Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Gargantua:

Take an average man from 1500, who speaks english, and put him up against a modern IQ test.� He will more than likely perform MISERABLY.

Take an average man from TODAY, and put him up against a modern IQ test, and he will likely perform average.

Moral of the story?� The Tests change and advance, as the technology of the society changes and advances.

Most 6 year old’s can operate a DVD player,� but many 60 year olds can not.� �As society changes, so does what they learn, and what they have to know to survive.� Therefore the scale can obviously be skewed one direction or another.� If we’re talking about half a . per generation or less…� come on.

Totally missed the point.  Moral of that story?  You figure it out.   :wink:

Here’s another story for you.

Give a modern man the IQ test from 1500 AD and he will not only perform miserably.  He will perform at such a crappy level, he will actually be considered a danger to himself and others.

Identify poisonous mushrooms?  Know how to tan leather so it comes out well?  How to properly operate a forge?  Fail.  Fail fail fail.  Can’t make a barrel.  Can’t make a cartwheel.  Can’t make a gun that can shoot straight, or even hardly at all.  Can’t even make a good bow and arrow, for christ’s sake.  Completely and totally utterly useless!

So you are saying that as society progresses technologically, that people are inherently becoming more intelligent?  The test “advances”?  as people “advance”?  Give me a break.

The only thing IQ tests measure is how good you are at taking the IQ test.  It doesn’t measure intelligence or capacity for reasoning.

Let me give you an example.

Here’s a sequence of numbers.

2.  3.  6.  9.  11.

Get it?  Repeat the series to yourself three times.

2.  3.  6.  9.  11.

Now I’m going to give you a series of numbers, and I want you to fill in the blanks.

2.  3.  ___  ___ ___.

Now here’s what we’re going to do.  You and me and a few other people answered correctly with “6 9 11”.  But it seems that a lot of other people don’t understand the natural order of things.  A whole lot of those sad morons think for some weird reason that things like “4 5 6” or “5 7 11” or whatever are the right answer.  I mean, okay, obviously, they don’t know how to think correctly.  I’m not trying to insult them, that’s just how it is.  And some of them look funny.  Most of them have darker skin, and talk kind of funny, probably because they’re stupid so they don’t understand how to talk properly.  It certainly doesn’t sound like English.  It maybe sounds like what my cousin’s baby says when it’s had too much to eat.

The funny thing is that some of those poor stupid morons actually seem to think . . . now try not to laugh . . . that they are on the same level as you and me.  I can’t tell for sure because I can’t understand what they are trying to say - or rather, I should say they are so poor at making themselves understood.  It certainly couldn’t be that I myself would have any problem understanding anything that any REASONABLE person would say!

Since we are good people, you and me, that is, we’re going to be nice and teach those sad pitiful morons the proper order of things.  Since we have written the test, it is obviously impartial - and after all, anyone that doesn’t share our opinions is obviously just not worth considering.  I mean, I don’t ask my dog’s opinion on how to properly prepare foie gras.  Why would I ask something that’s really just a step up from a monkey its opinion, let alone even start to consider the flibbertigibbet that it spouts?  It’s laughable, really!

So since we HAVE taken the trouble to administer an IMPARTIAL test of INTELLIGENCE, I think it’s only fair and PROPER, really, that those subhuman morons should understand their place.  They should understand that they are not as smart as us, they are not as deserving as us, and as a matter of fact, they are barely fit to carry our luggage and serve us drinks with little umbrellas in them or even to serve as our sex slaves.  They should be pathetically grateful and happy for the privilege of serving us; our allowing them to be near us may allow them, in time, to perhaps become a little bit more like us.  In fact, it actually disgusts me that we even had to create an impartial intelligence test to demonstrate to everyone what ANYONE whose opinion is worth considering would already know.  But we try to be humane to those monkey-like creatures.  After all, WE are COMPASSIONATE AND UNDERSTANDING.

This wonderful IQ test has managed to finally sort out - on an IMPARTIAL AND PURELY MERIT-BASED SYSTEM, mind you, the PROPER ORDER OF SOCIETY.  And maybe those poor things that look a bit like us but CLEARLY do not have as developed thought capacities as you and me will in time come to understand and accept their rightful place.  It might be sad and distasteful, and we might need a few shock prods and manacles to keep them in line at first, but in the end, those darkies and jews and chinks and spics and wops will surely learn to mind and love their Massa.

–

Honestly, the provinciality behind so many supposed “sciences” and “impartial observers” astounds me.  There were times when it was just accepted that homosexuality was a mental disease, that the black man was inherently inferior to the white man, that the sun went around the earth, that tomatoes were poison that would turn your blood into acid, that lobotomies were a humane form of treatment, that wrong-thinking women only needed a sufficient number of slaps to bring them out of their hysteria, and so on and so forth.  And then people look around and say “Look at how far we have come, WE must SURELY be correct!” and then they turn around and do things just as bad, if not worse!

Tell me when in the last two thousand years, that mankind has inherently acquired the ability to eliminate all mistakes!  It has not happened!  No, each generation thinks IT has reached the culmination and apex of SCIENCE.  Astronomy’s apogee with the Pythagorean System!  Psychiatry’s apogee with lobotomies!  Physical sciences proving black people have smaller monkey-like brains!  At each step, everyone thinks they have finally reached the high point of understanding, and subsequent generations always seem to prove them wrong!

So what are the stupidities of this generation?  I’d guess in a hundred years, people will count IQ tests among them.

BTW, the attack you listed is generally along the lines of what Granada (another poster on these forums a while back) called “Norway Gambit”.  That is, 3 infantry, 1 tank, 2 fighters against Norway.  You can search for older threads that mention it.

I opposed that Russian attack then, I oppose it now, because I think Germany is advantaged, particularly by the sure destruction of a Russian fighter, and the possibilities along the West Russia/Caucasus/Ukraine position.  Neither forces a clear and definitive loss to the Allied position, but I considered them to be subtly positionally inferior for the Allies.  (You can make your own mind up, of course, about this.)

Granada cites wins using the R1 two fighters plus vs Norway attack, but I watched some of those games, and Granada’s opponents were often inferior.  My impression was that Granada won because Granada generally had more skill than his opponents, that is, because Granada was the superior player in those games.  NOT because the Norway attack itself was superior.

The Empire Strikes Back

Yoda: Yes, run! Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.
Luke: Vader… Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?
Yoda: You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.
Luke: But tell my why I can’t…
Yoda: No, no! There is no “why”.

I am a dark side Force-user. And you will note that although Yoda did not say the dark side was stronger, neither did he say the dark side was weaker.  Mwahhahahaha.

BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA!

What does that mean? . . .

Suppose I have two possible counters to an opponent’s move.  One is not particularly (but moderately) risky, and will push the development of the game along quickly.  The other is slightly less risky, but will not push the development of the game.  Unless I am convinced I am up against a powerful opponent, I will choose the one that will push the game along quickly.  (I’m a bunny, not a tortoise.)

My advice is typically about the quickest and most powerful, most forceful way to quickly secure victory.  If I shoot a hole in a plan, it is typically about the single fastest and most powerful counter that can pose a serious threat to the plan.  If I devise a plan, it is typically about the single fastest and most powerful combination that cannot easily be countered.

Which is not to say I ignore slower ways to win!  Indeed, against opponents like that despicable light-side user Hobbes (ptui) I must take care not to wave my lightsaber too wildly, lest I be cut down like that fool Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace.  Against such light-side users that are strong in the Force, I must act as Palpatine did in Star Wars I-V (and most of VI as well).

–

Considering the initial listed moves for Russia and Germany, the quickest deadly Russian counter is to potentially kill the crap out of German-held Ukraine on R2.  Yes, Japan’s fighter on French Indochina can reinforce, but that’s it, and the Russians will still have huge threat potential against Ukraine.  Considering the listed moves, I think it’s a real possibility that Germany will get attacked and destroyed.

If you want to exert immediate and horrible pressure against Russia with a G1 Ukraine hold, the best thing is probably some variation of trying to conquer West Russia, fortify Ukraine, abandon Africa, build double Japanese industrial complexes, and push tanks like mad on Moscow.  But as appealing as that is to a dark side user, it is really quite difficult to press a double Axis tank attack without a serious early shift in the balance of power that favors Axis.  What typically happens is the Axis press, press, press, then they stall.  The sacrifices the Axis made to exert pressure against Russia early mean far less favorable placement to protect against early Allied fleet movement, which means the Allies can progress to rapid reinforcement in both Africa and Europe.  At that point, with the Allies possessing a much more powerful economy, and having a powerful defense that has stalled the Axis at Moscow, the Allies start to push back.  At that point, the Allies can start to try to hit Africa and other targets to boost the Axis economy, but with the Allies already having freedom of movement, it’s an upward battle for the Axis.

Without an early shift in the balance of power that favors Axis, the Axis are typically far better off pressing a mixed attack.  You use elements of dark Force philosophy for early gains and pressure, but you also do not neglect Axis economic development (and conversely Allied economic restriction).  For example, suppose you build tanks with Germany, and use Germany’s forces to hit Anglo-Egypt early, but instead of trying to take and hold Ukraine on G1, you keep the bulk of German’s infantry at Eastern Europe, possibly securing Western Europe as well.  Your followup is G2 fighters on Western Europe to threaten Allied landing at Algeria, to preserve Germany’s Africa income, and consolidation of German forces at Ukraine, followed by Japanese fighter reinforcement to Ukraine.  From that point, you’re looking at a G3 attack on West Russia or Caucasus, again followed up by Japanese fighter reinforcement.

Granted, the second approach risks a powerful Russian counter.  The German advance is a turn slower, so even with Japanese fighter reinforcement, the Allies can offer a much more serious and threatening attack.

But think about it this way.

A G1 Ukraine hold is the typical approach you can use against young and inexperienced Jedi, or perhaps even against more experienced Jedi that have been wounded (i.e. suffered really bad dice rolls).  In that case, you are not holding back.  You have the upper hand; your strategy is to just slam away with your lightsaber until your opponent’s guard breaks and slice him or her or it in half.  Others might say it’s crude.  But it works, and it works well.  Oh, your opponent might struggle to his/her/its knees, or it might use the Force to fling a mug at your head, but by and large, you’re beating your opponent down like a clown, and your intent is to make sure things darn well stay that way.  Your opponent doesn’t have the strength or speed to take advantage of holes in your offense, so the “holes” in your offense are really NOT holes at all.  In fact, if you gave your opponent time to recover, you would be more likely to lose.  So aggression and speed are the way to go.  Let the dark side FLOW through you!

A G2 Ukraine hold is a more typical approach against a more experienced unwounded Jedi.  You are not flinging yourself into an overly aggressive attack, because if you overextend your reach, your lightsaber arm might get lopped off.  Now, a hole in your offense really IS a hole in your offense.  If you rush your opponent, you could still force him/her/it to his/her/its knees - but in the process, you could easily get your lightsaber arm lopped off!  So you take a more measured approach, because that is what is best to ensure your victory in the end.  Not quite a dark side orgy, but he/she/it who laughs last laughs best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvObIj7MKXY&feature=related

In EITHER event, you could still lose, of course.  With a G1 Ukraine hold, you might be swinging away when your opponent lands a lucky blow.  With a G2 Ukraine hold, you might be trying to push your opponent, but then find your opponent starts to push back and even overpower you.  But in both cases, the SAFEST to victory involves some degree of aggression.

1.  Sending “all infantry towards Russia” is not a practice I approve of.  I prefer to leave 1 infantry at Buryatia.  Suppose you abandon Buryatia completely.  Japan can walk in with a single infantry, send the remainder to China, and use its lone transport (assuming the Kwangtung transport was destroyed) to French Indochina, preparatory to hitting India or Africa.

True, if you leave 1 infantry on Buryatia, it can be destroyed.  But that typically means Japan’s transport stays at sea zone 60 (east of Japan) instead of heading to the French Indochina sea zone preparatory to hitting Africa/Australia/India, or it means Japan diverts units from Manchuria to Buryatia, weakening its infantry base at China, and splitting off a fighter from another attack that is typically at least as important.

To use a chess analogy, it is an almost definite loss of Russian material to leave 1 Russian infantry on Buryatia, but I think it puts enough positional pressure on Japan at the China/French Indochina regions to compensate.

2.  I never consider building only a single tank with Russia.  Either it’s 2 infantry 2 artillery 2 tanks, or 3 infantry 3 tanks.  Granted, I typically do a Ukraine/West Russia attack, but the thinking behind the build of 2+ tanks applies almost regardless of the Russian open - you are building tanks for Moscow placement so you can generally threaten to take and hold ground against Germany early, and specifically threaten a German take and hold of Karelia.  (Only if Russia does a triple attack should it avoid a R1 tank build, because in that event Russia almost certainly won’t be able to mount any sort of credible take and hold threat.)

3.  In GENERAL - and please remember that each game is different - if Germany decides to try to hold Ukraine on G1

Now what are the German options to hold ukraine during R2?

you abandon Africa.  You do NOT hit Egypt.  Your typical Med fleet movement will be German battleship vs UK cruiser, and German transport picking up Libya units and dropping in Ukraine.  This makes a difference of FOUR units in Europe.  Instead of picking up and dropping two units from Europe into Africa (-2 to Europe), you pick up and drop two Africa units to Europe (+2 to Europe); difference is four units!  Of course, only two of those units are immediately at Ukraine; the other two are at Balkans for the follow up wave.

BUT THEN AGAIN -

You typically should NOT be trying to hold Ukraine on G1 if you cannot follow up with G2 West Russia then G3 Caucasus!

What?  you say.

Okay, let’s look at the possibilities.  Ideally you want to hold Ukraine and hit Anglo-Egypt, because that is just so Best of Both Worlds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d93zox1Jqk0&feature=fvst (Miley Cyrus)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQDn5BU0bQ (Van Halen)

But the balance is generally not favorable for Germany in the end - or at least not as favorable as it COULD be.

Take a R1 Ukraine/West Russia open.  What ends up happening, even on an unsuccessful Russian attack against Ukraine (allowing Germany to move in fighters for reinforcement to Ukraine at end of G1) is that G1 tank build catches up, but they run into a Russian wall, and Germany ends up having to trade tanks for infantry (and if they don’t, Russia attacks and makes it happen anyways).  It doesn’t happen right away, and Germany has interesting attack possibilities particularly off a G1 tank build, and even more so if they decide to attack West Russia (especially with Germany’s huge air power).  But in the end, the German attack often stalls.  The four unit difference in Europe makes a real difference!

Now, you’re looking at a Norway/West Russia open, which is favorable to the Germans for a G1 Ukraine hardpoint, because Russia sent units towards Germany’s rear, instead of attacking Germany’s front.  So Russia is locally weaker, and Germany is locally stronger.  So maybe you CAN get away with hitting Egypt and the four unit differential after all?

But I say no, you can’t.  The answer to that is - suppose you are boxing, and you have a great jab.  As useful as that jab is, though, it is still just a jab.  If you can’t follow up a jab with a solid blow, your jab is a mosquito that can be ignored.  If you can follow up a jab with a solid blow, though, your opponent has to defend against ALL of your jabs.

So I say, if you’re going to concentrate on your jab, make sure you have a followup for your jab.  Evacuate Africa.  You are not going to knock anyone out with just a bunch of strong jabs, get a really good and nasty uppercut followup.  Forget all these hoity toity naval battles and splitting your forces dangerously, which allows a potentially super powerful R2 counter to Ukraine.  If you are going for a jab-combination win, then concentrate on the jab-combination, instead of worrying if your hook is going to make you look fat on camera.

4.  You mention in your post that Russia needs to

This means they need to either
1. defend both WR and kaukasus against all G tanks, infantry and airforce.
2. abandon WR, in which case the fork for next round will be russia/caucasus.

OK now, let’s not be silly.  That’s like saying Russia needs to either shove its head up its ass and die, or always turn left at a T-intersection.

There is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks that Russia can possibly defend both WR and Caucasus in that setup.  You know it.  I know it.  The can of tuna that I’m going to open for my cat’s dinner knows it, and I don’t even have a cat.

As far as always turning left, you’re assuming Russia will have to abandon West Russia.  But they do not have to, not at all.  You specified a G1 tank build.  That means your G1 build cannot in any way hit West Russia (G1 fighter or bomber builds would do it).  Nor did you specify that Germany would try to attack and take West Russia (which I would at least THINK about with Germany).  Furthermore, you even specified a bunch of frittery naval attacks and hitting Anglo-Egypt, which further weakens Germany’s position in Europe compared to what it could have been.  So you have a UK followup of 2 fighters to West Russia, and general consolidation of Russian forces, and Germany’s threat against West Russia grinds to a halt.

So you are NOT going to easily secure the double prize of a West Russia break, locking in Karelia and Belorussia income for Germany exclusively, while also benefiting from African income.  No, at best, the scenario is probably going to be little better than your typical Eastern Europe/Western Russia standoff.  Better, yes, perhaps.  But not by any means a knockout.

–

More in my next smexy post.

You walk into a village, and everyone is wearing wooden shoes.  They stare at your leather and rubber boots because you’re obviously a fing idiot.  Who the f wears s* like that?  In fact, you should probably be burned at the stake just to be safe.

That’s IQ for you.  You have a bunch of bullshit questions that are supposed to assess your supposed intelligence.  But what the questions REALLY test is how much you think like the person that wrote the test.  If you don’t think the same, if you don’t have the same background and thought, you are condemned.

You stupid f*.  You f*ing heretic.

My IQ is 250 and I say IQ is a bunch of bullshit.  It’s institutionalized provinciality, plain and simple.

Just because I might know about certain Eurocentric history, values, and ideology doesn’t mean I am more INTELLIGENT than someone that has an equivalent of Afrocentric knowledge.  Or even, let’s say, someone that instead has a particular understanding of baseball history, or of the development of eastern philosophies.

But apparently it means I AM more intelligent.  I have a higher IQ after all.  Why don’t I go find some people that think like me and we can all say we’re smarter than everyone else?  Hey, let’s make others think they are inferior by publishing the results of our supposedly unbiased tests.  Those stupid f*ers can carry our heavy stuff and do our work for us.  After all, they’re stupider than we are.  We deserve the good stuff in life, we few who know how to think correctly.

–

On the topic of mass murder and other stuff -

Life, as most people understand it, must kill to survive.  This is a basic principle of nature.  Point to the wolf whose jaws are dripping with a rabbit’s blood (eek!).  Poor bunny.  But how many countless carrots and cabbages has the bunny ravaged?  So maybe it is plants that are innocent.  But look at any forest that’s been around for a while; why do trees grow taller than others?  To rise above other trees to get the nutrients that tree needs.  Even trees, even fungus, compete to stay alive.

When you eat a hamburger, you don’t personally go out and hit a cow with a maul, scattering bits of bone, blood, and brain, skin it and dispose of what you don’t like to eat, suspend it for a while so the blood drips out, carve chunks out of the corpse, then painstakingly remove the extra bits of flesh from bone, grind those bits up into a mash, fry that mash up, and pop the result on a bun with pickles.  Oh no.  You think you are civilized because you don’t have to deal with the whole mess.  Because YOU get a hamburger wrapped in a nice bit of paper, with mayonnaise, ketchup, pickles, tomato, and lettuce, you are a civilized person that does not kill to get your food.  The very thought of killing is abhorrent to you.  You are anti-fur and anti-leather.  You oppose clubbing baby seals.  And yet . . . hamburgers taste good and are convenient, so you eat them.  You ignore the blood on your hands!

So if you think about it, if individuals must kill, even indirectly to survive, what can be said of societies?  What is it that a society must destroy to survive?  And of course, the answer is individuality, even to the point of complete and utter destruction of particular individuals.  If you don’t agree with me, then consider the law.  Most of the law exists to restrict individual freedoms.  Granted, such restrictions are to protect either other individuals or the society at large.  But they DO restrict individual freedoms.

So here you are, the product of a particular Westernized society (even Eastern societies are Westernized), thinking you are not a bloody-handed barbarian because your hamburger comes wrapped in a nice bit of paper, and thinking you are civilized because you are TOLD you are civilized.  You can ignore the bloody and nasty work that goes into making your hamburger, like you can conveniently ignore the lives that are destroyed and effectively enslaved by the society you live in, even if YOUR life is one of those lives, because it is all walled up nicely by laws and conventions and things like chewing with your mouth closed.  Your individual freedoms are being restricted by the society you live in, and more and more of your freedoms, and more and more of the fruits of your labor are being stolen from you, and from the children you may have, even at this moment.  But because the oppression is done by uniformed and polite policemen, by lawyers that profess to practice “law and justice”, by politicians that are supposedly doing something for your own good, because all the other cows in the slaughterhouse are walking meekly alongside you, because you don’t see the hammer descending upon you just yet, you meekly go along with it.  Oh, you might catch a whiff of blood now and then, and you might roll your eyes and moo once in a while, but you keep going and moving forward, just like you’re supposed to, just like me and pretty much everyone else.

“Animal Farm” is a wonderful and instructional book.  But imagine if it had been taken a step further, that pigs were slaughtered and sold for their meat, that there were a regime of pig enforcers, who in turn when getting old and useless were slaughtered for their meat, with only a few pigs escaping the butcher’s block - the few, the elite, the absolute pinnacle of the farmyard society.  That is the natural order of things that societies currently devolve into; a natural order that can only be prevented by a regime that includes proper education (by which I do not refer to typical currently approved curriculum.)  That is to say, proper education is not ENOUGH, but it is a START - but even that that START is nowhere near being put into action.

But at any rate, what does this have to do with Hitler?  Or Stalin?  Or whoever else?  The fact is, well, let’s face it, death camps are a nasty piece of business.  But so is the slaughterhouse that produces hamburgers.  Certain leaders in world history decided to go with things that are currently thought of as unpalatable, like mass murder, or book burning, or what have you.  Of those, some won, and some lost.  Of those that won, they ended up in control of the police and the media, and the majority of the people were pointed away from the blood and the gore from the big slaughterhouses of the past, and away from the current slaughterhouses, and away from the construction sites for future slaughterhouses.  The LOSERS, though, had their slaughterhouses flung open to the public, with guided tours “for instructional purposes” set up by the winners.  Look at all the unsightly blood and gore!  Look at what we have saved you from!

So you can point fingers at the German death camps and say “They killed Jews, how horrible!”  Ignoring the fact that such camps were not simply for Jews, but for political dissidents and other discontents.  Ignoring the fact that the German war effort required resources to keep running, that food sent to feed the populaces of growing prisoner camps would have been food taken from the mouths of loyal German citizens and soldiers.  Ignoring, ignoring, ignoring, because you are TAUGHT to ignore, because the guided tour of the German slaughterhouse and the disgusted noises your tour guides and fellow tourists made during the tour make you think that THEIR solution was barbaric and unacceptable!

Ignoring other offenses committed by the Allies - American concentration camps, or Stalin’s purges, and so forth - what about the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  They were not EVEN outcasts.  They were, by any definition, civilians.  But it’s OK that they died, no, were murdered, because . . . they were ENEMY civilians.  (Like the Germans perhaps saw the Jews).  Destroying them helped prevent FRIENDLY SOLDIER DEATHS (like diverting resources from German concentration camps saved German soldiers).  But but but.  OUR slaughterhouses are examples of justice and mercy.  It is THEIR slaughterhouses that are naughty!

–

When it comes right down to it, let’s be clear.  I don’t condone any sort of slaughterhouse.  But I’m not going to point a paw at Hitler and say the final solution wasn’t “sane” according to some weird sensibility I have been propagandized into believing.  It was wartime, and sacrifices were made.  Distasteful and nasty sacrifices.  Everyone’s paws were elbow-deep in blood, everyone was “insane”.  Millions of people picked up guns and knives and proceeded to butcher millions of other people holding guns and knives, and almost none of the people holding guns or knives had been personally wronged by any of the other people holding guns or knives.  How’s that for a brand of insanity?  So a group of people were singled out?  How can you point at that and call it insanity, any more than you can go down to the beach, pick out a particular wave, and scream at it?

Although . . . apparently that is EXACTLY what the hot young supermodels are doing these days.  Ah, youth.  (shakes furry head sadly)

@TheDictator:

Did you know Adolf Hitler was named Man of the year During WWII.

Apparently everyone “knows” Hitler was insane and evil.  No way he could have been named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1938.  Which incidentally was before World War II started.  Ya hobo.

I take serious exception to two statements made earlier.  The first regarding Hitler being insane.  The second regarding Hitler’s would-be assassins justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact.

Hitler was no more insane than any of the other major world leaders.  The fact is, the Allies won the war, so Allied propaganda is what ended up spreading around the world.  Take Stalin’s position.  You know how messed up Stalin’s reign and his personal life was, but he ended up with huge popularity and power.  Hitler had MANY more redeeming qualities than Stalin.  If the Axis had won the war, it is certain that people would have incredible admiration and respect for Hitler.

If you doubt it, then think about this.  Why would you think Hitler was evil or insane?  Because you were told he was evil and insane.  Because others think he was evil and insane.  And why would they think that?  Because they heard it from others, and so on and so forth.  If the Axis had won, they would have controlled the media, and you can be damn well sure that the Jew-loving Roosevelt, the megalomaniacal Churchill, and the drunkard Stalin would have been put in their proper place, while the beloved father of the Fatherland would have been put at the right hand of God.

As far as justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact had the Nazis won the war - that’s entirely missing the point.  If the Nazis were looking like they were going to win the war, and Hitler was a popular figure, of course Hitler’s assassins would not take credit for the assassination!  They would blame subversives, Allied commandos, or rival power factions within the Reich.  It would be like the Vice President of the United States murdering the President on national television, stepping over the body, and claiming the Presidency of the United States.  Just not going to happen!  The only reason the assassins considered moving openly against Hitler and taking credit later in the war was because everyone in the Reich was sure the war was LOST!

Now back to the poop discussion -

. . . Hitler and the other core members of the Nazi Party had a problem. As they died of old age, their replacements would be milder, more moderate men–men less fully committed to the Nazi ideology. The Soviet communists had the same problem. Stalin had been a communist revolutionary back when the czar was still in power. But after Stalin’s death, his successors were milder and less revolutionary than Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin had been.

On the death of Mao, China’s economy shifted from a centrally planned economy towards privatization.  That is to say, even in a centrally controlled state with a cult of personality, in the end, individual self-interest naturally won out.  (I do not mean to say by this, nor do I believe, that it is natural that “capitalism” or “representative democracy” are the natural economic or political end products of evolution.  But I will leave this for now.)

That is, although individuals can and do make vast differences to the particulars of everyday life, after the death of those particular individuals, things tend to follow certain general tendencies.

Imagine ice sculptures of two very different people, set out in the sun.  At first, there seem to be vast differences between the two.  But over time, the sun melts the ice, until there is little to be seen but generic pits for the eyes or a lump for the nose.  That is the normalization effect over time.  My view of things is that as social, economic, political, and technological advances are made, that the basic ice sculptures that can be created can become more complex, or are able to last longer under the sun’s rays.

Sculptors normally want to believe that the changes they have made to the ice sculpture are lasting, or superior to changes that other sculptors have made.  Or people have a favorite sculptor that they want to believe in.  But in my experience, there are few sculptors that can make real and lasting changes; the supposed differences that most sculptors tout as triumphs fade into the ice sculpture as it is heated by the sun.  This is how I view the failure of the Axis to win World War II.  It’s my opinion that it made some difference, even drastic, but that the current state of the world is not terribly significantly different now than it would have been had the Axis had won - and that another hundred years from now, even less difference would be seen, as the ice sculpture continues to melt in the sun, but is also continually worked on by other sculptors.

Part of the problem with creating lasting change is that superficial change is easier to create than real and lasting change, so superficial change is often not only acceptable but preferable.  Suppose you wanted a chip in the ice so you would have a place to put your beer.  It is a fast and easy solution to knock a chip out yourself quickly, or to hire someone to knock that chip out for you.  It is another entirely different solution to get an engineer to mess with the entire statue to get a chip to naturally form.  With one solution, the chip melts into the contours of the ice in time, so you need to chip again in a few days.  With the other solution, you chip once and never need to chip again.  But how many people, myself included, would probably end up knocking out that chip themselves?

In response to the poll -

A lot of people have this mentality that there is such a thing as “law”, and that it is natural to obey law, because that’s what people do.

The reality is that laws are written by people in certain situations.  Since it is natural that people form groups, and since groups of people in differing situations will naturally have conflicting interests, it is natural that laws will conflict.

Furthermore, laws naturally change over time.  For example, in the United States, slavery is now illegal where it was once legal, and alcohol is now legal where it was once illegal, etc.

Now here’s a serious question.  Suppose you have a society that is made up of ten wolves and a sheep, or ten sheep and a wolf.  What do you think will happen?

In the wolf society, there will be a law passed that killing and eating sheep is perfectly normal and legal, and the wolves will at once set out to exercise their - as they claim - entirely justifiable and LEGAL right to do so, using deadly force if necessary.

In the sheep society, there will be a law passed that killing and eating sheep is strictly illegal, and the sheep will at once set out to prevent anyone from snacking down on them, using deadly force if necessary.  Of course, the wolf is going to be left to starve to death (i.e. Weimar Germany), but these are unfortunate things that just happen in life; what are the sheep expected to do about it?

So in the first case, even though the sheep is completely going against the law to fight back against the wolves, and in fact could be perceived as a rather rude and impudent bastard for even daring to say something on its own behalf, you can be pretty sure the sheep is going to have something to say about the matter.  If the sheep happens to have a semiautomatic rifle at hand, it is likely to engage in blatantly unlawful behavior.

In the second case, even though the wolf is completely going against the law when it protests against starving to death, and could even be perceived as a rather rude and impudent bastard for even daring to say something on its own behalf, you can be pretty sure the wolf is going to have something to say about the matter.  If the wolf happens to have a semiautomatic rifle at hand, well, things will take their course.  Now of course, the wolf isn’t insane or evil; the wolf just wants not to starve to death, which is, although completely illegal, perhaps understandable.

So what it really comes down to is that “international law” is just a bunch of people shoving at each other.

China will get special treatment if it really WANTS special treatment, because it has strength, and laws are written not according to some vague definition of absolute justice, but with respect to the interests of the powers that write them.

That is to say, if China decides to threaten nuclear war over a little patch of ocean, and it looks able to carry out that threat, then it isn’t a matter of “special treatment”, it is the NATURAL ORDER of things that a compromise will be reached.  Even though CURRENT laws might not support that compromise, laws can be REWRITTEN.

Partial capitulation to bullying?  Special treatment?

The entire nation of the United States of America is based on an initial pact of basically fraudulent land deals, and frankly, most nations are no better when it comes right down to it.  But world opinion is that the government of the United States of America is a legitimate government!  And why is that?  Simply because it managed to put one over, and KEEP one over.

So although the popular perception makes the phrases “bullying” and “special treatment” useful, when set against the backdrop of current international law, people should keep in mind that those phrases are actually more the rule than the exception, when it comes right down to it.

Adding to the article, about 1/3 of the world’s shipping passes through the South China Sea.

But it still won’t be a “flash-point drawing major nations to the point of armed conflict”.

Think of things on a personal level.

Suppose you have a woman that’s starving to death.  Lock her in a room with ten other women of similar mind for 30 days, and put in a bunch of knives, and enough food for 10 days for everyone.

Or suppose you have a very fat woman that’s not starving to death at all, but that either has homicidal tendencies, or some deep-seated psychological bent that demands the acquisition of masses of food at any price, including killing other people.  Now lock her in a room with ten other women of similar mind for 30 days, and put in a bunch of knives, and enough food for 100 days for everyone.

Shortages of vital resources, typically food, water, and fuel, can bring people to the point of armed conflict.  Or a particular mentality in a particular situation brings people to the point of armed conflict.  (You could really include the first in the second, but the first is a more general condition, while the second is a more specific condition particular to certain groups.)

Now the question is, where do you measure China, and where do you measure certain countries in the Middle East?
The answer is that armed conflict will undoubtedly occur in the Middle East region.

The key to playing well is to not try to force the game to fit general principles, but to find the right general principles for the situation.

That is the first law.  Everything else is just a matter of identifying general principles, and knowing how to distinguish when using a particular one is appropriate.

The second law is to remember that the balance of power is very tight.  A couple of units one way or another means a huge difference in win/loss percentage.

–

If you apply the first law to the question of the G1 build, it no longer becomes merely a question of whether or not ten infantry and a fighter are a good idea.  It becomes a question of when ten infantry and a fighter are a good idea.  (never?  sometimes?  always?  and if only sometimes, then when?)

–

If you’re going to build German air, your best payoff comes if you use it to control Allied access to Africa early, while pushing for quick PU income gain in Africa.  The scenario is something like G2 in Anglo-Egypt, but preventing a UK2/US2 landing, then you follow with G3 movement through Africa.

But if UK builds a fleet on UK1, you can’t really prevent a UK2/US2 landing; the combined Allied fleet will just be too big.  Even doing a G2 submarine build at Southern Europe is usually not a good Axis answer because you pump all the income you get from Africa into the subs, the subs are easily trapped in the Mediterranean, and UK can just land in Europe, plus US can afford to build fleet to counter, so effectively Germany loses out.

So often Germany will build even TWO bombers, or a Baltic carrier, to threaten the sea zones around UK.  (But a Baltic carrier is another matter entirely from the OP’s subject so I will not elaborate).

–

If you just build a single G1 fighter, you usually won’t have good odds on wiping out a UK1 fleet build, meaning a possible UK2/US2 landing at Algeria, and less odds of holding on to Africa territory for a while.

Still, you will probably land all fighters at Western Europe.  Even though the Allies can unite and land at Algeria, landing at Algeria in force means no landing in Europe, allowing Germany to maintain control of valuable Norway longer and generally allowing Germany to press Russia longer in the early game.

But maintaining German fighters on Western Europe is a pain.  If you keep fighters on Western Europe, they can’t really lend their power to attacks in Europe.  If you move them off Western Europe, then you lose the threat to sea zones.

So usually German fighters end up somewhere else.

Later on, you may have two fighter bases; one at Western Europe, and another at Eastern Europe.  The one at Western Europe will be to bolster the defense of Western Europe, threaten various sea zones in the Atlantic, and to trade Karelia.  The one on Eastern Europe will bolster the defense of Eastern Europe, threaten the Kar/Arch sea zone, and trades with various territories like Belorussia and Ukraine.  The fighters on Eastern Europe that hit Belo/Ukr targets can end up back on Western Europe; the fighters on Western Europe can hit Belo/Ukr targets and end up on Western Europe; this way Germany maintains a huge threat range with all its fighters.

If you can do it, it’s nice to establish firm control of Karelia for a turn.  After you maintain control for one turn, you can land German fighters there, which threaten off Allied navy from immediately reinforcing Kar/Arch/Norway/etc.

–

Axis air builds and Africa go together.

@Imperious:

bump

it’s night where I am, so this makes imperious leader the thing that goes bump in the night

@empireman:

wow, how id you get BBs in the baltic?

Bought them.

If you do NOT attack the sub, you can ignore it and do coastal bombardment.

If you choose to attack the sub, you can’t bombard.

If there was a destroyer and a sub defending, you wouldn’t be able to bombard.

I say 4 tanks at Caucasus.  The Axis are weak right now, there are short term opportunities that can be exploited.  Why build infantry to wait for the Axis to punch you in the face?  Build tanks, punch them in the face, take their land, then when they push back, then mass infantry.

Of course, if you are already punching the Axis in the face very hard, then you don’t need to mass tanks, because you don’t need them.  In such a case, you can build infantry to maintain a flow of units so you can keep punching them.  But IMO the game is not quite at that stage yet.  IMO you don’t quite have the Axis face down on the floor yet.

Regarding Persia, the Japs also have two battleship support shots.  A Japanese 21 dice counter against a US 17 dice defense, plus the Japs are mostly losing low cost infantry, plus the Japs attack power is mostly fueled by high dice, allowing them to continue the attack without blunting the effectiveness.  Also, you don’t know what the exact result will be in Persia; US could well come out with less than 17 defenders.  Upshot is Axis threaten to rip the heart out of US’s attack power at low cost.

Who says Japan will end the battle with 3 bombers?  If they begin to lose a little, they can retreat, and they just killed a load of expensive US tanks in return for some crappy Japanese infantry.  If the Japs get a little dice skew and get lucky, they will just kick US back to the stone age and keep loads of air.  Either way, the Japs can’t lose and the US can’t win.

Simple solution, pop a few Russians in to reinforce.  What the heck else are the Russians doing?  Especially those bums on Kazakh.  Why stop at 2-3?  I count four on Kazakh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/kazakhstan/9165841/Kuwaitis-mistakenly-play-Borats-Kazakh-national-anthem-at-medals-ceremony.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfPrQqbikb4

–

Re: Egypt 9 inf 2 art - think about Japan’s counter if Allies move that stack to TransJordan.  Then think about YOUR counter.  Yeah very interesting, especially if you had Caucasus tanks and a Russian stack on Persia.

The alternative is to retreat the stack to the interior of Africa.  That will make Japanese progress to most parts of Africa far more difficult, but then again the Japs could just pressure Persia/Asia instead.

Your call.

Look again; Japan has a load of units to counter Persia with.  If you don’t reinforce Persia with Russian units, you’re going to lose a chunk of US tanks on the cheap.

(edit) or at least, they will be at severe risk.  Anyways, Russian reinforcement will probably be more of a “must” than a “maybe”. (/edit)

Another threat to keep in mind is the upcoming Japan stack next to Moscow.  Combined with moving 4 Jap fighters from W Eur to the Persian sea zone, and bomber build, you’re looking at a serious capital threat.  If you keep the threat in mind when you do your moves, though, it’s easily neutralized.

The major Axis threat at this time will be a defense of Eastern Europe.  More on this in a bit.

Think about keeping a US carrier at the east US sea zone.  That allows fighters to start on the eastern US sea zone, which gives them some useful range.

The Allies probably cannot afford the time to build another major Allied defensive fleet, which means the Allies won’t be able to maintain two heavily guarded drop zones.  I would guess your best short term bet in terms of UK/US reinforcement would be to take one minor fleet to the Karelia/Archangel sea zone, and a major fleet to maintain a flow through Algeria.  Japan’s multiple bombers could make that difficult in a turn or two, but the key thing to watch out for is to make sure the Axis fighters can’t hit the Kar/Arch fleet, which should not be too difficult as long as you don’t let the Axis get set up with a Eastern Europe defense.

More on Axis setup at Eastern Europe - if you get Jap fighters on E Europe instead of W Europe, the Jap threat to Moscow gets a lot nastier, as well as threatening the Kar/Arch fleet that maintains a flow of units to Europe.  (If you have a major fleet at Algeria, you will need two turns to reposition it at Kar/Arch, so keep that in mind).

Although you have not explicitly stated it, your plan is no longer one to crack Germany any time soon.  (Given Japan’s turn, I think that’s right.)  It is now a grindish game, with the Allies maintaining superior position and economy, but with the Axis probably making major moves economy-wise esp. at Africa.  Be careful of Axis development at Africa, and if you think it appropriate, you may consider a light US Pacific fleet in time.  (Probably not, but it’s something to keep in mind.)

(“Be careful” doesn’t mean you can’t let Japan expand in Africa.  Just don’t let Japan expand in Africa while simultaneously letting the Axis shift into a long game situation.)

If you ARE planning on trying to build two major Allied defensive fleets, you will need more US fleet instead of transports.

I would guess Russia should use more tanks on Caucasus for its build, instead of getting so many infantry.   I recommend against attempting to fortify either Kazakh or Novosibirsk.

Cauc tanks - threaten India, Eastern Europe/Ukraine, Novosibirsk, and Kazakh.  Russian tanks are very sexy right now, very in.  4 out of 5 dentists recommend them.

I don’t mind new players.  Nobody dropped out of their momma knowing how to play Axis and Allies.  As far as slinging insults,well, be a bit silly for me to get angry over something like that, considering the brash way I often put my point across.

Willful ignorance, though, is a bit different.  You come in saying you have a strategy, but you don’t.  You ask for advice, then spit on it.  I’m not making stuff up here.  This is the history in the thread.

I save politeness for when I think it’s useful.  Someone new comes in, and asks questions, sure, I might be brash, but I try to be moderately polite.  Someone comes in, doesn’t seem to have much idea of what’s going on, and starts rejecting good advice - well, that’s when I feel some shock value is appropriate.  Shake things up, mess with the status quo, and get some different results fast.  How else are you going to get any kind of results when the “student” thinks he/she already knows everything?  That’s a real question.

You don’t seem to be paying much real attention to what others have written, except for what I’ve written, because it’s gotten your dander up.  Since you actually seem to be paying some sort of attention to me, I might get some sort of point across.

That said -

For those seeking to emulate Bunnies in real life, I do not advocate, in real life, being outspoken or brash or even faintly rude.  On the internet under an anonymous alias, you can screw around (remembering that if you really piss someone off they can ID you eventually).

But in real life, even if you get the immediate result you want from the situation, people - not just the people you insult either - will remember you unfavorably.  They will remember that you “made a fuss”, when what most people want to do, really, is sweep problems under the rug and pretend they don’t exist.

If you perchance think you are different, imagine that you and the people in your neighborhood all work the night shift.  After working all Monday night, you get home, take the kids to school, and settle in for some sleep.  But there’s a team of construction workers working on the road outside your house, and the pneumatic drills won’t let you sleep.  Now, you might think of it that they’re fixing a problem that the community has, so everyone should thank them.  You should thank them too.  But those j***** monkey*ing seating dogs need to die, for obvious reasons.  (Anyone that doesn’t understand this has never had street construction going on right outside their house just when they’re wanting to settle in for a good kip.)

So really, in real life, even if you think there’s a really horrible obvious and nasty problem, just ignore it like all the other people that are ignoring it.  If a kitten or a puppy or even a small child falls into the sewers through a crack in the road and dies of starvation three days later, then you can wring you hands and scream and have protest meetings all you like, while everyone conveniently ignores the fact that everyone knew about the problem and the risks and that reasonable steps could have been taken to prevent the whole mess.

Human history is full of examples in which a kingdom was lost for want of a horseshoe nail.  Or more accurately because some bean counters petitioned the king that having spare horseshoe nails on hand would be an unfair burden to the taxpayers of the kingdom, and despite the well reasoned arguments of the horse-riders society, pushed their argument through on the budget.  That’s the way it works in real life, so better get used to it!

You could make a compelling argument about modern socioeconomic problems being caused by bean counters with swelled heads that have argued in such manner as “I know how to count beans, therefore I am an expert on beans, since horses can eat beans, I am therefore also an expert on horses, since I am an expert on horses, I am in a position in which I can reject, and even make fun of, any argument supporting extra horseshoe nails, since it goes to reason that any idiot that wants extra horseshoe nails is a lunatic and dangerous to society, those idiots should be removed from positions from which they could influence society, and to fill their positions, I conveniently have more right-thinking bean counters that happen to be my friends.”

But, well, I digress.  Key point - in real life, be polite, for heavens’ sake!

THAT said -

On the topic of inf/tanks - I feel the general issue has been properly addressed, but I take issue on Hobbes’ quote

With a KJF you need 5 inf, 5 arm on G1 to put pressure on the Soviets as quickly as possible, IMO.

So it is the purchase phase of G1 (Germany’s first turn), yes?  How do we know the Allies are going KJF (Kill Japan First)?

As I’ve written in other threads, I say the defining characteristic of KJF is a US1 Pacific fleet drop.  I also say that there is almost no way for the Germans to know on the G1 purchase phase that a KJF is in the offing, barring major Russian movement east.

Suppose the Russians DID move east, and/or did stuff like sub buy, Buryatia 6-stack combined with movement towards China, or Russian fighter to India, or any of a bunch of other moves.  Is there anything to prevent them from moving west later, and the Allies going KGF?  No, there is not.  In those cases, a possible KJF is in the offing, but really, a 5+ G1 tank purchase has nothing to do with a projected KJF, and everything to do with the fact that Russia has moved its reserves to positions in which they will be unable to help in Europe for some time.   Or, at least, that Germany has a high odds situation of being able to successfully apply early pressure in Europe.

G1 purchase of 5 inf 5 tanks shouldn’t be thought of as a KJF response or whatever.  It is simply something you do in certain circumstances in which Germany can press early in Europe.

–

So why would Germany build 5INF and 5ARM on G1 ? . . . Should Germany wait til round 2 to build arm heavy, and only if allies are not all out KGF ?

You are advised, but you fight against the advice.  That’s how it is.  Instead of doing what is suggested, you start asking if you should do something else instead.  Just look through the thread.  It’s like if you’re in a baking class, and the teacher says preheat the oven for thirty minutes at 375 degrees Fahrenheit, then you start saying things about Celsius and how ovens should only need to be preheated for ten minutes.

Look, the ovens are marked for Fahrenheit, and they’re older models so they need longer preheating times.  That’s how it is.  Stop fighting.

As Hobbes and MrMalachiCrunch alluded, in some conditions 5+ tanks G1 purchase allow heavy G2 pressure against Russia.  You lock in more income for Germany, deny more income to Russia.  KGF or KJF doesn’t matter, the theory is the same.

A G2 tank build only allows G3 pressure, which is not at all the same thing.  Asking whether you should go G2 tanks (and asking about the KGF situation) shows you do not understand the key concept behind a 5+ G1 tank build.

But before you get pissed off, I’m not saying you don’t understand to piss you off.  What I am saying is if you don’t understand the key concepts, you won’t do what is proper and necessary to a 5+ G1 tank purchase, like a certain something you should do with Japan if at all possible.  Which I am not going to describe at this time, because it will be more fun to see what others will say that move should be, besides which you will also have fun calling me something nasty.

Hobbes gives friendly advice.  I give fiendly advice.   :evil:

Oh, and another thing - for those that have REALLY been paying close attention, the extra credit question is what are supporting preconditions supporting a G1 5+ tank purchase?  Keeping in mind there is a huge laundry list of possibilities for R1, of course, so a proper answer would be horrifically long.  For those that want the extra credit, I expect your five page paper, or a pound of carrot cupcakes, on Monday morning.   :roll:

Re: the OP - that isn’t a strategy.

Re: Africa - I am astonished you would abandon Africa early and build German air.

Re:  Answering back:

I almost always lose my med fleet by G2 no matter where it is.
Yes i give up africa, but its hard to keep anyhow and worth very little. Id rather save a tank and an INF then fight for africa.
Alot of game ive played where Germany took angloegypt, UK took it right back on UK1.
So i dont see the value of attacking anglo and losing all those units just to get a couple of IPCs.

If you’re not going to consider advice, you shouldn’t ask for it.  I can sum up your quote like this “Your advice is sucky, so no thanks.”  Nobody’s going to take the time to write a serious reply if that’s how you’re going to treat them.  Except maaaybe Hobbes because Hobbes is very polite.

@Uncrustable:

So how about Germany’s build ?

1 air + 1 art + 1 arm + mass INF

Or should Germany make more artillery and/or armor ?

Also when is enough air anough ? I usually stop at 6 fighters and 3 bombers, that may already be too high, but paired with a sub or 2 that can clobber a good size fleet in the atlantic.

What about trading W Europe with allies ? Is is best to stack INF on W Europe, weakening Germany’s Eastern force, or make him lose artillery and armor by trading, and thus putting more pressure on Russia at the same time ?

Let’s play a game.

I have a mug with a capacity of exactly one liter.  You cannot see or hear or smell or touch or taste anything in, around, or near the mug.  Now, I’m going to pour some beer into the mug.  I’m not telling you how much beer that is; in fact, I am doing my best to keep the amount secret.

Now I want you to tell me EXACTLY HOW MUCH BEER I need to top off the mug, expressed in an EXACT NUMBER OF MILLILITERS.

Are you understanding this game we are playing?

Oh, and if you ask any questions about the mug or the beer, I can call you stupid for even asking those questions.

This is a good game . . . I wonder if they will let me use it at Guantanamo.

@Herr:

Thanks! Now after my next game as Japan, I can feign expertise by making a casual remark about considering a JTDTM.  :-D

To help with your fakery, I recommend talking about a German WR/Cauc break, and Jap fighter reinforcement to Cauc along with the JTDTM.  :3

@Hobbes:

@Gargantua:

how many stars are there on your US flag

I only have 13 on mine ;).

Is that for a Johnny Reb and Yanks 1862 War Room or for the Continentals and Royals 1776 War Room? ;)

Whichever you find more offensive, naturally.  :wink:

You can post your real life game results online.

If you eat English food, your poop smells a certain way.
If you eat Chinese food, your poop smells a different way.
If you eat Indian food, your poop smells yet different again.

So if you think about it, when you’re eating different stuff, you’re thinking it’s very different.  But really, in the end, it’s all the same poop.  Some people think their poop smells better than others, but really, it’s still poop.