A few comments on what TM Moses VII said in the above post:
“The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn. “
This is a great point. This really stresses the importance of Germany making smart decesions on how to distribute its forces and how many units should be used when trading territories with the Allies. Even if the Allies are out producing the German war effort and putting more guys on the EEu/Kar front, Germany can still put up a strong enough defense to stall the Allies long enough for Japan to take Russia.
“Regarding Western Europe, the reason why I used 5 transports was because that was what aforementioned post stated. I too believe in no poorly planned attacks by the Allies, but by striking Western Europe with such a limited task force, that is what I am expecting.”
Good point. However, as the Allies, it can be much safer to land in Spain first with both the UK and US. Next turn, WEu becomes a dead zone unless German pulls units from the EEu front. Many times this can be a much more viable tactic than an all out attack on WEu. The result is the same (opening two fronts in Europe) with less Allied casualties. If I understand your ATB theory, I think the Spain landing would be a good example in what it forces (or limits) the Germans to do in the next turn.
“I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia.”
Not sure that I agree with this. I think for the Axis to have a chance, it must take Moscow at least one turn before the either UK or US takes Germany. Otherwise the Allies have too much time to redeploy their troops and can start to build units in Europe to start helping the Russians push the Japs back.
“Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.”
With this IPC differencial, the Allies can let time do its damage to the Axis. Sure Japan would be stronger than any individual Ally, but the Allies can also split their forces and create multiple Japan fronts in which if Japan splits its forces, it no longer maintains the advantage you stated.
Regarding the US battleship:
“On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.”
One simple way to help the battleship survive is to send the E US TRN through the canal to help absorb a hit and make the odds more in the US favor. Thus, you would still use the WUS TRN as a blocker in the Mexico SZ and have a battleship and TRN in W Panama SZ. Now the best the Japs can do against the TRN/Battleship is send 2 fighters (if they both survived the Hawaii battle). Of course there are always “what if” things that could happen like the E US TRN needed in the UK SZ for defense or maybe it was lost if the Germans sent the Spain SUB against it (unlikely in most games). The problems with this scenerio is that so many things can happen before the US gets their first turn, but more times than not, the E US TRN can be sent to help the battleship. If Japan still goes after the remaining US navy in the Pacific, chances are that 1) both Jap fighters are dead, and 2) the other Jap units which attacked the Mexican SZ TRN are out of position for a couple of turns. Both are good results for the Allies.
I would love to discuss this subject matter for to the light of day. You remarked that I wouldn’t see the greatness of All Power to Germany, until I witnessed it myself. The problem is that I have, many, many times. All Power to Germany is not a new strategy or a very innovative one at that – nor does it mean instant victory. There is something to be said about coming up with you own unique playing style in a field dominated by norms. Now some people are content with consistency, so I really wouldn’t know.
Now you say that Germany can do nothing about an Allied invasion. I feel that this is untrue, as Germany can still accomplish a whole lot. On the first turn, Germany can hamper an Allied assault by UK through the total destruction of the navy. On the following turns, I can consolidate my gains in Africa as well as Eastern Europe. The mounting numbers superiority of the Allies does wreck havoc on Germany psychologically. However, if I can maintain control of Europe, then I still have a collectable income of 25 IPCs. On average I can still buy eight infantry per turn.
I agree with this for the most part. I also don’t doubt your experience. Many of your previous questions seem to indicate that you haven’t been playing against advanced Allied players, which is why I am under the impression that you haven’t seen the Crush Germany strategy played to it’s full potential - but I most certainly could be wrong, all I have to go on is what you have posted. Also, that is not at all an ‘attack’ on you or your opponents - I know that tone doesn’t come across on the Internet, so understand that I am only trying to help and I don’t mean anything negative in any way!
Also, I am curious as to what rules you play with and who you typically play against? I noticed you don’t use 2-hit battleships, so maybe you are playing 2nd edition. What about Russia Restricted, submerging, stuff like that? Those factors can make a world of difference.
Now you said that there are a few things Japan can do about it, but doing so relieves pressure against Russia. I really don’t understand what you mean by “few things,” either by sending planes to Germany or what? I always came to understand that the greatest way to help out Germany is by hurting Russia. So by increasing pressure on Russia, I am in fact relieving pressure from Germany by forcing Russia to defend her home boundaries.
You are exactly right. As I said in the original post, Japan has one job to do: take Russia before Germany falls. The ‘few things’ I alluded to are some minor and/or advanced Japanese strategies, such as landing in Alaska, sending the fleet around South America to threaten Brazil/South Africa, sending the Japanese Fleet west in the mid-game, etc. The specifics are worthy of entirely new posts, so I wasn’t going to get into the details of them. The important thing about all of these strategies is that they must take away as little momentum as possible from Japan’s assault on Russia.
Now the way GGF (Get Germany First) sounds, I will constantly be forced to send troops to Europe no matter what. So would I continue sending forces against Germany even though Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia?
That is correct, you send all of your troops to Europe (or occasionally Africa) no matter what – because Japan is on the verge of conquering Russia. The Allies can defend Russia from the west much easier than from the east. All the Allied troops in Karelia allow Russia to divert forces from Karelia to defend Russia, and if things are looking grim the Allies can move troops into Russia as well.
“(However, Germany can’t hold EE unless the Allies have screwed up somewhere - see below.)”
In this quote you attacked my idea that Germany will hold Eastern European. However, if you had examined my quote a little harder, you would notice,”…I think that many will agree with me that it is a victory that Germany can keep the Allies at Eastern Europe throughout the game. “ See how I said keep the Allies “at” Eastern Europe. So I am assuming that the Allies will indeed retake Germany.
My mistake, although I’m not trying to ‘attack’ any of your ideas!
Now the defeat of Germany is inevitable. But the number of turns this would require is the winning difference for the Axis. I can derive this from the fact that if Germany falls, Japan still has a chance of winning if it takes Russia. Based on IPC count, Japan would function at a income at 56-65 IPCs and the Allies around 74-85 IPCs. Japan does have one great advantage though she doesn’t have to split its forces between two countries like UK and USA do.
Yes, the number of turns Germany can survive is the winning difference for the Axis, but Japan has to take Russia BEFORE Germany falls. To be more accurate, Japan actually has to take Russia about two or three turns before Germany would have fallen, then prevent Germany from falling by putting pressure on the Allies from Russia. Japan cannot win a 3 on 1 game, no matter how out of control they are.
The battleship movement is also slightly flawed. First, this movement expects that the Japanese fleet will not go after the American fleet the following turn. Second, this movement assumes that Japan cannot launch fighters from its aircraft carrier to intercept the battleship. Now normally at Hawaii I will lose 1-2 units. On the following turn, the Japanese fleet attacks to unprotected transport, while the battleship is attacked 2 fighters. The battle is in favor of the planes at 83%.
I think the other guy covered this for 1-hit battleships, and it’s even worse for the Japanese fighters with the 2-hit battleships that most people play with now. I’ll also steal a quote from those advanced strategy essays I told you about:
Ignore any Japanese fleet in the Pacific. Move ALL surviving U.S. fleet through the Panama canal to assist and support the “shuck-shuck” transports in the Atlantic. If the Japanese player wants to take out your Battleship and Transport near Panama, fine…too bad for the Japanese; their fleet is now at least TWO TURNS out of position, effectively eliminating them as an early useful force in the game. This is a sucker move, and it will cause Axis death that much earlier.
To all: I can’t stress the value you will get from reading those essays enough! Players really need to fully understand the concepts of infantry pushes, the ‘shuck-shuck’ strategy, and especially dead zones before they will be able to develop strategies feasible against advanced players under the standard rules.
Here’s the website again for those of you who missed it:
http://donsessays.freeservers.com/
To TM Moses VII, maybe you have already read them and just don’t agree with them – nothing wrong with that. Maybe you know all of those concepts by different names through experience. Maybe you are only playing with your own circle of friends and don’t have to create strategies that will beat advanced players – just ones’ that will beat your friends. Maybe you put more value on developing unique strategies than perfecting existing ones – nothing wrong with that either.
This thread took a right-hand turn because we noticed you were making some strategy assumptions based on poor Allied play, and you seem to be unfamiliar with the specifics of some advanced allied tactics. That is not a personal attack on you by any means – I’m certainly not familiar with every advanced tactic myself, and I don’t know if you’ve played 5 games or 5000. Our discussion is really only on advanced Allied strategy – you are preaching to the choir about developing new strategy - everyone’s all for it. The original intention of this thread was to help improve the play of beginning and intermediate players, not to debate the value of new strategies. I’m genuinely interested in your ideas for a ‘balanced attack’ strategy – let’s all toss around ideas and see how much we can do with it!
However, all that having been said, the only strategies of value to many of us are the ones that are based on the advanced play concepts that have been proven effective over the years. Hundreds of players have already walked the path in front of you. There is nothing wrong with developing a unique playing style, but to misquote Bismark – your skill will evolve much faster if you learn from other people’s mistakes instead of your own.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-16 14:02 ]
Actually, I sort of play against TM Moses so rest assured there is quite the advanced challenge to the game.
Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies. :wink:
I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.
Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.
I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.
1. Japan still has large chance of winning the game even after Germany has fallen. However, this all has to do with proper timing. Usually the ideal situation that Japan should position itself in is this:
a. Let Germany fall to the Russians (now in really life Patton and his 3rd should’ve taken Berlin… but that is a different story).
b. If you really want to damage the Allies in the long run, also let the Russians take Eastern Europe, Norway, and Ukraine on the previous turns, and on the same turn Berlin falls, let the Russians take Southern Europe.
c. On Japan’s turn, use your massive ARM, ftr, and inf force to storm Moscow! (again, not in real life… but it’s just a game)
d. Now by Japan taking Moscow, what have I done? Not only is Russia knocked out of the game, but most of Eastern Europe along with it. The former territories I told you about: Ukraine, EE, SE, Norway, and Germany have all effectively become worthless territories (not to mention Karelia and Caucasus until Japan can take them). Effectively I have robbed USA and UK of (3+3+2+6+10) 24 potential German IPCs!
e. Now this is the real killing joke. When I take a Capital that means I collect all the IPCs that the former owner of the captured capital has. Not only am stripping the Russian economy but the Germans IPCs too, which were previously under Russian control.
f. Spend all my money on tanks and infantry from which I can overrun the Allies.
If by ‘large chance’ you mean Japan has say, a 20% chance of winning I might buy it, but otherwise we’ll just have to agree to disagree. What you have described sounds more like the optimal situation for Japan that presents the only way they would have a chance of winning – I certainly wouldn’t consider it the norm. I know what you mean about the former Russian territories being worthless, but it usually only applies to Karelia, Caucasus, and Ukraine. Maybe I’m the only one, but I seem to always wind up taking EE and Germany with the UK or more often the US – it’s rarely with Russia. If the game is that close, most of my Russian troops are in Russia. Usually the Japan player just throws in the towel, so I don’t think that too many are played out to begin with.
2. I don’t think the majority of Axis and Allies players use 2-hit battleships, as they are not currently sanctioned under Official Axis and Allies Tournaments – or last time I checked.
You may be right, but in my A&A world (which is mostly online play, Spring1942, the zone, and my circle of friends) they do. I know that the IAAPA still uses 2nd Edition rules…
3. Sorry, don’t know what you mean when you say I have effectively eliminated the Japanese fleet as an early useful force in the game. Usually on the opening turns with Japan, I only consider one thing, getting as many troops as I can into Asia. On a closer examination there is not many Asian coastal territories within the striking distance of the Japanese fleet even if it still was at Hawaii. I can only rule the Soviet Far East and India as the only real available Asian coastal territories and both can be taken within the first three turns, the Far East especially. It is not until at least turn 3 do I make any actual attempts as island conquering (ie Australia, Hawaii). On the contrary, if I do not take out the American battleship, it gives the Allies the huge benefit on not building any Naval units to protect transports against Luftwaffe attacks.
Don’s quote, not mine. I think he’s talking about the fighters being out of position, i.e. they would be better used pushing the assault in the mainland. Not to mention the fact that you will probably lose both planes – even with 1-hit battleships it’s an attack with bad odds. If the US brings a transport from the East Coast then Japan has about a 60% chance of losing both fighters. I’ve seen people do it anyway to force the US to build another capital ship and you can always get lucky, but I personally think the 2 Fighters are more valuable to Japan then the Battleship is to the US. It’s just a bad move anyway you look at it. He could also be talking about swinging the fleet around South America.
4. I have read some of Don’s essays, and I can tell you that they are extremely influential. In fact, all of my A&A: Allies strategies take something from them. However, I can say Don’s essays are perfect. There are people at these forums, including myself, that have beaten other players that stick to Don’s essays to the letter. Besides, there is nothing very appealing to the standard buy all infantry each turn.
I’m sure you meant not perfect, and I agree with you 100% - they are somewhat antiquated, a little overzealous – especially about “use these opening moves or you will lose”, and the infantry buildup game is certainly the most boring strategy in A&A – but it does still give the Allies the best chance of winning, and the basic concepts are extremely valuable to beginning and intermediate players.
“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truly counts” –
I like the quote! I’m a big fan of WWII and WWI air combat. I am lucky enough to have one of the largest private libraries on WWI aviation about 5 minutes from my house, at the University of Texas at Dallas.
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 12:20 ]
:lol:
According to Don, by participating in the Panama air combat raid at 15ft on the Battleship, I am somewhat abusing the use of my fighters, which should be used in Asia. So I can understand where he’s coming from. However, the simple thought of letting 24 IPCs slip away from my fingers is just too much for Japan to reconsider. Plus the delay is not as great as expected. On the third turn my aircraft laden carrier can return to Wake Island, where upon I can launch my ftrs to reach almost any location Asia in my non-combat phase. However, with ATB, this is still considered wasted effort under the part of my fighters. If you want to somewhat make up for the difference, you can invade Hawaii on the return trip.
As for the Japanese turn, that is the ideal situation, which I stated above. Usually this doesn’t happen much, but when it does, the Allies are in for a world of hurt. Generally I can take Russia before the fall of Germany with Japan and sometimes even relieve the Germans.
“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts” -
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-17 20:50 ]
BTW, That’s highly intelligent of you to recognize those two quotes. I’m sure anyone with the slightest knowledge of WWII air combat would know who Adolf Galland is. And for no small matter – the youngest fighter general in history. However, the second quote was much more ambiguous. But again, who doesn’t know the Red Baron and his Flying Circus? My favorite fighter is the famed Erich Hartmann, a strict Me-109 advocate and one of the few to oust Adolf in the kills category.
However, a much less secular view has emerged from which I can also accredit to Galland.
“Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall success of the group….The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself.” - Letter to Adolf’s brother Wilhelm - January 1943.
Not intelligent of me - just my main interest!
Here is the first thing I always bring up: Ever read this book?
War in the Air : True Accounts of the 2Oth Century’s Most Dramatic Air Battles by the Men Who Fought Them - Stephen Coonts (edited it)
These are the most incredible stories you have ever read, about 20 short stories from WWI all the way through Vietnam!
If you haven’t, trust me - quit reading this post and go order it from Amazon right now!!!
My favorite pilot is probably Boelcke, just for the fact that he was the pioneer of it all - the original fighter pilot.
His gravesite even had a wreath with the inscription: “To the memory of Captain Boelcke. Our brave and chivalrous opponent. From The British Royal Flying Corps”.
“A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.” - Moltke
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:33 ]
When it comes to air combat, I usually stick to pre-Vietnam War. And let me tell you why. “There is something inherently compelling about the image of lone airmen matching wits and the performance of their respective aircraft in a one-on-one duel – modern warfare’s last throwback to a form of combat predating Homer’s Iliad, now rapidly vanishing into the smoke left by radar-guided air-to-air missiles.” The missiles say it all. With missiles, fights begin to lean a lot more to the machine then they do to the man. Furthermore, air combat has evolved into a much larger based conflict with squadron-based tactics. I am in now way degrading today’s air force though, as the America’s Air Force is the World Finest with an average kill ratio of 12 to 1 - if not higher.
War in the Air: True Accounts of the 2Oth Century’s Most Dramatic Air Battles by the Men Who Fought Them? I think I’ll check this one out. The majority of my fighter information comes from the library, so I’ll be sure to drop by there sometime soon to check if they have in stock. (Don’t blame me, I’m just a reader on a budget). I would also like to suggest “Battles with the Luftwaffe: The Bomber Campaign Against Germany 1942-1945” by Theo Boiten and Martin Bowman. A sincerely interesting read detailing the dramatics, dynamics, and daily running of the gauntlet that our brave Allied airman had to partake on a daily basis.
I’m sure you can find War in the Air at the library. I’m right there with you on pre-vietnam - I think there’s only one or two Vietnam stories and they are about Huey pilots - those guys had balls as big as any fighter pilot!
I don’t want to spoil any of the stories, but just to give you a sneak preview - one of them was written by a british pilot, and the last part of the story was about him limping home over the channel on his own after a bad dog fight, I think in a Hurricane. A ME-109 saw him, came up behind him, took his time lining up on him (he couldn’t manuver) and then let loose. It didn’t bring him down. The german pilot pulled up beside him, surveyed the damage to the Hurricane, then fell back behind him and did it again. It still didn’t bring the Hurricane down. I think the german pilot repeated the whole process 3 or 4 times, but the Hurricane wouldn’t go down. The german finally pulled up beside him, saluted him, and then took off. The guy made it back to base! They counted the bullet-holes in his plane and it was in the hundreds!
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:49 ]
I have a great deal of respect for bomber crews, probably more so then fighter pilots. If I was piloting a P-51 Mustang and found myself outnumbered 10 to 1 by Me-109s and Fw-190s, I could just go full throttle and out fly them. Obviously for big bombers, this is certainly not the case. Imagine the nerve wrecking experience of seeing flak (and in Vietnam SAMs) blanketing the sky for many miles but having no other alternative then to fly through it. If that isn’t enough to knock the socks right off you, you still have to deal against nimble enemy interceptors willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the homeland. The only real advantage I see with bombers is really the fact that if you’re hit, at least you won’t die alone. :sad:
My grandfather would be glad to hear you say that - he’s part of the reason I’m a big pilot buff. He flew B-24s in the Pacific. The only problem is that every time we ask him to tell us stories about the war, he says “I’m a lover, not a fighter!” and tries to pinch Grandma (or my wife) on the butt… lol! We have a lot of great photos of him though.
[ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-05-17 21:58 ]
How neat, you also had a family member who also served in the Great War. I also had a great uncle that served in the war as a rifleman in the European theater. Now being a rifleman in the Army was like being a bombardier in the Air Force. I think that if my stats are correct, even though rifleman only composed ten percent of the Army, they suffered ninety percent of the causalities. Quite literary, the riflemen were the guys that saved our arse in the Battle of the Bulge. While that and the heroics, of George Patton and his 3rd.
I am also a huge war buff and even considered joining the military. The only problem is that war has changed a lot if the invention of nuclear weapons, biological/chemical weapons, “smart” bombs, cruise missiles, and even self sustained fighting machines. In that sense a bit of humanity has been lost. No room for heroes and cowards, just those who are dead and those who aren’t.
Could a P-51 really outfly a FW-190 ?
War is not an art form anymore.
F_alk
Trust me, the P-51 could eat any WWII fighter for breakfast (maybe except for the Me-262 and other jet powered aircraft). But if you really want to know, here are the facts:
Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane.
The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190.
The P-51B had a range at 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter’s.
The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109.
The special characteristics of the P-51’s laminar-flow wing and flaps made it possible to safely exceed the top dive speed and maneuver better than any other aircraft of the time.
I think that the only area the FW-190 could’ve bested the P-51 on was armament.
Ansbach,
That story you told about the British fighter, I heard of that too! At first I thought it was a tall-tale, told from the German Luftwaffe gatherings (indeed, the story I heard came from the German pilot who conducted the attack). It was an open target and he wasted his entire ammunition on it! Thanks for clearing the factualness of the story, while presenting me with a different point of view. :smile:
There were many stories of gratitude and honor during the European Air War. Adolf “Gallant” Galland practically defines chivalry in the air. Another Me-109 pilot (name escapes me) saw a battered B-17 limping home a bombing raid. Instead of attacking it (whereupon the bomber crews expected certain death), the Me-109 took pity on the crew and escorted it across the English Channel to English soil. Later on after the war had ended, the Me-109 and B-17 bomber crew met each other at a reunion and soonafter became great friends.
Candyman,
War is still an art form but a very changed on at that (much less romantic and more modernist). No longer will war be based on the bravery of men but high technology. I can already simulate the next major war where gene-specific biological weapons, EMP bombs, machines, and tactical nukes are used.
“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts” -
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-19 10:41 ]
When I think of art, I think of movement and emotion. There are no such traits like these in modern warfare.
