Posts made by morten200

6. If Germany holds Moscow (Russian Capital), and Britain liberates Karelia (Russian province), does the province go to Russia or Britain?

A) Russia

Really? Are you sure?

Japan HAS to build land forces anyway to attack Russia.

Agreed, but with a factory in India to disrupt Japanese forces, this becomes the prime target for Japan, leaving the Russians pretty much alone. I takes a long time for Japan to take the IC in India, if they can take it at all!!! (In my experience.)

Defending Karelia: Russia gets about 8 inf each turn which it can place in Karelia to defend. Germany gets (depending on the Africa-situation) about 12 inf each turn, but can´t place all these for an attack on Karelia, since WEu has to be defended against an amphibious attack from UK + USA. IOW, Germany doesn´t place more attackers on Karelia than Russian can place in Karelia to defend it. Particularly not if Germany has to divert additional troops to Africa!

Groan … I´m still confused. You can make combat moves without going into combat???

The so-called “shuck-shuck” strategy relies on loading and unloading in non-combat does it not?

I´ve read dons essays, and it seems that while he believes an IC in India is UKs best choice, he doesn´t think it can be held.

My (limited) experience tells me that if Japan decides to go after the IC, it will spend so much money and time doing so that it will take “forever” to move into Russia. This in turn will leave Germany open to attack from UK + USA + Russia via Norway. After all, Germanys salvation comes from Japans attack on Russia from the east - or at least diverting Russian inf from the western front making an attack from Germany plausible.

Any thoughts?

Oh ……

But this should then even things out for the Axis, right? I mean, it will take the US a lot longer than otherwise to load an impressive army into Norway.

Ha!

French-bashing will live forver.

I too play with max three “stacks” of bombers, although it rarely becomes relevant (for me) since most games are over before enough money is aquired to afford bombers in more than three places.

LOL.

The point I´m trying to make is that after decades of diplomatic run-arounds, nothing in Iraq changed. Don´t make war? Ok, but what´s your alternative? How are you going to stop the torture, famine, disease etc.?
I´m not pro-war per se, but I didn´t see an alternative. A lot of people argued that embargos and what not didn´t have a chnce to make an impact. But they did. They hurt the civilians. Saddam wasn´t hurt by them. And the civilians didn´t get their forces together to overthrow him.

Sure, civilians died in the war. It was unavoidable. But how many died as a result of the war and how many would have died anyway due to hunger, treatable diseases, torture etc.? I realize this is coldhearted numbers-crunching, but that´s where it ends for me.

As far as name-calling … You may be insulted by being called “pro-torture”, but how do you feel about calling someone “ignorant, rude, hateful”? Don´t assume I´ve had too little sleep, I´ll just assume that you´re drunk. :wink:

I must be particularly dense today …. but I still don´t get it.

Page 16, section2: “A tr. can pick up cargo, move i or 2 sea zones, and unload the cargo all in the same move. The cargo can be picked up before, during or after the tr moves. For example, a tr could pick up i inf (oh , let´s just say from UK), move 1 zone (into eastern Canada SZ) and pick up another inf (from E Canada), move into another zone (back to UK waters) and unload both infantry (in Norway) all in the same move.” I´ve added the parantheses myself.

Huh? What? You bring in fighters for a SBR??? Defending fighters shoot at the attacker making the SBR??? What rules are these?

I like the thought of Japan taking Brazil through Argentina.

Germany building a fleet? IMO it would cost too many inf on the russian front.

I assume you mean fascist. But you are wrong, you should probably look up the meaning of that word (besides the spelling) before using it.
Fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Both christianity and islam are religions of peace. They haven´t been practiced that way because their messages have been twisted. There is nothing racist in the Bible (I haven´t the Koran). At best you will find examples of sexism in the writings of Paul.

Although the rules say load OR unload, I don´t think this is to be taken litterally. It is written this way because an empty tr has to load something and a full tr has to unload something. Phrasing it like this: “Empty tr. … to either load, unload or load and unload.” would be very confusing indeed, but more accurate. Unless they actually mean that bridging shouldn´t be possible after moving … :cry:
Besides, the tr move isn´t over until it has unloaded. Although that rule was probably written to signify that a tr can´t MOVE after it has unloaded.

I don´t see how the litteral interpretation of the rule hurts USA. Please explain, F-alk.

So true, CC. The people who talk the loudest are the people who know the least. Why haven´t we heard as much from people who actually know what´s been going on in Iraq.

Every time I saw someone protesting the war (when it was still going on), I couldn´t help but think: “There is someone who is pro-torture.” Where were these protesters during all the decades when Saddam was raping his people?

Hmmmm, I would say that once again this is something that should be agreed upon at the beginning of each game. I feel that it should be possible to create an unlimited number of IC´s (only one per territory, though).

Aaaaahhhhhhhh …… !!!

So you don´t have bidding while playning RR? Why not? It seems that even when playing RR and weapons breakthrough for J and G, the allies should still win. Am I wrong about this?

Thanks for all the input. I hadn´t thought that the question would cause so much controversy 8)

Rules are rules and all players should play by the same rules and have the questionable ones debated before game start.

However … I will contend that since all combat happens simultaneously, and the sub CAN´T hit a plane, then the tr MUST hit the planes and the sub hits the tr. The subs are exceptions to most of the battle rules anyway (they attack first i.e. before carriers, defending subs can withdraw, attacking subs can withdraw before other attacking units to any sea zone that isn´t occupied by the enemy), so why not make the defending subs fire first? What a brilliant rule! I shall make it law. :wink:

Do the defending forces have to fire in any certain order? I usually play that the defenders fire in ascending order - bombers and transports first, then infantry and tanks etc.
But this could give problems in a scenario like the following:

Attacker has: 1tr + 1sub + 3 ftr
Defender has: 2 tr + 1 sub + 1 bs(battleship)

Attacker makes two hits and the defender decides that tr + sub are hit. In this case I would like the defender to counterfire the hit sub first, because it just might happen that both tr hit (removing the attackers tr + sub) and if after that the sub scores a hit it won´t make a difference because it can´t hit planes.

I too would like to know what this means. The term seems to be used everywhere and I haven´t yet found out what it means……