Posts made by Asterios

good thing I got 2 sets coming this week.

Bah just plop some Aircraft carriers with fighters on them and use them as an impregnable fighter base that can only be attacked by other air units.

@FieldMarshalGames:

Thought this was kinda cool.  Some collectors here might be interested

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Axis-Allies-Miniatures-EXCLUSIVE-RARE-Storage-box-/390447254845?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae8784d3d

yeah seen that auction listed a few times, just can’t see spending that much money for a piece of flimsy cardboard.

The only chance of this succeeding is if Britain and America stayed out of the war with Germany long enough for Germany and Russia to deplete troops and supplies of their own in their own battle and then for Britain and the US to come in and clean up the mess afterwards.

@Gargantua:

Someone tried to stab me once over a game of conquest of the empire.

Not kidding…

you sure it was over the game and not just because you are you?  :evil:

Well just ordered my A&A 41 off coolstuff on eBay where it was only $30 shipped as opposed to the $33 shipped thru their site, go figure.

@Gargantua:

Wow man, I had no idea you’d take a kettle corn for me.

I wouldn’t, I’d let you take it and laugh at you  :evil:

@Imperious:

Obviously you have not seen the type of comics I have read, big fan of R. Crumb too, not too mention some other comics, yet I don’t smoke weed, don’t drink (well once in a blue moon) and don’t do drugs, I played D&D and AD&D and Gurps amongst other games, and yet none of them have influenced me whatsoever, so that blows a big hole in your theory.

No and No. Im talking about them in general. Every population you have some who don’t, but of those who do turn out to be crazy for the most part they don’t like classics and prefer things like comic books.

Too be honest I just recently read Homer and I’m more prone to bloody mayhem after reading the Iliad and the Odyssey then after reading Omaha the Cat Dancer or Mr. Natural, hell if you look closely at some of the most heinous criminals they were very well read people who read classics over comic books, I doubt Charles Manson ever saw a comic book in his life.

But like I have said previously, I’m not saying Comic books and such don’t affect people to cause mayhem, but they only affect the weak minded, and those who believe anyone can be affected are also weak minded.

Also A classic that has caused people to kill millions and more is the Bible.

@Imperious:

IL let me get this straight, I’m influenced by Comic Books because I read them?

Not exactly. If you read garbage your mind fixates on garbage and dumbs you down.

If your in an advanced placement History class, you learn what they teach.

If your in remedial History class, you learn what they teach.

It is so freaking basic, that three jugheads can’t get it straight and waste time with profanity laced commentary to shoot down another posters opinion because they got defensive and need a shoulder to cry on.

Don’t cry on my shoulder. Read something better.

Wow it’s 3 on IL

More like three zombies getting dispatched from 3 miles out with sniper rifle… not even worth the ammo.

Obviously you have not seen the type of comics I have read, big fan of R. Crumb too, not too mention some other comics, yet I don’t smoke weed, don’t drink (well once in a blue moon) and don’t do drugs, I played D&D and AD&D and Gurps amongst other games, and yet none of them have influenced me whatsoever, so that blows a big hole in your theory.

I repeat only the weak minded are effected and only the weak minded believe anyone can be affected.

IL let me get this straight, I’m influenced by Comic Books because I read them? heck not just that but when I buy a paper its only to read the comics and ads, does that make me disturbed because I like escaping from reality and not reading the rest of the paper because I find the news depressing?

Now while i’m a firm believer that only the weak of mind are influenced by D&D and comics and video games, and those who believe anyone else can be affected by such outlets are also weak of mind, furthermore this story that Holmes was angry is BS and the FBI knows it since if he was angry he would have not given up the way he did.

hmmm a waiting area with a grenade in the window sill above the couch how chic to get rid of unwanted guests  :evil:

@LHoffman:

This is not political in any way, but Rush Limbaugh’s analysis on Monday was quite compelling. He surmised that Holmes and others like him do these things, ultimately, for some level of fame. We are growing in a culture where technology and internet media like Facebook and Youtube allow people to share everything about themselves with the world. Young people are obsessed with displaying everything about themselves for the world to see. We live in an age of instant fame for those who are not accomplished in any way. All you have to be is the first one to do something crazy, unusual or shocking and you are recognized worldwide almost instantaneously. He also used the example that Charles Manson, while in jail, is still very famous.

I think this is a very good explanation for what happened. It is a social commentary, yes, but a fitting one. Most people who do these things are not “crazy”. They are not mentally unstable, do not have a psychlogical disorder or anything like that… Most of them, I think, are bored, tired of being normal and want some increased level of stimulation which will forever alter their life. Holmes didn’t try to kill himself, he seemed to happily surrender to the police and was even rather helpful in explaining that his apartment was booby trapped. Holmes didn’t care about prison, or execution… people recognize him for something now and the rest doesn’t matter to him.

but then where is his manifesto, his you tube video or even his facebook page, he left no evidence he was looking to be famous.

I’m sorry but this whole affair stinks to high heaven, for starters he wasn’t crazy, he didn’t go nuts, his school said he was a brilliant scientist, and he planned this thing for months, the part that worries me, is most typical people who go off the deep end would die by cop or kill themselves before being captured, others would try to escape, but he did none of these, he did his deed then went outside and gave up, and then in the courtroom he looks like he is doped to high heaven and the prosecuters even wondered if he was being medicated, something is wrong with all of this, and mark my words we’ll find out there is a whole lot more to this story.

@CWO:

@Scarapis:

Pearl Harbor: Can the US get it right this time, or will the Japanese still prevail. The ultimate What If.

The answer would depend on the rules.  To be realistic, they’d have to create a situation in which the US player didn’t know that the Japanese player was about to attack.  If the US player is allowed to play the game using his hindsight knowledge of what happened historically, the game wouldn’t be realistic.Â

Well there is 2 ways this can be played, one the US learns of the attack or two every turn before japan actually hits pearl harbor the US rolls a die on a certain number they discovery the attack, any other number they only see a flock of geese on their radar scopes.

@Lozmoid:

Mate, that’s too bad. If I lived near you I’d gladly give you a game. You know, sometimes I think there can’t be more than 50 A&A players in the UK!  :-(

Bah you think thats bad, hows this for torture, no A&A players near me, but over half a dozen just 60- 80 miles away.

Actually i’ve seen war games which covered a much smaller area in size, and as for people who say so the Japanese win or the outcome will always be the same, then why bother playing wargames? people do not play wargames for being historically accurate, but play them for the strategy to change the outcome.

as to area, lets face it, the only fighting did not occur in the Harbor itself, but at airbases and such too.

Pearl Harbor:

Can the US get it right this time, or will the Japanese still prevail.

The ultimate What If.

@miamiumike:

Scarapis - you really need to stop comparing Magic to A&A - they are two entirely different games and gaming systems, as BB has pointed out. WIth that logic, I can compare Monopoly and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich and try to put the same constraints on both games….

People stalling and messing around is always a possibility - but - in the many years (6+ now) that I have either played or ran Greg’s tournaments we have very rarely ever had problems. If someone is stalling or playing excessively slow, they get warned. If they continue - they forfeit. I am not sure how many years it has been since that happened.

And you need to read my posts a bit closer - I said I would be willing to give it a try and, in fact,
I think in a Masters or ‘expert’ tournament it could work. It will NEVER work, IMHO, for a tournament designed to attract as many people as possible. As BB also stated - that is the goal for Greg and for WotC for the A&A line of games.

MM

therein lies the problem, 1 A&A and Magic are both ran by the same company, and WotC has a habit of form fitting all of their games into one type set, so don’t be surprised if WotC starts installing time frames.

as to getting new players involved, AA50 or even 42 won’t do it, you want to get new players then 41 is where its at, its simple and easy to learn and play, and with A&A 41, most time limits and such are out the window since its a quick easy game.

but the whole idea of the clocks is to prevent people from taking forever to make their turns, thats why chess tourneys came out with the clocks, they would have players who took hours to make a move, and i’m sure there are people who will take forever to decide their moves in this game, when I played A&A (original MB) i’d take a minute to make my move and a couple minutes for combat resolution so a few minutes at the most.

not too mention the idea of a timed game appeals to me because it adds that sense of pressure the commanders felt in the war, have to make quick decisions.

not too mention with a lack of timed rules, what say if a player who is up realises he screwed up and is going to lose, so he decides to stall the game so he does not lose? you need time no matter how you look at it, or the game can be abused.

@miamiumike:

I need someone to explain a bit better how this chess clock idea will work.

Let’s say the tournament round is set for 6 hours (which is what AA50 games are set to currently). This would then mean each team has 3 hours of time? In the middle of round 6, Italy is up and opps - the Axis run out of time - they automatically lose?

If this is correct, then I guess that means we want to have NO new people play the game. Not even people who have played but are not true ‘experts’. The only situation I could see possibly thinking about using this idea would be in a Masters type tournament. That would be it. Otherwise, you will kill any non-hardcore player from ever even attempting a tournament game. For the Masters, it might work.

I’d be willing to give it a try - just to see how it goes - but I cannot see how this helps grow the number of people who would want to play in a tournament.

MM

Then don’t tell that to WotC since in their magic tournements they have them timed, and at the end of that time whoever is up wins, thats life get over it, in a tourney of say 6 hours if ea. player/team took 15 minutes per turn, that would still allow 12 turns per player/team, which would definately give an idea of who the clear winner is, but then you will find some fault in that hypothesis, since anything that takes away from your style of play is wrong. at least BB is willing to give a try, but your ready to doom it before it starts.

BB you do realise your people skills went down 3 points? as to timeing changing the rules, don’t think WotC won’t be thinking about doing it, they already do it with Magic: the Gathering in tournements.

speaking of Which, every single one of your posts has been to post only negative comments all of them, especially about members of the board here, that while I don’t know them i’m more prone to side with them because of the attitudes coming from your side of the argument.