Posts made by 221B Baker Street

I like F_alks plan:

Better follow my FAQ, valid for any nations:

• roll only ones
• win game

Could we insert a technology - roll the dice to receive “loaded” dice for the rest of the game? :wink:

Seriously, SS, I’m not meaning to be insulting or anything, but your FAQs do seem to lack on details and sometimes seems to not be possible with the rules of AaA. Check as Optorch suggested, are we talking about the same game or perhaps you could provide more details in your FAQs?

If nothing else, throw out a segment of these and ask for comments from the AaA community - would this be a good idea? what are the benefits/drawbacks for this? how can this strat be countered?…

CC wrote:

Given a climate of “abortion for the sake of convenience”, i’m surprised that this is such a “controversy”.

Well, while in the US abortion is legal, not everyone believes this is the right thing to do. I’ve seen numerous polls, but basically its about 50/50 in the US. Furthermore, with things such as partial birth abortion, you find that there are very few supporters. I’ve heard statements about “post-birth abortions” :o :evil: :cry: See for example:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio589.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041130-100130-5165r.htm
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/12/postbirth_abort.html

Kind of chilling to me that this is even considered anywhere. I’m waiting for abortion proponents to suggest this here in the US, it will certainly happen if Americans ever come to accept partial birth abortions.

Zooey72:

Our government is looking at this in a long term way, the same way we defeated the USSR.

I think you are on to something here. There is no doubt that the actions in Iraq, while perhaps encouraging more terrorists on the local level (i.e. a few more Saudi citizens get involved) also greatly discourage the support of middle eastern governments. Witness for example Lybia giving up its WMD program, or the events in Lebanon. And how about the invaluable help Pakistan provides?

A few additional terrorists for AQ doesn’t change the equation much - there is really nothing these individuals can add to AQ’s arsenal. However governmental bodies could potentially give AQ greatly helpful things:

1. A safe base of operations for training, planning, etc. For example, Afganistan prior to 911. This is invaluable to AQ and cannot be overstated for many reasons both obvious and not so obvious.

2. Assistance with WMD’s. There is no real evidence that this happened, but certainly no country would want to be identified by chemical markers or the like. Really, I would be surprised if AQ didn’t have WMD’s. A Japanese terrorist group used them in the 90’s (Sarin gas) in a subway.

3. Actions by this nation can be taken at the UN. For example, if that nation happened to be on the security council (non-permanent members rotate seats), they can veto necessary UN actions - effectively paralyzing the UN and making unilateral actions, as we have seen, much more difficult. Also, imagine the intellegence bonaza for AQ here!

I could continue, but to be brief I’ll go to my last point. A sucessful Iraq will show ordinary people in the middle east that it is posible for them to fight against terrorists. Too many are basically held hostage out of fear of reprisal. This should not be so – or would anyone rather we were all giving kickbacks and favors to the local mob boss? An unsuccessful Iraq doesn’t change the current status.

I think Pres. Wilson made very wise decisions. He kept us out as long as he could (one of his campaign slogans for his 2nd term) thus saving countless American lives. Keep in mind this was a time when it was thought by the best military minds at the time that the best way to take out a machine gun nest was to send troops towards it until the machine gun ran out of bullets. The French didn’t even try to have their soldiers camophlage (spelling??) and these brave men charged machine gun nests wearing bright red outfits :o . Certainly any other color would have been preferable - how about mud-colored brown?

But because of the sinking of American (neutral) ships on the high seas by German U-boats in deliberate, despicable (many people died) violation of international treaties signed by Germany, among others, Wilson was eventually forced to declare war. At least then we were acknowledging the reality of this warfare. Not that UK, France, etc. had clean hands either, but their actions didn’t affect the US much.

attitudes … that only perfect babies will be acceptable upon birth.

So how do they propose to define “perfect?” What might be considered a desirable trait by one person might be considered undesirable by another.

Also, this quickly becomes a slippery slope as technology increases… suppose your baby has a 50/50 chance of being severly retarded? or mildly retarded? What about a 30/70 chance? or the rare 5% or 1% chance? Suppose further research shows the 50/50 chance was in reality only 5%? Would there be any regret for the aborted baby? For the missed opportunity for parenthood should the mother have become too old for childbirth after this event? And what happens if you have great difficulty becoming preganant, would these doctors recommend taking more of a chance for a mildly retarded baby?

a timeframe of 5 years, a cost of $500 billion, 4,000 soldiers dead + 30,000 wounded, and 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

Some things are worth more than any amount of money or lives. Should Iraq become a truely free nation as a result of the intervention by the US, UK, and others, then I say yes it was worth it.

CC:

Yeah, I don’t like options 3 or 4 either. But they are possibilities that could be used.

The PA or PE bids are the most conventional strats and generally both seem to give the Axis a good chance at winning.

With operation sea lion, I’m not convinced that it is an automatic win because I think Russia will be all over Germany and the ipc’s Germany gains by the UK will be needed to keep the US out of England. But I haven’t played this strategy enough to really try it out.

With rolling for tech, you are right, Germany had better get lucky soon with this. I think this would make for either a very short game (Germany doesn’t get IT) or a very long game (Germany gets IT). Again, I haven’t played this enough to really know how well it works.

Feedback on these is a good thing because even if an idea is half-baked it still might be fun to try sometime :wink: .

i would like to know all the strats for Germany

I’m not certain it is possible to know all the strats as there always seems to be a new wrinkle out there. But with a bid, I can list a few ideas in general terms:

1. Power Africa. Here the extra forces go into Africa in an attempt to take and keep Africa. The extra income from Africa is expected to enable Germany to either eventually overwhelm Russia or gain an economic victory.

2. Power Europe. Here the extra forces goes into Europe in an attempt to either crush Russia in the early to mid game or to enable Germany to hold out defensively until Japan can defeat Russia.

3. Operation Sea Lion. Here the extra forces goes into another transport in the Baltic Sea. Germany attempts to defeat England on G1 and take the capital. Usually Germany also rolls for tech on G1 hoping for long range aircraft and heavy bombers to assist in this attempt. This is not as good a way to play (IMO) as PA or PE, as the odds are still not great and the capture of the UK isn’t as decisive a victory as the capture of Russia because it is harder to defend the UK from the Allies retaking. But it might be fun to try sometime.

4. Rolling for Tech. Here the idea is to use the bid to enable Germany to survive (think lots of infantry in Europe on this bid - almost a variation of PE) while buying a lot of technology. Germany hopes the technology gained (IT is most helpful here as Germany cannot afford to buy additional fighters or bombers or subs for a long while with this strat) will provide an edge sufficient to win the game.

There are probably other ideas I’ve missed, and there are many variations on these themes (as well as bids to Japan) but this should give you an idea of the possibilities. 8)

Well, perhaps I am giving too much credit for people in that not everyone has great foresight nor does everyone have the ability to prepare for tomorrow when they must make ends meet today. Certainly there are those who only live day-by-day (whether by stupidity or by necessity) and $500 would be a big deal.

I don’t know what the costs are but I am certain the cost is much, much less than child support would be (this is the fathers point of view). It would also be much, much less than the opportunity cost that the mother would give up due to the subsequent difficulties of gaining a college degree or career with kids (this is the parents point of view).

I don’t think that the cost would really be that big of an influence argueing against having an abortion.

Chengora,

I’d be interested in your thoughts (and others who may want to discuss) regarding how this scenario plays out between parents and minors. For example, do you think the parents of a pregnant 15 yr old can force an abortion because they will have to financially support the child, at least for the first few years? Must they financially support the child? If not, who does?

The thing is - this isn’t news. I’ve read about similar circumstances - innocent people fingered by mean neighbours and sent to be tortured and die in US prison camps. Even in medical journals.

Sadly this also undoubtably happened under Saddam as well - the only difference is that the US is now the criminal here. This is not to say that the US is as bad as Saddam was (this is more difficult to judge but IMO most US forces refrain from these practices). But no question in my mind that the US has not been acting with clean hands. The questions I have is exactly how widespread is the US misbehaving with regards to the big picture? Atrocities happen in all wars by all sides - war is hell. The clear difference now is that it gets reported more often. Maybe it happens (with US forces) more often than before, but again who knows for certain?

The other point is that sometimes, rarely, it may be necessary to resort to these sorts of tactics to prevent a worse disaster. When/if this is ever the case, I am glad I will never have to be the person to make this call (what if you are wrong :cry: ). But clearly in the case of Lyndie England, et al, this was a case of some evil miscreants who have not been punished sufficiently, IMO for their crimes.

Well, here is one strategy I’ve used in the past that may help with Africa (RR, no bid). You won’t be able to keep Africa with this, but you might have a chance to at least take it for a turn or two.

On G1, sink the UK Navy in the North Sea as usual, but do not use the Baltic sea transport as fodder. Once all Allied ships there are sunk, take the Baltic sea transport and move either the Norway tank (my preference)or two Norway infantry to Morocco. Also land at least one of your fighters there as well. Instead of taking Egypt, simply move two infantry into Libya.

This sets you up fairly well for G2 in the following ways

1. The transport blocks the UK/US from an easy run through this area. The UK will sink this, but this will divert forces from other uses (i.e. if they use fighters, they will not be able to land in Karelia on UK1 - possibly making a G2 assualt there feasable). Probably the UK will also sink the German Med fleet (its really inevitable).

2. The extra forces in Morocco will delay UK/US forces from landing in Africa on round 1.

On G2, use all available forces to take Egypt. The extra tank and fighter(s) will help defeat any forces that may have been moved to Egypt on UK1 . You should also consider using the bomber as well if they have done so. Now the Allies either won’t have sufficient forces to effectively counter-attack, or you will have sufficient forces in Egypt to make a counter difficult at best.

On G3 and onward, you then use these forces to fight north-south. You should be able to reach S. Africa then retreat back to Egpyt to defend that against the Allies. Here you are just scrambling to keep as much as Africa in German hands as long as you can. The Allies are able to take it all back, but now they must devote more resources to do so. Also, it is possible for Japan to bring in reinforcements to help Germany, but I never do so since the Allies are closer to Africa than Japan and the Japanese forces are better used elsewhere, IMO. At some point you should probably conceed Africa and move the fighter back to the relative safety of Europe.

There are problems for the Germans with this (loss of a defensive fighter in Europe for a few turns, Norway is weakened, and the odds for this working as stated are not exactly a slam dunk) but you should try it to see how it works for you.

Actually I had read about this somewhere before, but didn’t recall many details. I knew US troops had gone to Archangel, but didn’t know they also went to Vlad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/ap_on_fe_st/gator_python;_ylt=AoIRykPGuOmu6TeRwt_woIsDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Interesting story, but I’m not quite sure what this really means for Florida and the south except that the ecosystem is changing (watch yourself, your kids and your pets carefully :wink: ). The introduction of non-native species is a problem world wide, has no real solution, and it is getting worse.

because abortion was used in a terrible way does not mean that we should ban it here.

That is true, however this also does not mean we shouldn’t put restrictions on it (such as no partial birth abortion and parental notification laws) or even outlaw it entirely as some would desire.

I don’t bother taking Hawaii on J1, it is only 1 ipc and slows down the necessary Jap push in Asia. A smart US player will ignore this, and the possibility of Jap strat bombing the west coast isn’t too great a concern until much later in the game (when the game should already be decided). A smart Jap player will be better off strat bombing USSR - becasue the bomber(s) will be in position to assist other endeavers such as a possible capture of Moscow. However, if I am trying for economic victory as the Axis, I will likely take it (perhaps turn 7).

Back to the original question - I can’t say yes or no, because

1. Are we certain she will run? If so, will she win the Democratic nomination?

2. Who will run against her? I want to select the best person and I cannot know who that is until I have the full list of choices.

3. Who will be the runningmates? This is important considering the VP could well be President someday?

4. National context is important. Would she be a good fit for President in '08 considering the state of the nation then? We cannot know this until 2008.

Janus,

Certainly, the current system is structured for a more centralized government than the AOC, of that there is no doubt. But it is my opinion that the system was still intended to have a very weak federal government. For example, see Amendment X of the constitution “The powers not delgated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of course this is a matter of opinion.

It’s good to broaden your horizons :D