobody can say who had the idea first.
@Imperious:
I am only protecting the fact that or when somebody says in our game: “did you get this idea from Larry?” i want to be sure who had this idea first so its not me looking like I just got this from Larry.�  Our game is original.
Protip: When you can’t keep track of what you say, it’s probably a good idea to say a lot less.
LOL - EPIC
HOW EMBARRASSING!
Not embarrassing in the slightest. I got the info posted and that’s all that matters.
Nothing is inconsistent, because having the idea first means that i didn’t borrow the idea from Larry. Not concerned with having the “original idea” just that nobody can say we lifted ideas from his game.
So basically nice try.
@Imperious:
Nothing is inconsistent, because having the idea first means that i didn’t borrow the idea from Larry.
Lol. What a crock.
Having the idea independently means you didn’t borrow the idea from Larry.
Who had the idea first is a completely different issue.
Two people invent a widget. One invents it in India, the other in Canada. They exchanged no ideas and had no contact w’ith each other. One invents it in 2000, the other invents it in 2001. According to you, they both invented it first because they didn’t borrow anything from each other?
Making up absurd and illogical lies to prevent having to admit you don’t know what your talking about doesn’t really help your argument that you repeatedly stated that you had the idea first.
Blah Blah Blah.
According to you, they both invented it first because they didn’t borrow anything from each other?
No rather that my idea was not lifted from another.
Let me make it clear: that MY idea was not from Larry. So argue on about whatever phantom thing you need to bring up…it’s so entertaining!
So that’s it. All your other starter arguments fail. The idea triggered the note, get over it. :lol:
The recorded post proves it.
