Posts made by Jennifer

@Gamerman01:

It’s probably OK to unsticky this thread, Jennifer

Thank you

Done

@Young:

I’m still full from Canadian Thanksgiving.

Yea, but we can’t get seal fin soup and baby, stuffed caribou down here.

@Private:

Can I give THANKS that us Brits managed to offload the pesky colonies back in 1776. Not the 4th July I know, but do we have to reserve our gratitude to just one day a year?

Yes, you bloody well do, mate!  lol

Edited to remove diamond-? icons and to add formatting (bolds, colors) only.

Good luck leaguers!

For those Americans on the board who celebrate the holiday today, Happy Thanksgiving.  For the rest of you, Happy “whatever doesn’t offend you” day. :P

I had heard that before, Marc.  Roddenbury was very anti-inter personnel conflict with bridge characters.  IMHO, a little strife on the bridge saved Enterprise from being a total waste.  I actually kind of liked Enterprise.  Not all of it, but there were quite a few good episodes.  There was also the conflict between Paris and Janeway, Torres and everyone and that might be a bit of why I enjoyed Voyager.

@Flashman:

I want Klingons like they were in TOS, not the hideous TNG mutants. They disgust me. They repel me. They make me want to puke.

Yea but I am afraid the old Klingons will be too busy with Marty McFly running around the space time continuum!

None of TNG was “bad” it just could have been better, IMHO.  First season was a lot, in feel, with TOS, wasn’t it?

Yup, was pretty much figuring that, I just wanted to rule out an extension issue.

For grin’s and giggles, someone try I.E. 11 please (not edge.)

Just to clarify, have you attempted to use:  Internet Explorer and Chrome and FireFox and Edge etcetera (basically, have you tried a couple different browsers just to be sure it isn’t a browser setting?)

Not saying it IS a browser issue, or a computer issue, it is very likely a server issue because we have them periodically.  I just want to rule it out the possibility that it’s a browser issue is all.

I don’t care how bad it is, it will be good to me because it’s Trek.  Anything Trek is good!  (Except maybe DS 9.  Wasn’t a HUGE fan of DS 9 until Worf moved over…even then, it felt weird like I was cheating on TNG with another show…)

For now I’d say have your opponent email you the save game file.  Not sure what the issue is with saved games specifically, but if you get me some more details, I’ll look into it.  Might be something Djensen has to change on the admin side, might just be an error in general.

@Karl7:

Sealion…… what heartbreaker it is.  W/20+ bid now going to the allies it really isn’t a viable option anymore unless the UK really drops the ball Uk1.

To keep it possible, I build 3 ftrs Ger1.  More fire power to spread around and can be useful even if you don’t do it.  Problem w/fleet build is many times the Allies adeptly counter leaving you w/pretty useless fleet.

Not to mention, HOLDING London can be tricky, IMHO.  If you can’t hold it, then was the cost worth it?  Keep in mind, every plane you lose is one less to use against Moscow and Russia, if left alone long enough, can be a monster to deal with as well…  Especially if you don’t keep them out of Eastern Europe.

Just my two IPCs…take em for what they’re worth.

For general discussion about the league, league games, advice, questions, concerns, favorite cookie recipes, whatever….

My Favorite Cookie Recipe,

_In truth, a chemist’s version of a recipe would specify ingredients by weight, not volume, unless they were liquid. Specifications would not be in cubic centimeters but in milliliters or deciliters.

General-purpose flour is only 11% gluten; cake flour is about 8% gluten and hard-wheat bread flour is 15% gluten. US all-purpose flour has a density of 0.42, and UK all-purpose flour has a density of 0.42. Butter has a density of 0.97. Granulated sugar is 0.81, and brown sugar is 0.85. Chocolate chips have a density of 0.71.

Baking powder is baking soda [sodium carbonate] with a dry acid such as calcium phosphate (single-acting powder) and (for double-acting baking powder) some alum (sodium aluminum sulfate).

Brown sugar is not unrefined sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added to it. Raw sugar is more crystalline and smells more strongly of molasses. Molasses is the byproduct of refining sugar; it is added back in to make brown sugar.

Butter is not hydrogenated, The word “tallow” normally means rendered fat, which butter is not.

Vanilla extract is a solution of vanilla-bean esters in ethyl alcohol. That’s esters, not ethers. Synthetic “vanillin” is indeed a dimethyl ether, but it is properly called 3,4-DIMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE. I would not make cookies with synthetic vanilla flavoring.

Peanuts are the only nut that is a legume. Chocolate chip cookies are made with walnuts or pecans, never peanuts.

It is customary to remove the shells from eggs used in baking, so the calcium-carbonate enscapsulation is a packaging trick not part of the recipe.

Theobroma cacao is the botanical name for the cocoa plant. The harvested and processed extract of it that is called “chocolate chips” is a mixture of dried cocoa powder, cocoa butter, and refined sugar. Cookies made with whole Theobroma plants have a woody texture and are undigestible.

The fabled recipe’s ingredient list should go like this:

225 gm      dried powdered bleached sifted Triticum germ
5 gm      NaHCO3 (Sodium Bicarbonate)
1 gm      NaAlSO3 (Sodium Aluminum Sulfate)
1 gm      KC4H5O6 (potassium hydrogen tartrate)
7 gm      NaCl (Sodium Chloride) (extra to compensate for baking soda subst)
225 gm      Lipid extracted from Bos taurus lactation.
280 gm      Crystalline C12H22O11 (sucrose)
25 ml      Sucrose refinement byproduct, high viscosity
5 ml      3,4-DIMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE
200 gm      chopped germ of Juglans regia
2      ova from Gallus domesticus
350 gm      domestic food product with UPC 061823111908 (the chocolate chips)
From: Brian Reid
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2
Subject: Re: Geek Cookie Recipe_

Been a bit since I could go through the thread…sorry.  Few ideas based on what I skimmed:

What if we gave Aircraft Carriers AA abilities (after all, they were bristling with AA Guns.)  Each carrier gets 3 AA Gun shots per normal AA Gun rules (so if you have radar, that’s @2, else it’s @1, first round only, opening fire.)  Boost the cost of the Carrier if need be to balance it out.

Transports:  Cost 7, Move 2, Attack 0, Defend 0, Must be last units selected as casualties after all other potential units are hit (if you bring them in with attackers - as you would for amphibious - then any defense shots in excess of what is needed to sink the accompany ships MUST be applied to any transports until all shots are accounted for or there are no units left to assign them to.)

Carry:  1 Artillery, Armor or Mechanized Infant AND 2 Infantry (*yes they are carrying more units.)  This will make 1 transport missions have bigger impact, allow for navies to need fewer transports, and scale the transport’s ability up to account for more IPC on the map, and help with expanded distances.

@CWO:

@Cmdr:

If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?

I think the idea was to address the fact that the rules artificially treat the British-roundel territories as two separate economies, not to address the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth is divided into British-roundel territories, ANZAC-roundel territories and Canadian-roundel territories.

I was kind of going, if you unify UK-A and UK-P why not just toss in ANZAC too since they are also UK…

TBH, I’d rather split the US like the UK is.  Territories in US-P would have to spend in US-P and territories in US-A would be spent in US-A.  (And don’t tell me it’s overly cumbersome for the US, you could very easily build warships in one zone and planes in the other and just fly out to meet the ships.  Or tanks in W. USA, Infantry/Transports in E. USA and not have a long “add time” to your shuttle of troops.)

That would split the US at the start of the game to: 35 IPC for Atlantic USA and 17 IPC for Pacific USA before War even starts, and not including any National Objectives which you could put in either economy.  Maybe you could exempt the US until they are at war - so they still have a few rounds to “catch up” to Japan?

If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?

Also, you might want to drop that Major in India to a Minor complex and supplement it with another minor in W. India.

Otherwise, I like the idea…never understood why the US could have 100 IPC a round going into one theater but England had to save those 10 IPC for India even if it meant London falling to Germany…

As far as “wow we are doing great, let’s buy more war bonds!!”  thing goes, isn’t that kind of exactly what the National Objectives are?  “Wow we liberated the Philippines, let’s invest in the war effort and kick Hirohito’s butt all the way back to Tokyo!” or “Da Uncle Yosef is doing good!  Look we own the Ukraine and Hungary!”  Kinda thing.

I’d make the split differently:

The United States of America must spend at least 33 and 1/3rd of it’s income in each theater (Atlantic/Pacific) and the remaining 3rd can be spent where the player wants.  If you are not at war with one side, then you get none of your NO’s but you can spend all of your income on the one theater you are at war in.

I think the problem with USA vs Japan is two fold:

A)  Even in history there really was no rationale for going to war.  Japan’s navy needed resources because the Army was getting it all, so they picked a fight to justify more resources from the Emperor.  America, of course, retaliated.

B)  It’s too hard to take islands.  You CAN load transports but then to move on you have to use those transports again.  In Europe/Africa you use the transports then leave the troops behind so they can move on without you.  Perhaps if you allowed Destroyers to carry 1 infantry unit and transports could carry either 3 infantry, or 2 mechanized units (artillery, mech infantry or armor) thus improving the functionality of them IN THE PACIFIC ONLY we’d see a better push by the USA to take out Japan.

Alternatively, perhaps just say that you may move 1 infantry from one island group to the next without a transport.  So Carolines could go to Paulau without a transport as if they were going from Algeria to Libya.

In general, I would say we should not make things so overly complex just to attain a bit more realism and improve game play.  Just my opinion.  But AARHe (Revised Historical Edition) had pages upon pages of extra rules and it made it tough to find opponents….

Having planes land every other round for rearmament might be more realistic (for all battles, only so much they could take with them after all!) but it adds complexity where, IMHO, it isn’t needed to balance game play or enhance the game experience.

Requiring capitol ships to be in “port” with a friendly IC/SY adds both reality and enhances the game (you damaged it, now it either retreats or lives with the damage and presses on!)

Just my personal opinion, feel free to disagree.