Posts made by bossk

About the Stukas, since Axis & Allies is all about terristrial combat (especially Europe) I think the designers wanted to represent mainly ground attack aircraft and to my knowlege Bf-109s and Me-190s were almost exclusively intercept and air attack craft. Of course it would follow that the Russians should get Il-2s and the British should get Hurricanes or Typhoons but unfortunately these craft are virtually unkown to most people. The stuka, on the other hand, is one of the most widely recognized ground attack aircraft ever. I don’t have anything to say about the naval units, not really up on my naval history at all.

Actually, it matters a great deal who the newly captured territory goes to. I’m afraid Harry is incorrect in his analysis of the rules. The only cash that is divided between Australia and India is that which comes from the three British convoy Centres in the area. That is why India and Australia have seperate markers on the National Production Chart. The Indian money goes to India, the Australian money goes to Australia, and the money from the convoy centres goes to one or both. You must decide who gets each new territory after capturing it.

How did it go, Yanny? What did they run against you? Did you get many topicalities?

I’ve played Shogun (I know it as Samuri Swords) a few times, very excellent game. I also enjoy Diplomacy a great deal, although I haven’t gotten to play it much. If it weren’t for school…

I’d recommend Empire by Hardt and Negri and some works by Stanislav Lem. Other than that, I’m not so sure.

Also, the allies can take the convoy centre back while the sub is submerged, hence negating any advantage of keeping the sub tied up in a convoy centre.

There’s a small empty hollow in the middle of the plastic tray that says Pacific, that were I usually store the Chinese. The Chinese board setup is on the American reference card.

You’ll notice that each territory has an IPC value, the combined total value for all territories under your control is represented on the NPC. This shows how much cash you get at the end of each turn. All the other markers are for placing on new aquisitions; that is, territories that you have gained control of through the course of the game, thereby adding to your own income and reducing your opponents income.

That’s not good. Does your team have a replacment? I’d be glad to help you out the best I can, although I’m not sure how well I can do. This is my first season too, only our season started in mid-November. But if you ask me, I know some top-notch guys who could probably provide answers if you need them :wink:

No problem Yanny; after a few rounds you’ll be pretty comfortable with the basic stock issues of debate. First of all, there are probably about 4 parts to your case: your significance/harms, that say how many people are affected and basicly outlines how bad the problem is, the inherency, which tells us what is wrong with the status quo hence causing the harms, your plan, which says exactly what you’re going to do (funding, enforcement and the like), and the solvency, evidence that says how the stuff in your plan solves. By attacking your inherency I’m saying that the status quo already solves for your harms, therefor your plan is unnessicary. A topicality argument says that your case or plan is not related to the resolution. It usually consists of a definition of one of the words in the resolution, an explanation of why your case does not meet that definition, and why the judge should vote on topicality. I hope this helps. If it is at all confusing then just forget about it, I’m sure your coach will prefer explaining it to you himself rather than have you be confused.

@Yanny:

Bossk, however, when Barbarossa failed, the Germans were not beaten. During the Spring and Summer months, Russia had problems fighting Germany, and were hanging on by their fingernails.

The Russians may have had some stratigic difficulties early in the war, due to the purges mostly, but ultimately the Germans had not real chance against such immensely superior industrial capacity (which even if Germany had more aircraft on the front, they could never really touch) and sheer numbers. Stanlingrad was only threatened very seriously in the initial week or two, and even then a victory there would have been rather empty. Leningrad is basicly a completely flat marshland with rather nice weather (for Russia) and yet the germans couldn’t take it even after 900 days of seige. The Germans had lost momentum, after a few days of fighting an enemy that existed everywhere they turned German troops became severly demoralized and lost the will to win any sort of objective except perhaps getting home alive. If the Russians were just holding on with their fingernails, how did they come back mere months later to win such stunning victories as the encirclement of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk? Armor and numerical superiority, plus the vast expances the Russians could work with all gave them a definate edge on the Germans, after Barbarossa.

Operation Barbarossa was a stretch for the Germans too. They advanced way too quickly and extended their supply lines far too long. The Germans couldn’t have advanced faster becuase they would have run out of ammunition. No matter how fast you make the AFV you still need supplies for it, and those travel just a little slower. Also, thanks to scortched earth, the Germans had to get their food from Poland or beyond, slowing them down even futher. Again, it doesn’t matter how fast an army can move, you still need to get supplies to it. I don’t think you realize that most of Russia has never had any kind of road system, especially paved ones. Not only that, but I’m not sure if you’re aware of Russian geography, but it would have been extremely hard to drive directly to moscow; this is sort of a large marsh directly in the way, and I do mean large, in the area of hundreds of kilometres across. In order to take the sothern half of russia and the forces it contained, part of the German army had to be sent south of the Pripet marshes.

Well, let’s see what I can come up with opens big box o’ evidence, pulls Autism file first, since you were sneaky and denied me any real chance of a topicality I’d run an attack on your harms saying there is a problem with diagnosing autism, then an inherency attack based on the status quo is already solving, then I’d run a federalism disadvantage and maybe a stigma DA on top of that. Sorry if I don’t really want to take the time to type out all my evidence, but obviously, looking at it right now, I think the federalism DA will give you the most trouble. that’s really novel, how you denied me most of my topicality arguments though.

There is absolutely no way the Germans could ever have beat the Russians, even if the UK made peace. First of all, Germany’s population was a fraction of Russia’s; with the patriotism in Russia at the time (hence Great Patriotic War) every last man, woman, and child could have and very nearly was mobilized for the war effort. Were the Germans able to do that? The Russians win by pure brute force. But also the Germans never really mobilized their economy; Russia, on the other hand, managed to mobilize a huge economy in a rather short period of time (from virtually nothing, too). Do you know how much steel was being produced everyday in Russia? Tonnes and tonnes. They were pumping out T-34s (arguably the best tank of the was) 24 hours a day every day. Compare this to the hand crafted German designs, like the Pzkw. VI, of which nearly 18 could be made every day, not only did the Russians have a more durable design but they also had more steel on the front. Next, the Red Airforce may have been decimated but that means nothing. Airforces do not win wars, even now. Even the amount of damage done by the massive allied bombing campaigns had a negligable effect on the German economy untill late in the war when they were exhausted anyway. After the initial offensive the Germans were doomed to be crushed under the soviet juggernaut. Even if the forst offensive had worked in gaining Moscow the Russians would never have tolerated foreign rule. Imagine, a massive, disgruntled population that was under the power of a foreign state. I’d have loved to be a German occupying Russia at the time.

Why would the US need a military then? I’d like to see one nation the constitutes a real, concrete threat to the existance of the US. Anyway, back on the topic, I don’t know what you mean by Japan isn’t threatened. If I lived in Japan I might feel at least a little threatened by N. Korea. Relations there have never been good and with their nuclear program… I wouldn’t feel exactly safe, even with a nation that was the most major economic competitor of mine protecting me. That’s just me though.

Transports are a little confusing. you just need to remember that loading AND/OR unloading uses all of the units movement points. This means that you can both load and unload a unit on your turn, or you can load a unit (granted it hasn’t been moved already this turn) and leave it on the transport, or you can unload a unit that is already on a transport; in this last case you would be unable to move it afterwards similarly to rules regarding movement before loading. I’m not sure if I helped clarify, but I hope this benefits you.

I don’t know about you, but I really like the ability to designate whichever plane I like to be a kamikaze. It simplifies things a great deal and allows for so many more options.

I only ever thought you needed a basic understanding of english to comprehend the rules. It’s not like it’s Advanced Squad Leader. I recommend breaking the game out and following the examples given for most of the rules on the board; that way you can see what exactly the rules are talking about.

Even though in the context of the game the transport does not move, technically it does move. It would be treated just as if the transport did move from a sea zone. On your first turn you would load the transport, on your allies turn it would be “carried across the water,” and on your next turn the transport would be unloaded.

I think Brazil is the last thing Germany needs to worry about. If I remember correctly I’ve only seen somebody do it once (I was playing a very new person and could get away with it). Otherwise, despite the value of 3, it’s a waste of resources for Germany which is already strapped for troops.