Posts made by 221B Baker Street

Switch,

The Japanese fleet is no match offensively against the large number of transports (in addition to the full US and remaining UK capital ships) the Allies will have.

HOWEVER, upon further reflection, I think this might actually work if the Japanese simply parks this fleet off E. Canada (which effectively shuts off the shuck-shuck).  While the combined Allied fleet is more powerful, both the UK and US fleet will still be weaker than the Japanese fleet and will suffer losses in trying to sink this fleet.  Defensively, I think the Japanese fleet might be able to hold its own (transports cannot attack, except as cannon fodder).  Additionally, there is the possibility of Germany landing fighters on the AC to replace lost Jap fighters, or even Japan sending fighters to Germany then reinforcing again after the UK attack.

I’m going to have to try this to see what happens - I’m still not sure if the Allies will have enough navy/airpower to clear this fleet without losing the shuck for more than a turn…

Sometimes as Germany I’ll take it as I am retreating from the Allies in Africa.  If I am pressing against Russia hard I prefer to conserve my forces for the drive on Russia rather than lose them in a futile attempt to hold Africa.  At the very least I can force Russia to defend Cauc. which diverts troops out of Karelia or Moscow.

Doesn’t mean I’m winning the game however  :-(

Switch,

With regards to a Japanese fleet roaming the Atlantic, since the US will have its entire fleet, I think the Allies have plenty of options to counter.  Also, the potential IPC gain by this is really minimal and not worth the opportunity cost as the bulk of available, sustainable growth for Japan is in Asia.Â

Now if the Japanese fleet is sucessful in disrupting the “shuck-shuck”, even for a couple of turns, in the Atlantic its worth it.  But I think an experienced player will not be rattled by this and will be able to deal with this fleet, either by sinking it, or by shadowing it with the US fleet and a couple of transports to retake any ipc loses (keeping the UK capital ship and the bulk of the transports in the N. Sea to maintain the 'shuck-shuck").

Would never happen in France, there are no overweight people there.  All French people are very healthy, with good eating habits and regular excercise as the norm.

especially if Germany was duing some suicide missions to keep the INF count down in Karelia and/or Caucuses.

Well, Russia could divert enough forces from Karelia to Novo (or Moscow) to protect themselves from Japan (for a while) but this opens up Karelia to Germany.  If Karelia is held by Germany, then the Allies will be unable to reinforce Russia…until they can retake Karelia which could be very difficult to do on turn 3 or 4.  So maybe Russia falls on G5 instead?

I think a Power Asia bid of 12 (4 infantry) would make a more balanced game.

In my experience, Fortress Europe is the best way for the Axis to win in a no-bid game.  You do try to keep Africa as long as you can (you need the money).  Also, you need to be able to trade Ukraine back on forth (the $3 a turn is also needed).  At some point you will probably lose W. Europe, but can roll your tanks from E. Europe to re-take it (conceeding E. Europe for a turn, taking it back next turn with your tanks).

The key with Japan is to start rolling for tech as soon as you are able to push 10 or so inf a turn into Asia.  I always hope to get IT or HB either of which might give Japan enough to take out Russia (as long as Germany is still alive).

Of course the Axis still lose most of the time (at least when I play).  Japan might never get the techs needed, the Allies can also roll for tech, Germany might (and usually does) fall before Japan gets IT, or HB…  But this seems to be the best way to win in a standard game, AFAIK.

You can only carry this Christian thing so far, after a point its utility as a guidline for behavior requires too many unnatural changes.
we cant just keep up a stiff upper lip in the face of the pure evil allowing it in our presence.

I know I’m going off topic here, but what are the unnatural changes are required to be a Christian?

8 inf bid (or 24 ipcs) seems quite high to me as well.  As NCSC says, Japan will be in Novo by J2, J3 latest.  As the allies I would not want Japan strong in Novo before I could get the Allied inf to help defend… Russia falls on J4?

I can argue yes, you rat out your partner.

The arguement for this is that the problem specifically states you are a robber, but it does not state that you are not a liar.  Unless the case specifies what you are capable of doing (i.e. lying, murder, etc.) I assume that you are a robber and only a robber.  Therefore you cooperate fully with the police out of a respect for authority and because of you believe it is wrong to lie (but not wrong to steal).

Fair enough CC, yet the evidence for his guilt seems pretty convincing to me.  While he certainly could have been framed for one or two of the crimes he was convicted on, I find it difficult to beleive he was framed for all of them.  Or that there were not other crimes he commited where he was not caught.

Dunno if 40 years in prison is better or worse than death.  I guess it depends on your perspective of what happens after you die.

Also, just so there is no misunderstanding, I’m not pleased that he is dead.  Capital punishment doesn’t make me happy.

The question seems to be when is the death penalty appropriate (if ever)?

Well, just to put my 2 cents in, capital punishment is the only place where I am not pro-life (I have a great respect for life, be it in the womb or in prison).  I’m not saying the death penalty should be common, in fact I think it should be quite rare and reserved only for the most evil in society.

However when there is someone who

1. Is very violent, murdering for little or no cause (i.e. not manslaughter)
2. Commits these crimes multiple times (making possible wrong convictions much, much less likely)
3. Shows no true (not staged, after all everyone in prison is a born again Christian…until they get out) remorse or desire to change (Tookie did say he was changed, but refused to apologize to the families of his victims…not a sign of remorse)

then I consider that it can be correct to apply the death penalty.  The individual has forfeited his right to live by his gruesome actions.  Why should society spend the effort to keep this individual locked up forever (with the corresponding chance of escape or other nefarious actions in prison - such as ordering retaliation on the witnesses to his crimes)?  Why should surviving victims and family members not have closure?

With regards to cost, the expenses being greater to execute someone is a result of our overly expensive (in every respect) legal system, and should not be a reason to stop the death penalty.  Cost should never be a factor constraining justice.

As part of its rise, China is developing more military and political options, so don’t discount them and think only of invasion.

I read an article a while back that discussed the possibility, not of an amphibious assault, but rather of a different sort of military attack.  It went something along the following lines:

With coordinated special operations forces, the key leadership of Taiwan is taken out.  At the same time, new leaders are immediately inserted into these positions (either being in place as agents of China or by force - a small force can effectively control governmental offices for a short time - when necessary).  China immediatly recognizes/formally assigns the new government and proceeds to send additional officers from the mainland to “assist” the transition which happens before the US/EU/UN can effectively respond.  Due to the lack of coordination by the remaining agencies on the part of Taiwan (in part because of mainland Chinese agents), the Taiwanese are unable to resist effectively.  As the only governing leaders in Taiwan now are pro-China, the reunification takes place and there is no choice by the world but to recognize this.

What are the odds of something like this working?  I’d say pretty slim, but it is at least a possibility.

Chengora,

Very good points and I agree with them all.  The only thing I want to comment further on is the idea that integration between China and Taiwan is inevitable.  I think this assumption may not be true.  Might Taiwan be growing apart from China rather than towards China?  In other words, is it possible that the people in Taiwan do, or will, think of themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese?

If this is the case, then I would think China would rather integrate Taiwan sooner rather than later.

Furthermore, if this is the case then the possibility of resistance and gurreila warfare also exists, assuming that China suceeds in taking the island.  And as we have seen taking something is not the same as keeping it.

NCSC,

Interesting concept, I like this way of thinking as a possibility.

One reason for not doing this might be that sometimes (and I will often do this) the tank in Norway is taken to Africa in a non-combat move via the Baltic transport once the UK Navy is cleared out.  Thus, there will already be additional defensive forces present and this assumes UK will sink the transport.

In any event, the money in Africa is located between Egypt and S. Africa and this is where Germany needs to concentrate its forces.  Also, once the Allies do get into Africa with sufficient forces to take it, Germany has the option to back out of Africa into Asia/Russia to assist with the Assualt on Moscow.  Of course leaving the German forces in Egypt, or Syria, or Persia forces the Allies to maintain its forces in Africa as well…they cannot retreat them back to the transports to ship back to Russia if the German forces are still there.  Otherwise Germany can retake Africa and its ipcs again.

One problem with the BB and trany sinking the UK sub and taking Syria is that the odds are slim.  Assuming the sub is sunk or retreats, you do not get a BB shot on Syria.  2 inf vs. 1 inf is about 67% chance of sucess if I remember correctly.  Its better IMO to take Egypt hard and dare UK to try to take it back when you have more defenders present.

Assume RR.  Also, it might be interesting to discuss what to buy and where to put these forces.

Assume RR.  Also, it might be interesting to what you purchase and where you put these forces.

Yanny,

Found a link that confirms that international trade was higher prior to WWI than it is today: http://www.investorglossary.com/globalization.htm

From the article:

Contrary to popular belief, in some respects globalization is not at its peak. In the decades prior to WWI, international trade’s percentage of global GDP was higher than it is today, so that period is sometimes called the first era of globalization.

Also I found an article discussing how free trade CAN result in what you describe:

http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/smith/tiedeman.htm

So to further your point about economic linkages, I think you are right in that free trade will reduce the chances of WWIII, but that it is based more on how and why this trade is important than the mere fact of the trade.

How about one beer for each extra 10 IPCs one can earn as a group (Axis or Allies)

I like this…Lets make a deal:  Each turn Germany leaves Ukraine, Karelia, and W. Europe defended only by 1 inf.  The Allies take it, but leave only 1 inf. in each to defend against Germany on the next turn.  What do  you think?

No, for a world war, the world has to be divided, or dividable into relatively equal parts.  Otherwise the war doesn’t begin as it is obvious who will win.  Right now, the USA has a much greater military capacity than any other nation, spending 3X as much as all of Europe.

Yanny, I disagree that economic linkages are sufficient to prevent a world war.  By some measures (% of GDP of involved nations as exports/imports), the world was more economically linked immediately prior to WWI than it is today, yet WWI still happened.  I’ll try to find this link when I get more time.

Yanny,

A couple of questions,

1. Are you sure these rules are accurate?  Note the following link where wikipedia was either inadvertently or even perhaps intentionally wrong to the detriment of an individual:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051205-091148-6438r

Wikipedia’s accuracy challenged again
NEW YORK, Dec. 5 (UPI) – A former Tennessee newspaper publisher has challenged the accuracy and ethics of the free, user-written Wikipedia online encyclopedia.

John Seigenthaler, 78, said he was shocked to see the write-up on him by an anonymous contributor that claimed he “was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby.”
Seigenthaler, the former editor of The Tennessean newspaper, wrote in USA Today he had learned that the writer was a customer of BellSouth Internet, but that federal privacy laws shield the identity of Internet customers, even if they disseminate defamatory material. And the laws protect online corporations from libel suits.

Seigenthaler decided against going to court, but wrote “that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.”

His biography has since been corrected, The New York Times reported.

The non-profit enterprise was launched in January 2001, the brainchild of Jimmy Wales, 39, a former futures and options trader who lives in Florida. The site receives 2.5 billion page views a month, and offers at least 1,000 articles in 82 languages.

2. If this is an accurate code of conduct for the school, is it todays version or a version from 1975?  While its fine to fault them for their beliefs at that time, its also possible they have changed since then.  If they have “liberalized” their stance since then, they should be held in higher regard.