You heard it here first - Immortality

@CWO:

@ABWorsham:

I was sixteen years old; it was the Christmas of 1996. I had been playing Risk and heard stories of a WWII game called Axis and Allies. I found the game at Toys-R-Us. My dad thought I was crazy paying over fifty dollars for a board game, but he did like the picture of Rommel on the front cover.

I was Germany my first game. Five of us played. I remember attacking capturing all of Africa. My friend’s father gave up saying the game was too long for his taste.

I wonder what your dad would have thought if he’d known that, a few years in the future, a two-part Global 1940 game costing about three times as much would come on the market, and I wonder what your friend’s dad would have thought if he’d known that this Global 1940 game would take about three times as long to play.

He would just shake his head in disbelief. Dad is very cheap.

I was up at 3am then (guess why?), and saw Nightline bring a live report about the miners being saved.  Actually, I came in the middle of it, and thought it was an old video of the PA rescue.  A couple was standing there saying that they got a call and rushed over, but couldn’t see the individuals because they needed to be checked.  Nothing specific was being said.  I wondered: is this real?  Could they be dead and they don’t want to break the horrible news?  I was informed the next day that they only found 1 alive, in critical condition.  What is his status?

I hardly think the situation is laughable.  They were intending to give great news about a near disaster, that in actuality turned out to be false.  I would shame them if they rushed HORRIBLE news, which seems to be the standard for most news these days.

@Yanny:

This has nothing to do with Valerie Plame and Karl Rove. The Dems want answers for why we were misled into going to War with Iraq.

Reminds me of the “Spot” act introduced into the House by Abraham Lincoln.

Question is, will President Bush claim executive privelage if this move actually results in a serious investigation.

This isn’t posturing. It’s a serious move by a lot of Senators on both sides of the isle (The Dems don’t have enough votes to call a motion of secrecy without Republican support).

Not only that, but we won’t hear about what goes on. Since 1830, the Senate has only gone secret 3 times. All three were concerning highly sensitive cold-war era paramilitary interventions.

This is serious stuff.

I think that this could be a bombshell, or a buch of crap.  Closed sessions are a good thing.  Sorry folks, national security takes presidence over the national enquires “need to know”.  If they have proof that they don’t want to reveal for national security, hats off… a good move and not at all politicaly motivated.  Mcarthy did not betray this country by telling ppl how he got his info, and that is noble (I bet I get a bunch of people down my throat for that one).

If it is a political stunt, than it is an act of a desperate entity that is about to die.

I agree with CC on the UN.

Computers, we could easily do without them. Humans did for 99.9% of our race’s life. Computers have helped saved lives, but only after applying a seperate innovation which was previously related to the computer.

Terrorists, ect are not caught by computers. They are caught by people. Computers are simply a little tool they can use to help relay information. Many con men will tell you, sure all this new technology is great, but it doesn’t beat a good head on your soldiers and a smile.

A friend tried to introduce me to it in high school, but I wasn’t interested at the time due to booze, girls, etc. About 2 years ago, another friend got me to play a game and now I’m hooked!

@cystic:

thanks man.
although i have few plans to make it to that end of Europe for a few years yet. Unless they breed well in POrtugal (i don’t remember seeing a single cow . . . horses and donkeys i saw, but no cows).

Well somewhere there must be cows… how could they make yummy Bifanas if they had no cows :)…
When will you go to Portugal?

On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.

I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).

Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.

[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]

On 2001-11-16 18:00, e_prime wrote:
first– greetings to all,
it’s good to see some nice discussion.

i’d like to know how many people play with russia not being able to attack in the first turn?

i haven’t played a+a in quite some time (hmm. almost 5 years) and i’ve recently started playing with a couple of new people who are quite skilled players (which is nice) however, when i played before russia was never allowed to attack first. these guys play with the russian’s being able to attack first. i don’t know if it’s my skills being rusty or what. . .but i haven’t been able to have a dominating win with axis yet!! one ipc victory (only because of japan) and two losses. it’s quite frustrating.

help?

If you say these guys are skilled players, then that explains it all. Skilled players don’t loses convincingly when playing the Allies under the normal set of rules.

I just had a dominating victory as the Axis against some friends who have a lot of experience but haven’t played in a while. They are convinced that their poor rolling was the reason they lost so badly. They believe this because there was no single move that they made that proved to be devistating to their objectives. However, it was obvious to me -and my partner- that their over all strategy (or lack there of) was very weak. They should know better.

If these guys have a good understanding of the fundamentals of the game as well as Allied strategy, you are probably going to have to forget about a dominant Axis victory and learn to settle for just a victory.

Good luck