Better idiots

@frimmel:

@billinjackson:

@BARKER:

how long do you or can you play until you catch hell–-me about 8 hours

The key is to get your kids involved. I have 5 boys and 4 are actively playing with me (also their friends). Now, playing Axis and Allies is just being a good Dad.  :wink:

Brilliant! I’d also think it would be being a good husband as your wife gets a ‘break’ from the boys.

Exactly! Had a great game of global Friday night into Saturday with my 12 year old as Japan, myself with Germany and Italy, my 15 year old with Russia and China and three of his friends dividing up the rest of the allies. Their all hooked… The wife was elated.  :wink:

@axis_roll:

OK, can we take this premise is a slightly different direction?

what makes a great A&A player?
[Not sure if these are in order of importance of not, we can argue that after we create a list]
Also assuming a 1-on-1 game.  Team dynamics are a whole other discussion.

1).   Experience

Knows the game and the ‘better’ strategies and more important territories as well some of the nuances of the game (like sub / DD interaction / vulnerabilities as well as how to coordinate moves with your allies countries)

2).  Vision / Ability to see 2-3 rounds down the road in a game.

If you can not see what your opponent is trying to do to you or have a strategy for your side (at least a general one), it’s hard to win.  Knowing HOW to win is not hard (your objectives), you can gleen that from the rules, knowing HOW to achieve those are much more vital

3).  Understanding / mitigating the risks

Take good odds battles, unless you are falling behind, you might starting increasing your risks in order to increase your chances of winning.

4).  Determining who is winning / losing (very tightly related to 3)

If you think you are winning when you are in fact losing, your moves may be counter productive.  An example helps to explain my point.  If I think I am winning, I may have no sense of urgency to force my opponent to counter my move(s), or properly increase my risk exposure.

5).  Being able to realize AND take advantage of an opportunity

Many times in games, a battle may go awry for/against you (dice will do that!).  Sometimes it can be so bad that no level of contingency plan you have created can save you EXCEPT for your opponents failure to realize and exploit this weakness.  Good players recognize these situations.

6).  Realizing any unit is disposable to meet your objective(s)

Often times, a player is hung up on the COST of some units that are risked/lost.  “Oh, I took france but it cost me 3 bombers to do it!”
Well that just might be the best move for the situation, ESPECIALLY if you can afford it or needed that battle to get back into the game (see #3 about mitigating the risks)

Please feel free to add to my quick list.  I am sure there are many more.

Very solid list.

Oh :oops: sorry i got a little steamed… :oops:

I think its not. That thing you quoted is an US law proposal, and the only difference from the situation today is that a UN controlled lightly armed force would subsitute the US controlled heavily armed forces…. maybe that difference between “N” and “S” is the thing you dislike that much.

@Grigoriy:

Why did it take them so long to be charged?

Canadian courts!?!

@Xi:

Peter Arnett was seen by some as sympathetic to the Iraqi regime in both this war and the 1991 Gulf War, when he reported from Baghdad for CNN….

"…I think American policy and strategy is the weakest when it comes to the Iraqi people. The U.S. administration is concerned with the possibility of killing civilians, because the international community is very concerned about the Iraqi people. President Bush says he is concerned about the Iraqi people, but if Iraqi people are dying in numbers, then American policy will be challenged very strongly…

"…For that reason, the Pentagon keeps saying that the civilian casualties, particularly in Baghdad in the last three or four days, at the market places – the Pentagon says – well they are Iraqi missiles that land amongst the people. They keep saying that, but of course the Iraqi government says they are clearly cruise missiles that hit the population…

Ok, so what is wrong about the statements?
The first includes an “i think” at the beginning and an “if-then with present and future” combination at the end? ANything wrong with it?
The second… well, the Pentagon also says that the shrapnels of US missiles found there were brought there by Iraqi officials… and he gives both sides version: is that bad journalism?

If you want to know the answer to this question all you have to do is ask a southerner “who is the most hated General in history?”

They will always say Sherman.

your’e right although both games aren’t too good aae is less complicated.