Posts made by AgentOrange

I would try to have as many as possible, because of the “the more the merrier” rule.

I think I’ve heard mention of Canadian forces before.  I’m pretty sure they’re gonna release Canadian and Australian forces in Set 3.

I’m with Grim - the only restriction “The Man” can impose is to strictly adhere to unit dates, and also to certain nationalities fighting/not fighting together.

I’ve said this one before:  As long as my available forces are diverse enough, I’ll trade anything that I can’t ever see myself using.  My trade material in this case happens to be two Nashorns.  The monetary value doesn’t concern me, except for the fact that I haven’t received anything in return.  But I have two other Nashorns anyway, and I don’t think I’ll use FOUR any time soon…  :-P

Except for Set 1, I plan to reserve a case of every set before it comes out.  I’ve already reserved a case of Set 3, and I will do the same.

To GMFargus’ question, I’ve heard that they will have Australia as the new nationality.  I don’t know who else is gonna be included… (Maybe some Canadian units for all you Canadians out there)

I dunno man - I sent some units from the US to Canada, and I still have not heard even so much as a reply, and I certainly haven’t gotten the other guy’s pieces yet.  (Not gonna mention any names here)  I just hope they got lost in the mail somehow.  But because of that fiasco, I might have to give that one a NO.  Sorry.  :-(

I can tell you that I’ve easily spent $1000 on this game since it came out.  I have at least one of every piece in Sets 1 & 2, and I’m not spending any more money until Set 3 comes out!

Well, Predator, that’s the whole concept behind Miniatures games.  If they released all these units, then the projected life of the A&A Minis collection would not be as long as it could be.  It is, after all, about making money over the long-term.  They broke the ice by releasing the Russian sub-machine gunner. I’m convinced that future sets will bring up most, if not all, of the units that all you guys want to see.  :wink:

I didn’t know there were two Minis Expansions coming out this year… Time to set aside 500 more dollars…  :lol:

Thank you guys for reviving this topic.  No posts had been made for a few months.  And now that I’ve poured my heart out,  :cry: I want to make some clarifications to what I’ve said:

1. I don’t have the map right in front of me, so someone please help me out.  Sinkiang is the US territory on the left, right?  If so, then I think that it would at least be a better choice than China.  I still don’t think it would be the wisest thing to do.  Especially given the turn order.  Since Japan goes before the Americans, then there is a good chance that they will own China by the time it is the US’s turn.

2. I don’t think India is that great of an option either.  One thing that might persuade me to put an IC in India is if I got it via Colonial Garrison.  This would allow three more units to be able to defend it from the Japs.  Then I would move my Inf. from Persia into India, and maybe also my fighter from the carrier in the Indian Ocean.

3. Did everyone forget aboput Australia?  If the idea for the Allies in this situation is to put pressure on Japan, then maybe the Sinkiang IC is a somewhat better idea if coupled with an IC in Australia.  (especially from Colonial Garrison)  This would give Japan two wonderful new fronts to worry about.

I like the way you’re looking at it switch.  Of course, you’re right - Sinkiang and India are horrible moves, but your strategy as far as how to handle Japan’s units seems right on.  :wink:

GG, in my opinion, that is what science is all about - Always question, seeking to know the truth behind everything, until you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  People who don’t question things like this, well, they’re just cutting themselves off from the possibility of learning from it.  If you don’t cut yourself off, then you can learn from everything, no?  :?

I don’t believe Zooey is saying that Germans are naturally genocidal or supremacist.  If I’m mistaken, then that’s pretty low.  On the contrary, he’s just saying that German people are good at covering their bases, and in this case, covering their tracks.  However, I don’t really know why the higher-ups in the Nazi High Command would just go along with the Holocaust.  If I were one of those guys, there’s no way Hitler or any of his cronies could convince me that it would be beneficial to murder millions of people on what I view to be a whim.

Since this is the current subject, I think it might be appropriate to bring up Schindler’s List.  IF I were one of the people responsible for systematically murdering the Jews, I would make it a point to be a double agent of sorts, leading them to believe that I supported the Nazi cause, all the while exporting Jews to safety.  (Sorry if I ruined the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet  :-P)

Correction to my previous post:  I should’ve said the entire high value (IPC-wise) German empire.  That should make more sense now…  :lol:

That’s true.  The other thing that sux about using Germany, besides the fact that they are usually the first target of the Allies, is the fact that their ENTIRE European empire is accessible by sea.  That being said, it almost comes down to the Nazis deciding which territories they can afford to lose, and in this case, I’d say Norway should be sacrificed first.  :|

Perry and Kyrial are correct; if Germany is steadily advancing towards Moscow, then don’t ever go into defensive mode. (especially if you’ve taken and held Caucasus)

In my opinion, the main goal of the Axis should be to take out Russia, so as long as you keep that as your ultimate goal, and also make sure to solidify your coastal fronts, then you should be alright.  Remember:  the only way US and UK can do any real damage is by amphibious assault.  :-)

That’s true!  I only used my example because of the suggestion that “Maybe some guys become gay when they are surrounded by men with NO women around.”  That’s why it happens in prison, and in some cases, that’s why it happens on Naval vessels.  For instance, on my ship, as I already said, we have a co-ed crew, so “becoming” gay isn’t really an issue.  However, on a submarine, where the crew is 100% male (females are not allowed to serve on subs) “becoming” gay is then more of an issue, simply because, again, those guys are surrounded by men, just like in prison.

First of all, that is exactly how it works.  In the absence of hetero partners, where do people turn?  That is why prison inmates who get locked up for 20+ years end up taking what they want, in the form of gay sex.  Not that they prefer it, just that they have no other options…

I only made that last comment to show why someone in that position would turn.  I’m in the Navy, on a ship right now, and there are plenty of girls around here, plenty of whom are attractive enough to be worthy of my “attention”.  And the Navy is not the only branch of the Armed Forces that allows women to serve.  I’m pretty sure women can join any branch they damn well please.  Now, granted, the military does discourage sexual (or other) relationships on board/in the field, but that is only because the emotion that often comes with it can cause problems in the workplace.

That score sounds just fine to me.  :-)  Seriously though, I also want the Stillers to win simply because my buddy was trying to shoot down my hopes and dreams as to that ever happening…  :cry: