Posts made by APolaris

This is sort of related to war like A&A so I figured you guys might be interested in this poll. It’s taken from Prof. Bob’s Animal Fights (www.bobsanimalfights.com), a fictional (I think…) account of animals at war with each other. It’s got some interesting results; be sure in particular to check out cat vs. alligator and polar bear vs. hornets.

Pick your winner! :) I personally can’t choose, but the site’s most popular choice is the African Elephant. But you really have to take into account whether others would team up against it or not too I think. As for me, I’ll always believe the lion is the king of the jungle - but only because nothing else that could probably successfully displace it has really done so en masse!

For most powerful between Russia/Germany, even if you didn’t take into account who else is surrounding each one, it is true that Germany should be considered the strongest starting since they have the most units - HOWEVER - you also have to consider who goes first! On any given turn, Russia is always one turn worth of building ahead of Germany. Why? Because they go first, and always build right before Germany goes. So when Germany goes on turn 1, they’re dealing with one turn of Russian builds, and then after they’ve made up for it by building, Russia has already built again by their next turn! That said, my vote went to Germany, but only because when I play against myself or others, they’re usually the ones to take capitals for the Axis and because they have the best combination of standing force at the game’s beginning and production for the first 2-3 turns, whereas with the Allies it’s rarely the same country even two games in a row and they’re generally lagging behind economically until the fourth or so turn (if they ever stop).

A more interesting question might be: in a free-for-all (everyone beats everyone) game, who would win? My guess is the US - but NOT due to their strong economic power! I pick them because of the three countries whose capitals are tougher to take because they’re on islands, they’re the only country with really easy, usually unadulterated access to Africa and from there into Asia. Germany and Russia would most likely in my opinion just beat the piss out of each other, while Japan would try to take southern Asia (if they went head-to-head against Germany after teaming against Russia without the UK or US fighting Germany, they would definitely get crushed). UK would probably try to build ships most of the game and fail miserably because Germany and Russia would keep killing them, so they might try an IC instead. It would most likely be taken easily with the US as a foe instead of an ally on Asia and in Africa. My guess is it would go like this: Russia defends like a b**** until eventually they get taken by Germany (with Japan maybe taking away some of their production). Japan in southern Asia would kick the crap out of everybody since only they can really get troops there quickly without an IC that would get taken by either a former ally or themselves VERY quickly. Maybe they would try to take Russia from Germany; if so, both would take heavy losses and it would just kill both their chances of winning. UK wouldn’t really be able to do anything until later turns when they could build a big navy, at which point the US would probably be able to take their capital anyway (unless they just kept building infantry, but since any country building nothing but infantry on their island capital could just stick out the game for 25+ rounds but never make any progress towards winning, I don’t think of games in those terms). US would take Africa (with some tanks preferably) and maybe try spreading into Asia, or maybe THEY would build an IC in South Africa (taking it before anyone else can get there would be my reason for the tanks). They would probably cut down the British income, and with Japan taking most of the Asian territories, Britain would fall to such a weak production that they’d just get taken - maybe by Germany, but more likely by the US. The US would then most likely use their Africa/UK ass-kicking income against Germany and Germany would try hard to defend their capital. While Germany was pulling troops back to Berlin, Japan or the US would probably take Moscow since they had to give it up, and then it would just be Japan & US taking Germany. Whoever took that capital would most likely win, but I have difficulty believing Japan would ever build up a combined naval/land force strong enough to take the US even after all the rounds it would take them just to get there. So my winner in the free-for-all would probably be US.

I’d say Roseanne Barr in a G-string is more on the end of horrifying, petrifying, and mostly disturbing. Sometimes you’ve got to learn how to distinguish between horror and terror. (And yes, there is a difference… we discussed it in a class I took last year on Gothic image in literature. Horror involves frightening imagery and often realism, whereas terror is usually frightening through the use of events and strong description, and typically strikes to the heart. In that event, I suppose my face should be considered horror instead of terror too.)

Because, smith, of the exact reason I just mentioned, which people seem to forget an awful lot: SUBS CAN’T FIRE AT PLANES! If you throw the transport in the attack, you’re throwing in the ability to take an extra hit… you’re also throwing in the German sub actually being able to fire and hit the transport, making the entire point a waste. If you attack a sub & transport with planes only, all that’s able to hit the planes is the transport. Why not take the advantage of rendering a sub useless besides as cannon fodder, and why throw in something that allows them to actually fire at it? Yeah, you’re giving yourself twice the number of hits before your plane gets taken down… you’re also tripling your opponent’s hit rate until such time comes as the transport is lost.

Re the Baltic attack: I never saw why anybody would ever use the sub and transport for Russia to hit Germany’s. The attack is disadvantaged and if you do that, you can’t take out the France sub OR back up the British fleet. Every game I play, I just use a plane for that attack. The sub can’t hit it, so why throw ships in that give it the chance to actually be useful? If I’m making no land attacks with USSR, I sometimes use both.

I figured since I returned to post my question in the other forum, I might as well make this poll while I’m here.

What is the scariest thing in existence?

Here’s a good question I hadn’t noticed:

Russia can hit Africa on turn 1. To do so they would take their sub and transport, hit the sub on WE sz with them, and if they win, can land either 2 inf or 1 armor in Algeria. Both attacks would be advantaged in some way, as 2 inf would be more likely to win/survive the battle and any counterattacks while the armor, if it survives, can blitz African territory (unless the Germans immediately wipe it out). It is true that most Russian units are required in Europe, and I normally also use the Russian transport to help defend E. Canada sz (the sub hits the sub and a plane hits the Baltic), but I can’t see why 2 Kar infantry hitting Algeria would be any worse than having 3 Kar infantry hitting Finland-Norway (then again, no first-turn attack against Finland-Norway ever made sense to me: it’s not even worth enough IPC’s to buy an extra unit and it doesn’t protect your tanks that much better than Ukraine does). Speaking of which, it could even actually make the Finland attack worthwhile since if Algeria and Finland are both taken, that’s actually worth anything extra.
Of course, if the German sub hits first, you’d just take off the sub and make the transport retreat, and you’d have the unfortunate instance of having to land the 2 infantry in Canada or UK (or Finland if you actually attacked it). I think this move would prove more useful in that variation somebody mentioned about Russians reclaiming Allied territories from the Germans could choose to take the IPCs instead of giving them back to their Ally, as a Russian-controlled Africa could prove simply devastating.

That’s wherein your problem lies… that there is no evidence for evolution, but rather that which scientists claim as evidence actually acts, viewed with a right mind, to prove evolution INcorrect (that is, those points that were flawless until they were exposed as hoaxes… Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, anyone?). This has been done time and again. As I’ve already said, if you’re up to it, email me personally and I will email you just a FEW (maybe around 15 or so?) of the hundreds of points that indicate evolution as scientists explain it was an impossibility.

I would also like to point out that I am in the field of applied mathematics. It is well known that math is, among all the natural sciences, THE most prolific and fundamental of all, and the most logical in connection with proving and disproving ideas. Next comes physics, then chemistry, and last biology in my opinion; some people’s opinions may differ, but it is undeniable that while the others exist only in application to a physical world that we assume is not dreamt by some collective intellect, that mathematics would apply even if this WERE the case, and is the foundation of pure logic.

I would like to in addition point out that math is the ONLY science through which things can be absolutely proven or disproven. The “scientific method” can be proven by an elementary school student’s reasoning to be faulty at best, since it calls constantly for “examples” and “repeated tests.” Here are two cases in which this cherished biologist’s idea of “proof” fails: 1. Using what the scientific method calls for, if you had eaten lunch earlier today, there would be no way to prove that you did. Therefore, you cannot claim it. and 2. With its emphasis on examples, you’d think the entire mathematical community would be outraged, since the one thing mathematicians hate more than ANYTHING else is when people try to indicate a “proof” by example - in our minds the greatest bastardization of that word in all the world. Through a “proof” by example you could prove that all numbers are the same by saying that 26 is the same as 26, or you could claim that all numbers are even because 24 is even, and repeated tests including 12, 256 and 4 indicated a trend. Under evolutionists’ cherished scientific method, this would be considered a “proof.” In the community of those of us in a more logical and fundamental science, however, we realize that there are only five methods of true proof: induction, strong induction, contradiction, counterexample, and direct proof. None of these, sadly, can be used by human logic to prove God’s absolute existence, but this is most likely because it’s well known that, as finite beings, we cannot fathom the logic necessary to consider infinitism (stated by Einstein), and we also cannot imagine the tendencies and characteristics of such a being. Will you now claim that your logic in applying finite characteristics to prove those of an infinite being is correct, and in doing so proclaim it more logical than Einstein’s? I think not. However, proof by contradiction HAS been used - repeatedly - to prove the case point that “evolution as scientists present it did not occur.”

Anyway, I don’t see how you can fault me for believing in a message of peace, goodness, love, and kindness, when you follow a belief that force-feeds people the idea that intellect, emotions, literature, family, friendship, individuality, morality, politeness, organization, and love are all superficial and nothing more than the products of chemical movements; an idea that has been disproven time and again, one that encourages the “fact” that we are nothing but another breed of animal and reduces all of the sacred things about being human, even the meaning of life, to absolutely nothing.

That is definitely satire. The manner in which they took half of those cases out of context, and neglected to mention certain other verses that would affect the outcomes, makes more than half of their answers actually incorrect. In particular, #6. Insincere repentance is not true repentance and a person who claims to love God, but continues to act against His will even knowing that what he’s doing is wrong, does not truly love God. The same reason can be applied to at least 2 more of their incorrect answers, and my above posting can be applied to 3 more of them. So yes, when I said “more than half,” I meant that literally.

@F_alk:

I am not sure what you want to say … but (according to the bible) you can be the “holiest” man on earth, yet if you don’t believe in god, you are going to hell. Whereas, you could be a murdering madman, as long as you accept christ as your savior (say on your deathbed), you will go to heaven.

That’s what I love about you Atheists… your selective reading. You take verses completely out of context without mentioning those that give them context to begin with.

For your example of the “holiest” man on Earth, the answer to why he’d be stuck in hell is EXPLICITLY stated: “For ALL have sinned, and ALL fall short of the glory of God.” Or to put it simply enough for the minds of those who haven’t bothered to learn about true Christianity, rather than the “popular” version, there IS no person who is so good that they can go to Heaven just based on their works. The entire POINT of Jesus’ death was to pay the price for our sins; “The wages of sin is death,” referring to spiritual death in Hell, and that means all of us were stuck with that punishment since NOT ONE PERSON is good enough to avoid it; no matter how many good works they do, they still fall short of the glory of God. Jesus’ death was to pay the price in our place, and God was able to do that so He could try to convince us to have a personal relationship with Him in the afterlife, without justice getting in the way.

Yanny, he was responding to a previous statement by Janus1.

Don’t even ask. I don’t know who convinced him to do that. But yes, it really is Leonard Nimoy. And there have been many comments. I will post them in the General Discussion section.

I should probably mention that your mentality is outdated. Creationism WAS taught excessively at one time. Now, with all the efforts to stop it, it’s been brought to a near-complete end and now evolution is the thing that’s force-fed in schools.

E-mail me personally and I will e-mail you some evidence that evolution has not only got less proof for itself, but has been proven wrong.

I should also mention, just in passing, that Darwin himself admitted at the end of his major book that he found tons of holes in his theory and that he knew it was probably wrong because he couldn’t explain them, but he published it anyway because he thought these holes would be fixed at some point. Guess what? They haven’t been. And no, I’m not lying. He really did say that his own theory was most likely wrong.

See? People can get along.

There is no sense in judging one’s personality by what one thinks of certain issues, because that person may agree with you on everything else. I have liberal friends whom I argue with constantly on moral issues. It doesn’t mean we yell at each other, or don’t get along well, or wish each other to be stuck in Hell.

My opinion is identical to the Moscow-Chechnya elections that have been taking place: we and those we support will claim they took place, less than 20% of the populace will vote, the guy we support will win and will get assassinated. Same thing as has happened, and will continue happening, in Chechnya with the Moscow-supported presidents.

No, what I mean literally is that the game’s objective is to capture 2 capitals. Check the rules :) it says that the two victory conditions are to either make an economic victory as the Axis (usually something I play without) or to capture two capitals. Once the Axis keeps two capitals until the end of the turn the game literally ends.

Actually it’s just that the winning condition for the game is that one side has to capture 2 capitals. This means if the axis claims UK and Russia they don’t need to take the US because they already met the victory condition.

Well anyway people, I get the point… I’m an idiot because I made the poll :)

1. There’s no reason the UK “has to” go after the carrier. The UK can easily produce more defense than Germany could ever have a chance of attacking per turn until they get Japanese assistance (via bombing) and take Russia (to help them make enough money to build stuff) and they would be perfectly safe leaving the carrier right as it is. But even if they “had to” it would simply be a 1/2 chance of losing one fighter for a very high chance (if they sent all 3 planes) of killing the carrier. Also, the carrier really doesn’t do anything on its own.

2. If you waste your German money on a carrier, you’ll make your opponent happy since that basically hands Germany to a Russian player who doesn’t have some psychiatric condition.

3. A carrier won’t get you the ability to make a land attack, because ships don’t attack land in this game. The carrier could be used to defend German transports being built in theory, but only if Germany either gets the carrier to the Baltic (a questionable idea, and one that would take way too much trouble with it trying to pass the North Sea) or builds the transports in Italy (an even more asinine idea since it basically hands over 2 rounds’ time for the UK to build before they can carry anything over. If Germany builds transports for even one turn they’re essentially handing EE to Russia, and if for 2 turns they’re basically giving up their capital.

And 4. Germany going after the US is even more asinine. Even if Germany could build up transports, it would take them 2 turns to reach the US, in which time the US could easily build from 20-24 infantry units unless they’ve somehow lost more than 6 IPC/turn income (which, in my opinion, should be impossible). Even if that’s all that’s on the US - 20 infantry - to even get 20 infantry to attack the US would take 10 transports + 20 men (a cost of 140 IPCs). Last time I checked Germany has no way to do this. And that’s to have a DISadvantaged attack.

I would love to see a typical scenario you consider a possibility for using a German carrier to help invade the UK. Please provide one, maybe builds for a few turns, what you’re doing to defend against Russia, and what a final attack might look like, and most importantly - what you do with the carrier?

I can’t see anything happen when I push F3 and there is nothing under view to change. Maybe I have the wrong program? I have abattlemap .79 something.

Where is this AABATTLE 1.1 thing?

About the dice simulators from that AAMC site… is it just me, or are they only giving the average odds of winning an attack? I don’t see any actual results for dice-rolling or # of hits for either side, or outcomes of battle simulation. All I see for any of them is a graphical representation of the odds of each outcome.

With Abattlemap I can only see a small portion of the board - it doesn’t even encompass Japan or Western US or Australia. Is there some scrolling mechanism I’m missing?