Posts made by johnny

From what I read in the book and here, on normal moving, nondisrupted, a vehicle or a person doesn’t have to pay a movement point to change directions.  By that I mean I don’t have to take a point to turn within a hex and then move forward, taking more points, turn (taking a point), and so on.

Is that right?

What about shooting?  Can a vehicle facing, say, the top right of a hex, shoot the top left direction too?  What about straight up the middle between hexes with a good line of sight?

Is it the same for men?  Thanks for help.

I am buying the minis for someone else for a gift.  I know they have the starter set and one booster.  Do I need to continue to buy the base set or “reserves”?  Something else? Thank you.

I was looking and saw d-day had cards.  Do the cards add a nice mechanic?  I like Memoir '44 and the cards and while I like the Axis and Allies Revised, I get bored sometimes.

Is D-Day just as long a game as the regular A&A?

Is D-Day the only A&A with cards?

Thanks.

@Micoom:

Luck can be a big factor yes! Dice can be very hard on you…  My last game I attacked 5INF, 3ARM, 2FIG, with 6INF, 3ARM, 7FIG, 1BOM.  I  made zero hits on the INF. and only 1 hit on the 10 three’s and also missed with the bomber. Then my opponent made 4 hits out of five on the INF and hit with all his ARM and FIG. He made 9 hits, I only one. BTW I was Japan, he Russia…  and it was from Sinkiang into Novobirisk…

I saw some of the expansions of A&A have cards.  Do they offset the luck factor of the dice?

@The:

You can believe whatever makes you feel nice and cozy. Thats what religion is for. To hide your head in the sand while the world goes about its way with all of the violence and suffering and death that is involved. I dont care about what a religious persons version of the world is. If people want to live in a cartoon Universe where anything is possible,so be it. But when you start to enact local,state and federal laws based on biblical nonsense or have national policy based on armegeddon and the “end times”,thats when I will confront the religious nuts head on.  People have been saying the end of the world is right around the corner for two thousand years and yet here we are. Question: Does anyone here remember 500 years ago? Answer: No because you were dead.
                    Its odd that no-one has mentioned my criticism of Genesis. But I know why. No-one can rationally explain all the fantastic lapses in logic concerning it. I am always amazed how frightened people are to question the beliefs they were taught as children. As we mature,we eventually let go of Santa,tooth fairies, the boogey man. But we cling to these afterlife things and are afraid to let go of them. Its completely understandable,though. It takes a strong person to accept the fact that life is random and this mortal life is all that there is. Any wimp can say " I believe!! I believe despite what is in front of my eyes!!". Faith is a weakness of the human mind. What is the difference,really, if a scientist says " You are just an ape that evolved from slime over billions of years " or a christian preacher saying “You are just dirt that sins.” They are both quite depressing,except we have massive evidence for one (evolution)and scant,pathetic,mostly written evidence for the other.Christians now-a-days should really take history lessons about the church because there is a lot they can learn. They seem to think that the church just tolled bells,had mass and everyone was happy for the last two millenia. Actually,they were involved in some of the most heinous crimes in histroy,including the Holocaust,slavery and stealing money and labor from the poor to build their eyesores. 
                                              I would be a believer if there was the evidence for it. If there were THE BIBLE,the one-and-only unaltered BIBLE,where I could go and look at it,kind of like the Declaration of Independence and say to myself " This is THE BIBLE,the ORIGINAL BIBLE,completely written in its scribble-dot-dash format (not English of course) yet there it is. It cannot be burned or pages torn out because this is THE BIBLE,the LITERAL WORD OF GOD and cannot be destroyed or altered ,no matter what a mortal does to it. Is there such a thing? No. The Bible,especially the New Testament,was written over hundreds of years,edited,diluted,re-copied in error by monks,so it is just a plain old book. Nothing special.

What method do you use to determine the veracity of ancient documents?  You seem to have a lot of knowledge in the area of ancient manuscripts, and I wanted to know what methodology you have used to arrive at your conclusions.  But let’s forget the ancient writings in the Bible for the moment.  I’m curious how you apply your thought to other documents of antiquity and the outcome of your investigation(s).  Please explain.  There are many other documents that could be discussed besides those in the modern day Bible.

Understand:  I am not arguing about whether a given text is "the word of God."  Instead, I am simply talking about old documents.  I am sure that in school past/present you have discussed “old” texts besides the Old and New Testaments.  I just want to know why you know what you know.  Forget about the religious part of it.

I also see your talking about faith again despite not answering a word of what I said about it.  Again, it is not the idea of “faith,” but the object of it that is what should be argued about.

Also, I looked back through your posts and couldn’t find an argument about Genesis to answer.  Sorry if I missed it.

@ncscswitch:

They are land unit build/combat ratios.

First number INF, second ART, third ARM

I know it’s obvious, but what is ARM?

I’m sorry.  Trying to follow, but what would 3:1:1 mean?

3 inf, 1 art, 1 something?

Thanks.

@critmonster:

well johnny, i guess your sylable count chased them away  :lol:

its a pitty, because i was looking froward to some more stories :mrgreen:

I can say that I never intended to start a fuss.  I really just thought it and typed it.  Thought maybe it was thought provoking enough the get someone to consider what those dice really represent, even though A&A is more abstract.

@critmonster:

Posted by: froodsterÂ

Quote from: johnny on January 24, 2007, 05:40:19 PM
“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks” Hebrews 11:4 - Abel - victim of Godless philosophy (see above above quote for details.)

It is funny how Abel’s “philosophy which rejects them” not only can hope to stand, but has stood for a very long time.  I doubt Bertrand Russell’s words will be around as long as Abel’s.

Maybe not, but neither will be around after the sun gets blowed up. Which will prove Bertrand’s point quite nicely, only none of us will be there to know it…  Â

if your right, maybe so.  if i’m right, maybe no :wink:

What that poster may not realize is that It’s not like Bertrand Russell came up with something new.  All he did was express in his language what Solomon did a long time ago in Ecclesiastes:  “All is vanity.”

“There is nothing new under the sun.”

@axis_roll:

@Sankt:

@axis_roll:

You are admittedly relatively new to the game, so have some faith in the veterans of this game.  Dice b*ing is common in this game… and I admit there are times when no matter what you do, the dice will not let you win.

If this invariability is still too much for you to deal (with your chess background), I would suggest you either play Low Luck games or some other variant that relies more on strategy rather than dice roll…

Haha, you are wonderfully arrogant! I know I’m relatively new to the game, but winning that doubles tournament has got to count for something? And getting to the bronze final in last year’s singles? (Though I withdrew prior to the match)

Regretfully I have no chess background and I dislike LowLuck in its current form. Something called MediumLuck or something would be more my thing, but I’m settled with luck being a big part of the game. 90% to be precise!  :-D

My apologies, I confused you with the originator of this thread Johnny.

It’s just something to get used to. The game still requires much strategy, but I believe the strategy based around superior forces, their hit and the luck.

@Mr:

Well I believe in diamonds. I might even believe in a diamond the size of a stove. I might even believe that there is a diamond the size of a stove buried somewhere in my back yard.  Of coarse, there is no proof of a diamond the size of a stove ever exsisting, but I have faith that one does and it is buried in my back yard. Every Sunday my family and I like to dig for this diamond and I certainly would not want to live in a world where a diamond this big did not exsist and believing in this diamond gives my life meaning.

I saw a post like this somwhere but I don’t remember where

It is a play on the Ontological argument for God’s existence.  I do not share it as a proof, but rather as a description of what must be given that God exists.  It relies upon other arguments for its footing, such as Cosmological argumentation.

@frimmel:

Doesn’t proof deny faith?

On the contrary, proof necessitates faith, unless one wants to deny reality.

If something is proven to be true, why would I not believe it?  If airplanes really can fly, and pilots can fly them, why would I not place my trust in them both, and instead of travelling in a Conestoga from Miami to New York, I take the best round-trip deal I can find?

@The:

Dont “trust” me,trust your senses. Do you see God? No.  Do you see things ( animals,sunsets,lightning that strikes and kills people) in nature ? Yes. Thats real.  Why should I believe fables told by ignorant sheep herders from three thousand years ago? They were utterly,literally dumb about how nature works. A seven year old child today knows more about the world than all of these story tellers combined. Do you think they could explain what caused the wind to blow? No.They would says angels did it or God was blowing the air from his huge,mighty,invisible lungs. Most humans just dont want to let go of their fear that life is random and meaningless and its all about sex and death really. If mankind is the ultimate achievement of God,what a sad showing for God.  First he makes angels and then one of them rebels. He then makes people and they eat an apple he told them not to eat. He makes a devil that has powers just like himself. Instead of just making Lucifer non-existent after having a war :-o in heaven of all places,he lets him traipse around in his Paradise.  This is one confused creator who cant seem to get it right. Its such a fairy tale that it is actually funny

You miss my point, which is simply that you do not know what you debunking.  I mean that respectfully.  In any debate or discussion, it is helpful to define terms.  When you talk about “faith,” you ought to know how your opponents use that term.  The dictionary and encyclopedias may be helpful, but not always.  You need to know how a term is being used in a given context.  You have to know your enemies better than your friends in argument.  Try playing Axis and Allies with no knowledge of the opposition, their economies or military capabilities.  You would not do well.  Let’s look at what you said:

“If this biologist ( I cant remember his name but I saw him promoting his book about faith and science on BookTV) is so smart,why doesnt he see the paradox of ID? Because of his “faith”,thats why. He knows that ID contradicts itself,so he goes the “faith” route and throws logic into the wind. I have no respect for that.”

You are equivocating on the word "faith."  In your first and second usage you use the word as a noun, or at least it appears so.  Faith here, in the sentence, seems to point to a codified set of doctrines.  So someone can hold to the religious faith of Islam, for example.  In your second example, you point to “faith” as a verb where the scientist, whoever he or she is, no throws all reason away and simply has, or exercises, faith.

When I asked you should I trust you, I was simply saying, should I have faith in you.  Why?  Because that’s all faith means.  It means trust in the context of believing.  While I agree there are nuances surround the word and its use in given missive, at its base it simply means believe, trust.  So again, should I trust you?  Your answer does not matter.  It proves my point; namely, that you do not understand what the word means to those who use it intelligently.  To you it always means blind faith, blind trust, no mind.

Taking that a little further.  Do you trust your senses?  Yes, up to a point you do.  Do you trust your car will get you to where you are going and do you put faith in the designers and engineers who created the car (as well as the line staff workers)?  If a parent says, "I’ll be there at six o’clock to pick you up."  Do they have faith in that person?  Probably.  And I bet if that person wants a ride home. They’ll be there.  One more example is an airplane.  I believe that airplanes can fly and I believe people can fly them well, but when I get on the airplane I am really trusting this is all true and putting my faith in a pilot.

These examples illustrate what faith is.  It is not some blind, unreasonable thing that just the dummies have, people that can’t reason properly.  Faith can be reasonable and reasonably applied.  A reasonable faith not unheard of.  You do it every single day.  Incidentally, this is not even touching on God, the Bible, dumb nomadic sheep herders or anything religious.  It is simply defining a term, even though I admit it certainly has religious connotations.

What you ought to debate is the object of someone’s faith, and the reasons for that faith, not faith itself.

@The:

"That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the ends they were achieving; that his origin,his growth,his hopes and fears,his loves and his beliefs,are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire,no heroism,no intensity of thought and feeling,can preserve individual life beyond the grave;that all the labors of the ages,all the devotion,all the inspiration,all the noonday brightness of human genius,are destined to extinction in the vast heat death of the Solar System,and that the whole temple of Mans achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a Universe in ruins–all these things,if not quite beyond dispute,are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths,only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair,can the souls habitation henceforth be safely built."              Bertrand Russell---- the greatest philosopher of all time.

“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks” Hebrews 11:4 - Abel - victim of Godless philosophy (see above above quote for details.)

It is funny how Abel’s “philosophy which rejects them” not only can hope to stand, but has stood for a very long time.  I doubt Bertrand Russell’s words will be around as long as Abel’s.

@The:

If this biologist ( I cant remember his name but I saw him promoting his book about faith and science on BookTV) is so smart,why doesnt he see the paradox of ID? Because of his “faith”,thats why. He knows that ID contradicts itself,so he goes the “faith” route and throws logic into the wind. I have no respect for that.

Curious.  Should I trust you on this?

I come from playing a lot of chess over the years and though I have played games that use dice (Monopoly, etc.) I haven’t had much experience in larger scale games that require so much from the “good roll factor.”

After playing Axis and Allies for a few games, it has made me think that the dice play almost too big a roll. I can have a massive army that should win, but might not if I get bad rolls and my opponent gets good roles. I understand that can occur in real combat and that small units can destroy or withstand bigger one (Thermopylae, for example.) But the game still feels like too much dice and not enough strategy are involved. It seems that even the best strategy can fail.

Not slamming the game. I like it a lot. Just hoping for comments.

Thanks.

@rjclayton:

@johnny:

Can you move a tank two and load on a transport?  or would the load on the transport be the third (and illegal) move?

@rjclayton:

2. You cannot make any other movement with cargo that loads and/or unloads.  (eg. you cannot move an armor 1 then load etc.)

Please read first before posting.

I saw it after I posted.  Sorry.

Can you move a tank two and load on a transport?  or would the load on the transport be the third (and illegal) move?

I know it can pair artillery with an infantry guy and get two for better odds, but is it worth it?  Do you invest in a lot of artillery?  Also, when I have an artillery and an infantry together with the plus 2, do both units get to fire?  By that I mean do I throw two dice, one for the infantry and one for the artillery?

Thanks everyone for answering my questions.  Big help.  Hope I can help someone else.

Can Battleships and Destroyers fight planes?  Can planes fight sea units?  For example, can I take off from Midway and fight a Battleship?  I know about Amphibious Assaults and Battleship Bombardment, but aside from that is what I am asking.  Let’s say the Battleships are next to a battle, can they fight?  I know that’s a lot of questions.  Thank you for any help.  I could not find it in the book.