You may not be able to gloat as an individual, but you will be able to gloat as part of a team - you just have to let your teammates in on the gloating.
If you want to gloat as an individual, you could always (after your team has won) declare war on the rest of the world. THAT should be an interesting battle and well worth gloating over should you succeed!
Can´t really put my finger on a specific “mistake” by the allies, but it seems that since your strategy isn´t tha off the wall, you must be getting the dice going your way.
Eventually the India IC will be lost. Especially if you have an IC in Kw. Usually J doesn´t build one there but waits until India is won, since it´s closer to Russia. The India IC is only there to slow the Axis down.
Really? I would like to hear how you shock your opponent. As, I´m sure, would many others.
Now that you say: Give one person 4-5 heart valves or 4-5 people one heart valve, it puts a whole new perspective on things. It´s never that black/white (and I know you didn´t mean to make it sound so), but obviously saving 4-5 people is better than saving one person 4-5 times.
Hm, well it´s obvious to me …… I think
The top posters on A&A stick their heads together and decide to give Xi the award for “Shortest Name” to avoid further embarrasment at the awards-ceremony.
Xi, sensing a plot, drinks the award (for some reason it was half a bottle of home brewed gin), smashes the bottle to razor-sharp pieces and yells: “You´ll never take me alive!”
Two weeks later, he marries Drew Barrymore.
Hm, haven´t really noticed that. The first round always seems to be played a certain way and the outcome always seems pretty predictable.
If the first round determined the outcome of the whole game, and the allies win about 90% of the games, then the allies should “win” the first round in 90% of the cases. That doesn´t seem to happen to me.
I´m not sure I see the ethics dilemma.
He gets the new heart valve and is offered drug-rehab. If he wants the heart valve, that is.
What does the Canadian medical system have to do with the problem anyway? If the tax-payers pay for medical treatment, then ALL citizens have the right to treatment. If it´s privately paid or by insurance, then ALL citizens whose paperwork is in order get the valve (correct me on this last one, those of you who live the US).
Is the ethics dilemma wether or not to give him the valve? How is that your dilemma as a doctor? The politicians (or maybe the hospital administrators) have made the rules. It´s THEIR dilemma. It´s YOUR operation. That´s how I see it anyway.
I see a parallel to my experience as a doctor in Denmark: A drunk comes into the hospital to receive treatment for his alcohol-abuse. He is admitted although the previous 20 times he has been admitted, he has left the morning after, without sticking around to talk to the “alcohol-unit” (as we call them). He is admitted because you cannot turn down a person in need - even though you know in your heart that what he really wants is just a warm bed to sleep in. Ethical dilemma? No, but annoying as h…
The only reason I still occasionally play Risk is because it´s the one semi-advanced game my friends can figure out.
Risk is worthless as a strategy game. In 90% of the games I´ve played, whoever got Australia won. It´s 2 extra armies each turn and it´s easy to defend for two reasons: It only has one attack route and it has to be attacked from Russia which is a continent no one is stupid enough to try and take.
Does it happen so often in your games that a force receives heavy bombers, that you have to make additional rules for them? I understand that HB can pretty turn the tide of the war and anyone with HB will greatly increase its chances of winning.
BUT bombers are expensive as is and the opponent should put all forces into nabbing the already existing bombers.
My verdict: leave as is.
I´d have thought that wouldn´t violate neutrality. But I understand the arguments. I think I´ll play that it doesn´t cost 3 IPC. 8)
In real life, the neutral country would probably do a lot of diplomatic complaining, but whoever has the rocketlauncher probably wouldn´t care much :wink:
Try buying only inf first round, or inf + 1 tank. If Russia should get lucky enough to take EE, then you should have no trouble taking it back on G2. I consider it a premature attack that will weaken Russia in the future.
I would have to say that it is illegal. You must conduct all your combat movement in one turn. You can´t load the tr with inf as part of your combat move because you don´t know that your tr won´t be destoyed in the sea battle (however unlikely it may be).
Remember, the sea combat precedes the loading of the tr, which means the loading of the tr has to be conducted on the next move.
So far we agree. Now I´m just waiting for Big Blocky to answer this thread and argue the contrary.
This bothers me to no end. I had just gotten to the point where I could accept that tr. can´t load and unload during non-combat. After all, they have to either load OR unload during non-combat.
But then someone rightly pointed out that on p. 26 of the rules, there is an example of the jpas loading 2 inf from Phil. and transporting them to Kwan - during non-combat!!!
So. apparently this is allowed EVEN THOUGH the non-combat rule says load OR unload and not load and/or unload.
This is my conclusion: :roll: Someone should have written those rules more clearly……
That´s pretty funny! But read
http://www.google-watch.org/newsday.html
to find out why that is the result (if you care).
The “regular” list under FMV is also pretty funny!
What if you love no one?
“I won´t disturb the slumber of feelings that have died.
If I never loved, I never would have cried.”
I saw the original japanese version a while ago. I haven´t seen the US version.
What I saw was really a horrorflick! Scary as all that! Naturally I had to make a copy to show to a friend of mine……
I will join the ranks of the few and agree to these rules. Reading and rereading the rules has more or less convinced me that that is how the tr. should move. It will slow the USA down, evening things out a bit. And it helps explain why it is so important to have the blow-up boxes to signify whether or not the cargo is still on the tr or has been unloaded (am I making any sense?)
It might screw the japs a bit on their front, but only until they learn to keep their tr. off the coast of Japan.
So it´s agreed that a tr. CANNOT load and unload during non-combat, NO MATTER WHAT!?
But can it load during combat, if it´s not going to be combat? No, you can´t. P.12: “In this part of the sequence, you move your units into land territories or sea zones occupied by enemy units to engage in combat.” The units HAVE to engage in combat. If you load inf onto a tr then either the inf or the tr have to engage in combat. So there!
Crud! I accidentally voted for Spiderman! I meant to vote for DD.
This would be true for the Spiderman in the movies (Tobey Maguire is a wuss and would run crying at the sight of blood), although the comicbook version would probably be somewhat even.
Ok, I CAN see how the reading of the rules will make this the case. What I still don´t understand is WHY you can load infantry in the combat phase when they are not going to be in combat!!!
I may have missed something in the rules, but that just seems like cheating! Yeah! Dagnabbit!