Posts made by BigBlocky

France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.

France supplied 22% of the imports of Iraq, another good reason for the status quo.

Germany does not seem so against it right now. Typical politics, acquiece to public pressure then back pedal to appease the other side.

DS, some people are ‘true believers’, try to argue with a good catholic that god doesn’t exist and that evolution is fact. You can’t expect to convince that believer nor can you expect to convince other believers. The basis of belief is that belief in of itself is all that one needs. Evidence that goes against the belief is a mere test of the belief and need not be examined with an open mind.

BB

Arguements of the believer.

1. He did disarm, and even if he didn’t the US helped him get the stuff, the US created Saddam, what do you expect from Saddam. It’s not his fault, it’s the Americans fault.

2. Sanctions worked, he has no weapons see #1. Besides, it creates anti-american sentiment which the French like.

3. Oil for food worked, the French and Germans supplied the majority of stuff. See #2 and #1

4. Inspections worked See #3, 2, 1

5. More resolutions worked see # 4, 3, 2, 1

6. What right does the allies have to prevent a insane dictator from butchering a few more million. Just because Saddam is responsible for more deaths of Islamic peoples than any other figure in the history of humanity does not give anybody the right to do anything. You must wait until he directly attacks your country. Then you must get permission from the French to do anything. Besides, see #5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Thankfully, the decision has been made and finally somebody has done something to end the nightmere of the Iraqis.

BB

Yep, it also means a fighter on a carrier in the hawaiian sea zone could fly to a carrer in the english sea zone, kinda sick but legal.

BB

Yeah, CC is right. The rules state you can retreat to a sea zone that does not contain enemy units. Clearly if the battle has not been resolved then there are enemy units.

A point of interest is that the defender can retreat into the sea zone from which the attack was launched provided there is no other enemy units in it.

BB

When there is an air base just pretend that territory is like a carrier. The planes are considered ‘in the sea zone’ for purposes of movement only, not of course for combat purposes. It means a fighter on an island with an air base can attack navy targets 2 sea zones away and land back on the island.

BB

I hear ya. The best way to play is have the host play Japan, set the board up, line up his turn then show up after he has all the battles laid out. That first round is a killer!

BB

If he always loses the big battle then maybe he should learn when not to attack. I highly recommend getting a battle sim to test out feasibilities of doing battle.

BB

When playing russia restricted it seems that russia is on the verge of defeat all the time!

BB

I’ve read through all the same arguments already but thanks for pointing them out again. So, it’s been discussed enough in your opinion and we ought not waste our time talking about the factory in India thingee is what you’re saying. I see.

BB

ad nauseam, Latin, to the point of disgust. Perhaps not the term one uses in a friendly conversation. Frankly, if the topic I was writing about makes you disgusted then don’t read it or comment about it. shrugs I don’t like terms like ‘ad nauseam’ when it’s used towards what I write. I’ll take it personally every time. But I’m over it now.

BB

CC, I didn’t say you would lose 50-100 IPC of equipment, read what I wrote more carefully before jumping down my throat.

I didn’t say you put 3-4 fighters there so don’t be so defensive. The author of the thread said to put a russian fighter there, you would eventually put your 3 fighters there, that makes four, even if it didn’t you can’t jump all over me because my force mix didn’t exactly match what you would have there after 3 rounds. It’s a rough guess that is how much equipment would be there.

I never said it was wrong to do this, just that it does tie up lots of equipment.

As for building infantry with a new factory, I don’t doubt somebody has done it, but honestly, how often do you see people just building tanks, purty often I say.

I never said the factory in India was wrong so relax, jeez. If you think it’s such a good idea then use it against me.

Of course you’re right that one should not always base everything on mere IPC value of a battle. But it is often one good metric umongst several.

I’m just curious as to why you would still build a factory if you felt you would just lose it anyways. Sure it does slow down the Japs but it speeds up the Germans. shugs Every ploy has it’s pluses and minus. But until I start to lose as the axis consistantly against the allies who use the factory in India strategy I won’t start using it. :-)

BB

With russia restricted it is all russia can do to defend Karelia with everything, missing a ftr for most of the game so it can be parked on India may not be the best idea.

Why do you build a factory? The answer is obvious but is it? Why build a factory that requires 50-100 IPC of defence just to prevent it from being lost? There is justification of Jap factories but not always right away. But for the brits to spend 15 IPC, then 5 IPC on an AA, then use 4 ftrs for defense (another 48 IPC). Of course you will build tanks not infantry, but then you lose tanks instead of infantry. You will need at least 5 INF and 5 tanks just on defense for another 40 IPC, we’re over 100 IPC now just so you can build 3 tanks per round. Worse, if you want to co-operate with the US in Europe you still need to build transports and units in England. It might work for some, but I just think it’s a very expensive way to stop the Japs and the germans ought to run wild with split attention like that.

BB

Mr. Ghoul, I think the Japanese started in China as far back as 1933. You are right as to why the US cut off her fuel supplies. You’re right that didn’t give the Japanese the right to attack in the minds of the US and according to their law. And that is probably the right position legally. However, how would the US react if her oil supply was threatened. Ahhhhh yes, if radical Islam swept across all the oil in the middle east and the world decided to shut of the oil to the US. How would the US react.

The only difference is the degree to which their arguments are valid. Both Japan in 1940 and the US in the last 5 years of done some bad stuff, broken internation law etc. Of course the rape of Nanking is orders of magnitude worse then anything the US has done since perhaps the Indian wars, even then it was spread out over centuries not weeks.

I believe the US had and has laws on her books not to sell weapons to countries at war that don’t involve the US. The US was not at war during WWII until Dec 8, 1941. Therefore it was illegal for the US to supply ANY weapons or war materials to any country at war during the period preceding Dec, 8 1941. The US doesn’t like syria selling weapons to Iraq now, why should they expect war time Germany to like the US selling weapons to England.

In fact, Germany had a legal right to stop and sink any ships entering the british home waters found to be carring war materials. But I digress on this law and history lesson.

BB

Most games I play in last about 7-10 rounds. I’ve played games that were over in 1 round but I had to play just a few more rounds to make sure I was truly screwed. I was Germany, played Russia Restricted but no bids. I attacked the brit navy all over as usual. the brit sub hit, my BB missed. My tank and Inf missed, both units in Egypt hit. My sub and ftr missed against the Brit BB that hit. My ftr missed again, his BB hit. The Canada transport hit, I hit. My 3 ftrs, bmb and sub all missed. The brit BB, Trn hit, the russian sub hit.

So, I had 1 ftr and 1 bomber left and there were still 7 allied navy units in the Atlantic/Med including 2 BBs. Oh yeah, I went 2 infantry against the caucus and lost both.

My foe was magnanimous, I was rather miffed. After the rest of the allied rolls went there way for the rest of the countries first round we started a new game, I lost, he won.

On the other hand, I’ve seen games where on turn 8 the allies were obviously on their way to winning but it was going to take time as both sides had been building and posturing, but the allies were slightly outbuilding and slightly winning the war of attrition. Then the Japs rolled for 2 weapons techs, got heavy bombers, had 4 bombers already. That game lasted about 16 rounds, the allies eventually won but it was epic.

Why does your buddy always lose on round 3? Does he divide his forces so they can be conquered 1 at a time?

BB

Hello there. I’ve got an idea for the games forum for those following PBEM games. I’m playing a game with Ghoul T, we post our moves, build and attack results on the forum etc. However, we also email each other back and forth a map file for the map utility (Axis&Allies Map for Windows). It’s far to tedious to show the current map position after each move and those following along quickly lose track of board setup. I’d like to provide these maps for those interested in following the game and for the players so they don’t have to keep a historical record themselves. I guess it could be done two ways.

A) Allow trusted users to upload a map file to the webserver.
B) Somebody running their own FTP server allow us to do this.

Both have drawbacks.

A) runs the risk of having trusted users run a warez site and would might require two levels of ‘registered’ users. The FTP upload folder could have write only and directory read rights only for ‘trusted users’. However the web server process would still be able to serve up the files as it’s running under a more privilged user account. This could still run the risk somebody would just post a link to a warez file just uploaded in the guise of a map, perhaps a daemon to delete files in the FTP upload folder that don’t meet map file size criteria?

B) Runs the same risk running a private FTP server. Since the AA.org server would have the IP hardcoded in the web pages we run the risk of having the remote FTP’s IP change for a variety of reasons. We also run the risks of trusting a remote party to be the file librarian.

So, whaddya thinks folks?

BB

CC, no doubt relative good and bad vis-a-vis the French and Americans and their relative weights. There both biased, so an outsider like me ought to be judge. I judge the French guilty, OFF with their tasty loves of bread! I’m sure if you took a world vote I’d be out-numbered. Hardly fair running against peace/harmony/love and all that is good, as if the status quo is all that, but I digress.

Segregation……oh yeah. Well that’s a black spot on her record. Mind you, some of the xenophobia coming out of some european countries is kinda scarey. European men gotta start knocking up their chicks cause the native birthrate is low. If you hate newcomers then you have a real problem. Luckily in north america everybody is banging everybody and all the chicks are getting knocked up! Well not exactly, we just import more folks. Sucks to be a Quebec seperatist, only the old stock wants to split but they are getting swamped with ‘new-stock’ that kinda like Canada.

American military supplies kinda played a part in Russia not being overrun. Let’s not forget the US lend-lease program. (that violated internation law, those bad Americans flouting international law to stop nazis, shame on them!) Where would the Brits be without those 50 albietly old destroyers the US gave them during the dark days. Lots of volunteers helped out the Brits. Germany’s military production peaked in 1943 during all the US bombing, imagine if those bombers had not been there and the Brits only flew half the sorties. As for French resistance… Did you know the French actually fired on allied units during the desert campaign? The French REFUSED to move their fleet when they were being overrun because they were too proud. The brits actually had to sink the French fleet rather than let the Germans capture them. Yeah, LOTS of help. Like bringing a bag-pipe on a hunting trip.

How can you blame anybody in the Americas for either war just because we joined in AFTER Germany, France and England had all declared war. Heck Canada had only been a country for 53 years by 1914. We waz all sturdy farmers and fishermen, how the heck was it our fault. Nope, not gonna take it!

Holland is extremely gratefull to Canada and Canadians for our part in their liberation. How did France repay Canada? Their great war time leader encouraged Quebec to seperate from Canada. Charles de Gaulle’s speech “Vive le Quebec Libre” in July, 1967 basically sparked the seperatist movement in French Quebec. 2 months later René Lévesque created the "Mouvement Souveraineté-Association ". 12 months later Founding of the Parti Québécois from Lévesque’s Mouvement Souveraineté Association and Gilles Grégoire’s Ralliement National. On October 26, the Rassemblement pour l’indépendance nationale is dissolved; members are encouraged to join the PQ. A few years later the Quebec based terrorist organisation the FLQ killed a minister of labour and kidnapped James Cross (British High Commissioner in Montreal). The FLQ’s rally cry was the same “Vive le Quebec Libre” .

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle

Say what you will, the US of A does not encourage Canada to breakup. France has and to this day in a low level way still has too much influence in our affairs.

BB

It’s all great to only put 1 unit in a territory but you have to be able to capture it, and planning to capture it and have exactly 1 infantry left over is a bit risky but I hear what you’re saying.

The hunker down strategy shouldn’t mean don’t ever attack, if the odds are in your favour and you don’t risk losing on a counter attack by all means go.

I totally agree if you can take the Ukraine do so, but what if russia is restricted?

BB

Well, my contention was that had Hitler been taken out early that things couldn’t be worse and most likely better. It’s debatable when this should have occured or at least when it should have been obvious to the powers that be. Certainly 1934 was too early though I wonder why people didn’t realize that the author of Mein Kempf was now the leader of a heavily populated, educated and industrialized nation. I mean, it shouldn’t have taken experts to read his book and come to the conclusion there’s trouble brewing.

To be honest, I am suprised as hell that nobody did anything about Hitler, it should have been obvious after reading that book and doing a bit more research ie. slaughtering the brown shirts for political gain ought to have shown how ruthless and backstabbing he was.

Good points, wrong forum thread :-)

BB

DS, I’d agree that if you tallied up the good and bad and did a compare/contrast with the French and US that the US would indeed come out ahead over say the last 100 years. Lets forget all the nasty stuff done to the Spanish and Indians in the 1800s cause that was some bad dodo.

You can point out lots of little bad things the US did around the world in the last 100 years but…… You can blame the entire WWI and WWII (except maybe the Japanese side of the conflict) completely on Europe. Japan was a bad actor but when the US cut of their fuel supplies in 1941 what did the US think they Japanese would do?

Europe started the two biggest messes in the history of humanity. Without the US of A in WWII, Nazi Germany would still be ruling the world today. It’s debatable if France and England could have defeated the Kaiser in WWI, after all, Russia had sued for peace in 1917, one down two to go. The addition of 100, 000 fresh US troops/month starting towards the end of 1917 and continuing for as long as the Germans wanted to fight really was the final nail in the Kaisers coffin.

The French were never sufficiently gratefull in my opinion…

BB

I think we’re in total agreement on that. The status quo is fine as long as it’s a good situation and slowly improving, even then one can argue that the situation ought to be improving faster. I can’t understand the argument that preserving the current situation will lead to a better situation if given more of the same.

From a stand point of pure ugly logic, if you’re not American or British, how can you lose, things can only get better for everybody else except the aforementioned nations. Unless…… Unless somehow some countries benefit from more of the same terrible situation and won’t benefit from an Iraq controlled by a ‘good governence’ of new Iraqi leaders interested in benefits to the Iraqis first. But I’m sure France doesn’t know of any country like that, at least publicly that is.

BB