Posts made by Imperious Leader

and a higher literacy rate with a sixth the AIDS rate of the US.

If we didnt have open borders our nation would stand better in thei regard.
As far as Aids… its basically that all the infected people can come in this nation, while in Cuba they wont let you come and turn into rif raf. Thats the nature of Dictatorship… some social ills are removed due to the lack of freedom to be a wierdo. If you dont shape up you get thrown out which is the way it should be.

On the imports thing… The isolation brought this condition of useless exports when the Casinos go back up it will become a goldmine again-

Don’t you agree that free trade would have opened the doors and changed the government in a shorter time

OK now the professional answer but with the same message for those who care…

Problems of continuing the trade embargo:

1)It will not get rid of castro because he still has power after 40 years.

2)Efforts to intice other latin american governments to cooperate with our current Cuba policy risks disruptions in relations with our allies and trading partners in the area.

3)Holding to the embargo and refusing to negotiate ignores other US interests such as compensation for lost properties (Casinos) and profits from opening US - Cuban trade.

4)Our Embargo basically adds to suffering.

NOW in logical response to these potential problems still larger solutions are granted by continuation of our policy:

1. It stems the tide of “Domino Communism” that was prevelant in the 1970-80’s and plugs any more would be Leftist forces causing problems and destabilization in the area.

2. It says to the world that we dont tolerate dictators who needlessly put entire populations thru major pain for their own agrandizement.

3. It had offered the opportinity for the people themselves to overthrow Castro and on occasion we tried to help them (bay of Pigs). After a period of time if they dont see any hope or future or cant bring their own change, then we basically can only do so much.

4. Trading with Cuba would offer no long term satisfications to our economy, because they offer nothing of value to us. We can get sugar and bananas from ourselves and other trading partners. Example: if we traded with North Korea it would be the same thing… Nothing but old antiquated Soviet Technology used for military purposes.

On the base of these findings we should just do excatly as i have so elloquently stated namely:

Let Cuba and Castro rot until one of them dies, then rebuild the casinos and tourism and turn it back into our proto state as it should be. Just another Bloodless conquest.

Let Cuba and Castro rot until one of them dies, then rebuild the casinos and tourism and turn it back into our proto state as it should be. Just another Bloodless conquest.

Oh that!! nevermind-

I get it also, problem is never call these people for advertising space rates or you get screwed forever. I get millions of emails and phone calls from their advertising department. Geez!

They did a good job on the Bulge about last year . I like the paper quality too–shinny.

OK a typo… thanks

LOL… good! but the comment remains for those of us who know what im talking about-

you have to admit their is a lot of this going on and im only pointing out the obvious!

OMG if your actually worried about how many posts you left? Is their some prize associated with this? Do you play fantasy sports league? The quality of posts is what should count and in fact the “other discussion” posts should not even count in the totals because its basically people trying to “hook” up with females (you will notice they allways get a response by the truckload on nearly any topic) and people who are posting quick snippets on what Bush did today or tomorrow (who really cares– he will be our president for a few more years so deal with it). I myself am quilty of a few cute little sound bites but i am aware of the big picture and focus my duties to actually improving the game with some constructive comments. I just had to rant about what seems that peeps just care about the silliest things. :-? :oops: :wink:

yea you got to watch those men with the skirts from scotland they are decisive in battle (if their not playing bagpipes while fighting). I hope the SS can handle them!
Churchill had nothing but his bark to back up his “defend the beaches speech”. It was a cold bluff to demonstrate the nations resolve. The reality is they could not stand up to any sucessful German beachhead. The BEF couldnt bridge the gap at Sedan even with the help of allies…so how do they contain the victorious armies from France once they get into the Dover/Ramsgate beachhead? Control of the air is vital and was the only prerequisite for the invasion. The navy at scapa flow was too far and if the Brits moved naval units in the channel with German Air superiority they would be sunk before any threat developed against the invasion fleet. Plus the Germans could have mined parts of the path that would be taken to engage the invasion fleet. Plus the Brits had no prepared “atlantic wall” since the defeat came as a surprise to the world their was simply no investment in anti- invasion defenses unlike what the Germans prepared from 42-44 along the coast of France. And you see what that did in Normandy. Without that the invasion would be just like Anzio. Germans would get a few rocks thrown at them by British children.

The only thing that saved British interests was Hitler who decided to fight a real war in the east hoping it would lead to a bloodless conquest of England. A small psycological pressure was applied by the RAF and Churchill to show the resolve, but it was very much like a game of a Hawk and ground rodent, where this rodent stands up tall and faces the Hawk so as too look big, but once the thing turns its head even for a second, the Hawk has his prey.

ok so what is this website where we can take a look at this “advanced” game?

How did the NDSAP do? I also didnt see Hindenburg get very far…Perhaps its time this Wiemar thing just move on for the good of the nation. (JK) :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So you practically says that tactical bombing raids involving light and medium bombers (not your singel engined fighter-bombers) did not take place during WWII! So you think that I am lying when I say that those light and medium bombers were actually used in targeted attacks like shipping attacks and airfield attacks as well as in the antitank attacks. You better do your home work next time.

Your imagination is legendary! please look at the numbers (by type) of shipping loses and attacks on moving armored columns by your glorious light bombers and medium bombers by nation and compare them with all other planes that accomplished this same duty. Airfield attacks were fixed targets and fall under regular bombing attacks (unless your talking about a quick raid to take out planes with strafing attacks).

what the game needs in a new dive bomber piece for both naval and ground based missions.

Ok, next perspective! If one stick to your point of view that bombers only were used to carpet bomb an entire area. What is the difference between a shore bombardment and an attack by a bomber. Nothing, right! So you simply say that it would be alright that bombers should attack in the opening fire step of combat or that shore bombardment should take place during normal combat! Which do you think would give a more balance and at the same time historical correct rule? You maybe like it as it is, for other reasons? I can live with the old rule, but I don’t like it in a historical perspective. However the Air Supremacy seems to be somthing in your taste, right? I think it will become a standard optional rule for A&A!

Shore bombardment should occur before the battle and not be allowed each round of combat. Each infantry unit represents an entire army level unit so how can a group of ships simply destroy that many lifes? This is not reality, but in this game anything seems possible so only allow it to be of marginal value. The Bomber hits should be taken as loses preemtively each round. In fact bombers should not be allowed to attack every round, but should get to attack twice (roll two dice) when they do and again loses are taken before the remaining ground units can fire back. Also, bombers should be allowed to attack naval targets such as subs and transports only because a level attack required the bombers to fly in a direct flat pattern at a slow speed and the aa guns on warships would overwhelm them and cause too many causualties. The only event when your “Bombers” actually took out large naval targets was against the HMS Repulse and Prince of Whales which had no carrier support or CAP to protect them from jap bombers. otherwise “bomber” attacks were relegated to shipping, subs, and very small escort ships and not front line warships. Dive-bombers on the other hand had this duty.

I dont know whay you simply hate the idea of “fighters” having the job of striking against armor in the combat sequence with the attack bonus. Perhaps you want the pricy bombers to have more value so you will buy them. But its clear that their role is not exactly as you originally stated.

Shore bombardment should be changed consider:

Shore Bombardment and Infantry Support
During Ground Combat, for amphibious assaults, all surface warships with a combat value of four or higher have one “shore bombardment” attack. In order to support landings for each shot you roll for you must land four Land units. Defender losses do not fire back. In addition, similar to attacking artillery, each shore-bombarding warship improves one attacking infantry (class unit) to an attack die roll modifier of +1 on the first round only. Warships that participate in Naval Combat may not also shore bombard and provide infantry support for amphibious assaults.

I would like to know what you think the 4 and 1 in attack and defense for a bomber represents. As you know bombers can be used for more than just SBRs in the original game. If they are not to represent tactical bombing raids, then you tell me?

This is its potency rating in combat measured with the abilities of other units. Its contribution symbolizes the bombing raids of Dresden and central Germany 1943-45. The daily sorties flown by our pilots over germany. Nothing more than that because that is quite enough. Thats why the Bomber represents a B-17 or B-26… it has a payload of many bombs that carpet bomb an entire area. If you want tactical battlefield missions you call on the “smaller” planes what can actually DIVE and deliver that ONE bomb they are carrying IN A PRECISE MANNER. they are represented by smaller planes like the FIGHTER. the BOMBER is a strategic weapon used to fight a nations industry and lonf term investments, while a fighter is a tactical weapon that can destroy a tank which is something that was just built from a factory. SO bombers go after factories and fighters go after what the bombers missed that the factories built. It cant get simpler then that!

The war was won by the Soviet Union alone- they “obsorbed” 75% of the german fighting forces. If in a fairy tale world where German and soviet interests could have co-existed and in a world where Stalin would never had attacked hit “ally”, then their was no chance in hell for the allies to win. consider:

1. Hitler now cant attack USSR as a way of forcing England to surrender which he never wanted to destroy england and in fact wanted them as allies.–-Now Hitler has to use the direct approach which from july 1940-dec 1941 would have resulted in occupation on england and loss of all her colonies (germans unleash 160 divisions in afrika, england, middle east) they take all the oil and secure a transportation route to germany because Malta, and Gibrater and the entire Medditeraen are now an “axis lake”

2. the additional oil supplies allow the italian fleet to combine with german fleet and used for the invasion and occupation of england.

3. The loss of England from the war creates a huge void in the pacific, allowing japan to finish off China and take the dutch east indies with better security allowing an invasion of Australia in the summer of 1941.

4. the United states would be alone fighing for the survival of only north and south america, while they had no forward bases since all of Europe,afrika, and asia are totally overrun by axis forces.

5. The industrial power base of all these conquests would easilly be more than equal to american abilities. The new manpower resorces would exceed our ability to field equal numbers , while the technology race and time would have allowed Hitler to come up with some goodies to spice up the soup while we tried to figure out how we can supply our forces all the way from north america since we let Hitler have his cake and eat it too.

IL, the original post stated :okay i’m going to build a bigger map of axis and allies that will include Italy

which doesn’t necessarily start in the spring of 1942…

The response did not have anything to do with those issues, but rather to set the record straight on Italys glorious conquests which only included abbyssinia and Italian east Afrika which latter got taken back by brits.

Only lybia,sicilly, sardinia, Italy, Albania and those two colonies named above along with about a 10 mile “zone” of southern french territory were the legacy of the New Roman Empire. Its a good idea to build them in the game but they have to be weak economically but somewhat strong militarily. Their navy was pretty balanced, only no oil to move the ships around so they were largely stuck in ports. They had a large army which should be well represented. They allways tried to bite more than they could chew was the basic problem from the get go. Il duce and his pride in the shadow of competition from his more sucessful northern ally was his undoing. Not to mention poor leadership and appointments of military leadership. If they were led by Germans and trained in Germany they would have had more sucess to be sure.

Im not sure what this is about but i think you offer either function for artillery against air or land. On a d6 a one in six chance is still too much… Perhaps roll 2 dice if you get a 2 then a hit is counted. Or if you got 2 artillery then a 2-3 is a hit. This attack would be preemtive. (planes are removed from play). The artillery should then be allowed to participate in normal combat with ground units. the following are some ideas for air combat missions. They are my old versions but they can help you anyway.

Air Interception of Air Units
Defending fighters may intercept and AA guns may fire at moving air units leaving the airspace of the defender’s territory or sea zone. One round of air interception combat occurs in the defender’s territory or sea zone.

Defensive Air Support
During Ground Combat Resolution, defending air units (including bombers) may move to an adjacent territory to participate in the defense of friendly ground units being attacked. Movement of these units takes one full combat round before they can be used. (Example: On round one, the defending player announces that he will dispatch fighters and on round two they are used in combat). Aircraft called up for DAS missions are not committed to fight a minimum number of combat rounds. For example: defensive Air Support was called in on combat round one and ready to fight on round two, but the defender rolled very poorly on his first round and decided to call off DAS and not risk losing his planes. At the end of ground combat resolution, surviving Defensive Air Support (DAS) units must return to their original land territory, if possible.

Combat Air Patrol
During the Non-Combat phase, you may establish Combat Air Patrol (CAP) from any territory to adjacent sea zones. Simply move any air units in range to unoccupied sea zones. Any enemy naval units (except Subs) that move into this sea zone must now stop and engage the CAP and a battle will then be fought. An enemy player can move planes to either engage the CAP, or to fly to islands in the sea zone and fight ground units or support an amphibious assault. During the regular movement phase, all CAP planes must then land on the friendly Islands or Carriers.

Coastal Defense
During Naval Combat Resolution, defending air units (including bombers) may move to an adjacent sea zone to participate in the defense of friendly naval units being attacked, or where defending naval units are conducting combat against enemy naval units that have ended their movement in the defender’s sea zone (including during amphibious assaults). Movement of these units takes one full combat round before they can be used. (Example: On round one, the defending player announces that he will dispatch fighters and on round two they are used in combat). At the end of naval combat resolution, surviving coastal defense air units must return to their original land territory, if possible.
Air units may provide coastal defense even if the land territory they are from is under attack. They may provide coastal defense, defend the land territory, or provide strategic air defense; they may not do more than one. At the end of combat resolution, if the territory a defending air unit flew from is captured, the air unit must fly to the closest friendly territory within its flight range. If no friendly territory is available, the defending air unit is eliminated.

Strategic Bombing
Bombers may perform strategic bombing against enemy ICs within their range. Strategic bombers may be intercepted by defending fighters and attacked by strategic air defense. Each bomber that survives may roll one die; this is the number of IP that the IC is reduced by during the owning country’s next turn. An IC may lose more IP than its printed value.
Fighter Escort
Fighters may accompany moving bombers or naval units as far as their range allows them and participate in air interception combat, but they may only enter two sea zones to the target territory or two sea zones and two sea zones when returning from the target territory. Escorting fighters may escort either naval units or bombers (not both) and may not attack naval units or a territory during the same turn they escort bombers or naval units.

Strategic Air Defense
Directly before strategic bombers roll for damage on an IC, defending fighters and AA guns in the territory may defend against bomber (and their escorts, if any) with one round of combat. Defending AA guns have a first-shot attack against each attacking air unit. The strategic bombers and their escorts can only target defending fighters (and not any ground units). Any surviving bombers may then bomb the IC.

I think your retreats are fine but this covers pretty much everything.Retreats occur after the combat round and attacking units dont get a free shot at defending units.Artillery may retreat. 1 turn is at least a few months so why do you allow them to get stuck and captured? It takes less than a day to “unlimber” your fixed artillery units.

RETREATS

Except for air and naval interception combat, where the defending intercepting units simply return home after one round, after any round of combat, the attacker may decide to withdraw and retreat. If the attacker does not retreat, the defender may choose to retreat. Retreating attacking units do not all have to retreat to the same territory, but it must be from original territories where the attack began. However, when retreating, all units in that territory or sea zone must retreat, if possible. Defending units that cannot retreat (such as air units out of range of a friendly territory, ground units on an island, or evacuating ground units in excess of transport capability) must remain and continue to fight.

Air Units
Attacking air units that are retreating “withdraw” from combat. They return to land during Returning Air Movement. Defending air units have to retreat to an adjacent friendly territory. If no adjacent friendly territories exist, retreating defending air units fly to the closest friendly territory within their flight range. If there are no friendly territories within their flight then these defending air units cannot retreat.

Naval Units
Naval units retreat by “withdrawing” and remaining in the combat sea zone. This may leave enemy naval units sharing the same sea zone. Retreating transports may not unload their units.

Ground Units
Ground units may retreat to any combination of friendly adjacent territories. Defending ground units must remain in the embattled territory and “fight to the death” only if no other retreat options are available. The ground units then take part in the battle. AA guns may not retreat.

Naval Evacuations
Attacking ground units in amphibious assaults may evacuate and retreat to their transports; however, each armor and artillery unit must first be converted to an infantry unit. Defending ground units may also retreat onto friendly transports in adjacent sea zones. Again, each armor and artillery unit must be converted to an infantry unit. In both cases, the evacuating transports may not move, but if possible, they may each transport up to three infantry units to an adjacent friendly territory. Ground units in excess of transport capacity may not retreat.

good! and for those who dont read german:

Angela Merkel fuhr ein desaströses Wahlergebnis ein, doch die Unionsspitze beschloss: Kritik an der Kandidatin wird vertagt. Zunächst soll sie Kanzlerin werden. Ob sich alle an die Losung halten, zeigt sich morgen. Im Eiltempo will sich Merkel als Fraktionschefin bestätigen lassen. Von Severin Weiland. :roll: :o

Sid Meyers gettysburg and antietem are very good. Aston Games “civil war” is good as well (it has minitures) Conquest games also puts out a good game (using risk pieces). Zenos" Hollowed ground" sucks however. The original “Battle cry” by milton bradley is fun and fast while 1961 Avalon hills Gettysburg can be used with miniatures is also good .

Just label the idea in a more generic format and give the same benifit to the Soviet Union.

Example: Tiger becomes Heavy Tanks….because the Germans had many different tanks that had the same attributes of a Tiger tank not to mention Jagdtiger, Kingtiger, tiger 1 and tiger 2…

On the Soviet side of things they also had some goodies and should be represented as well.