I agree. IF the distance between moscow and Germany is too huge, even if Infantry is cheaper, you will have a hard time moving them quickly to the front. My guess is : First few rounds buy INF + Fighters/bombers/tac. Then if you manage to break into the russian lines, buy all tank/mech inf to reinforce your infantry :)
On a defensive position, INF > Tank, always. Even in AA50. But, INF < INF + Tank. Balanced army will always win.
lets see the game before going into the price detail
13 inf 4 art 9 tank cruiser
Rolls: 9@1 8@2 10@3; Total Hits: 89@1: (6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 2, 1, 4, 1)8@2: (1, 3, 6, 1, 6, 6, 3, 4)10@3: (3, 6, 4, 3, 3, 6, 1, 5, 5, 6)
10 inf 2 art 12 tank 1 fig 4 bomb, 3 crui 1 bb
Rolls: 8@1 4@2 16@3 5@4; Total Hits: 158@1: (2, 4, 1, 3, 3, 2, 5, 6)4@2: (2, 1, 6, 5)16@3: (1, 1, 1, 6, 1, 6, 5, 3, 4, 2, 3, 1, 4, 6, 6, 5)5@4: (4, 4, 4, 6, 2)
d
Rolls: 20@2 3@3 5@4; Total Hits: 1320@2: (5, 3, 5, 1, 2, 4, 2, 2, 4, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2, 5, 1, 1, 1, 4, 3)3@3: (3, 5, 1)5@4: (2, 5, 5, 6, 3)
13 inf 4 art 9 tank cruiser
Rolls: 9@1 8@2 10@3; Total Hits: 109@1: (2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 1, 1, 1)8@2: (5, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4)10@3: (2, 2, 6, 6, 3, 4, 5, 3, 1, 2)
10 inf 2 art 12 tank 1 fig 4 bomb, 3 crui 1 bb
Rolls: 8@1 4@2 16@3 5@4; Total Hits: 158@1: (6, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2)4@2: (6, 6, 3, 1)16@3: (6, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 2, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 1, 3)5@4: (1, 1, 4, 1, 2)
d
Rolls: 20@2 3@3 5@4; Total Hits: 1520@2: (2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 2, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 6, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 6)3@3: (2, 1, 3)5@4: (6, 2, 6, 6, 2)
Make Sea Lion a really bad gamble, like it probably was in 1940. A sort of : If I win, Axis win. If I lose, Axis lose. The kind of battle no one realy enjoy
http://www.coolstuffinc.com/main_boardGame.php?viewType=view board games&fp=Acc-AVHAxisandAlliesPacific1940#Axis and Allies: Pacific 1940 Board Game
I ordered my AA50 and 40 on this website. I’ve also sold collectible cards. This is one of the best
Robert
I wouldn’t put Israel in the good guys yet. Seems like they are hated by most of their neighbours for some reasons (and not just because they hate them, but it seems Israel isn’t exactly kind neither). Plus, at the moment, UN is accusing Israel of War crimes (much like the terrorists).
But even so, I still believe, based on personal feelings, that Israel is a better country than Iran to live in. Women have much more rights in Israel I believe. More freedom, etc. They can be criteria, some kinds of criteria. But I doubt everyone would agree on those criteria.
Say us WEstern. We believe in freedom of speech. So a country is “better” than another one if that freedom of speech is more guaranteed.
Now, there are cultures in this world that does not believe in freedom of speech.
In my opinion, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. But how are we to argue with someone that has a completly different logic than ours? This is usually the problem with Middle-East. Islam mostly. Their women, for example, in some countries, never knew “equality” with men. To them, its absolutely normal to be inferior to men.
Now, to us, clearly, this is barbaric. But again, its in their culture/religion.
There might be absolutes. But to find them, we must first have an international agreement. Not all countries have signed the human rights chart.
We should criticize them. But we shouldn’t try to force them into thinking like us even if we are right (I sincerely hope we are right).
“As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons”
Just found that on Wikipedia. Worth what it is worth
If I remember well, they haven’t found any nuclear facility/WMD in Iraqi.
I completely agree with the fact that you can’t act against a nation based on the assumption that he will do something stupid. There is nothing as absolute certainty in world affairs.
You say I am a pacifist. I am not sure if I understand what you imply.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes in peaceful discussions first, then yes, I am a pacifist.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes Military should NEVER be used, then you are incorrect, or I have not expressed myself correctly.
Say self-defence. I agree that every nation on this planet has the right to exist. I think most people can agree. Thus, if someone attacks, say Canada, Canada will have the right to defend itself. But that right is only limited to defence. Should Canada attack the aggressor, than he becomes an aggressor and the attacked country has the right to defend itself too, which leads to an infinite wheel.
I do not really believe in absolute (except maybe that we live and die, and that numbers can go on infinitely). I will never agree with someone who believes that it is INEVITABLE that a country will attack another one. Nobody can read into the future.
That is why I refuse any argumentations about pre-emptive strike. This is something that goes against my thinking. How can you be so sure that one will attack you that you give yourself the right to attack them?
But we are getting into the Right war discussion, and I do not believe that I am capable at the moment to express my thoughts logically.
“If a nation does not have a nuke they are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?
Do we have the right to nuclear weapons? That is a big question. I’d love to reply NO. Not sure how though and if its possible logically.
Instead, let me say things this way : Either NO country has the right to nuclear weapons, either ALL country has the right to nuclear weapons. Its that simple to me. If USA. Russia and other big countries can have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t smaller countries like Iran be allowed to get them?
I do agree though that having the technology to build such weapon does not mean that one is ready to possess them. But quoting Transformers 2 :D “Who are you to judge us” Like who are we to say that Iran is not fitted in having nuclear weapons? Do we have any criteria?
Russia is also very ambitious. And one can say that Russia government is trying to control opposition in China. Some even say that Russia eliminate their opponents (there was this story of journalists killed/poisoned)
Don’t get me wrong. I completely disagree with Iran trying to get the bomb (if that is what they seek). I also feel that there are better alternatives to energy problems. Hydro energy, aerial energy, for example. Of course, none of those can generate as much energy as nuclear energy can.
Don’t exaggerate func…
Would be funny if there was a rule as follow :
When France is captured by an AXIS nation, France changes side to the Axis… So the guy playing Allies would become Axis over the course of the game :) That would be hilarious, and could be interesting for the gameplay (add another axis player = help Axis?) Of course, France would be limited to protecting Europe… So I guess its another stupid idea :( Nobody would want to play a stricly defensive game! Even Italy, in AA50, had a bigger role
Robert
Except that you can only bombard once for each unit being sent. Meaning that for each ground unit, you get 1 shore bombardment.
Yes, or else Allies would always win, which would be boring.
Give the allies some sort of economical advantage. Give the Axis the “priority advantage” (meaning they play first, which is what happened in the war at the beginning) and some sort of military advantage.
Easier said than done though. But I believe Larry does good game. No need to worry
You guys are too much into maths….
Even at 12, UK will buy Cruisers. Why? Even if Destroyers are superior for defense/offensve (naval), Cruiser has the ability of hitting the ground when dropping troops.
Tanks @ 6ipc. Means you can’t do super stacks of tanks that easily. Means tanks become valuable (which they should be)
Also, Tanks being a ground unit will reinforce a territory you conquer. You can’t land planes on them, remember?
Technically speaking, Carriers are really really expensive. You will have to build them to control the sea.
About tactical bombers. I’m still not sure how they function. The word “bomber” could be misleading. But if this type of plane can SBR, then it is good (range could be an issue). Otherwise, it must have some sort of ability. (Maybe the boost on armor will be enough to justify their purchase)
One thing is sure, this game will be completly new. Air bases, naval bases, new units, new costs, bigger maps… The game will change. So all these discussions on the costs (Without the actual map) seem to me pointless.
Can’t you just order it over the internet? Yes, the shipping will bring the game to 80-90$, but its far less than 112 :)
Robert
"Right now Iran wants power it does not deserve and will use negitivly, so how do you purpose we stop them?
"
Who are you, sir, to determine if Iran does not deserve more power/influence?
I’m asking this :
Should each country in this world have the same power of influence?
Should the more rich have more influence?
Should the more powerful (military) have more influence?
Iran, as a nation, has the right to govern in his territory, and has the right to play his part in the international scence. They have a crazy Leader that said many times that Israel should be wiped out of the world. But that crazy leader doesn’t make a country. If we (WEST) attack Iran with sanctions, of course that crazy man will gain in power.
Citing Goering is a big - for you. Like, does that stupid man has some sort of influence over you? Does his words fill your mind with pleasure? Or are you that smart that you believe all your brothers/sisters to be plain dumb and that they will listen to their governments without any capabilities of criticism?
Look at Korea, for example. If you want to defeat them diplomatically, go negociate with China. China is like the last supporter of North Korea. Remove China and see if North Korea will continue to act stupidly.
“that sounds like post-modern BS to me. What is diplomacy based upon if not the willingness to harshly use econamic or military power? sure, many nations have common interests, but then diplomacy is easy”
To a certain extent, all countries have some sort of common interests.
If you believe diplomacy is all about : do this or you will be crushed by our military/economy, you are wrong. Economy and Military are tools of diplomacy and can be used in some cases. But if you believe military power is the only way of negotiation, you are dead wrong again and need to go breathe some optimism air. This world isn’t just evil. Or maybe Goering got into you?
I agree that not all countries are good. BUT. If we could go back into time, I wouldn’t recommand using military to strike first at countries like Rawnda or Nazi Germany.
WHY???
I am all against utilitarism calculations. If you could kill X people to save 100 times X more, would yo do it? I wouldn’t do it
Apply it to our world. Should we destroy Iran and North Korea to protect the rest of the world (although it is very likely that not the whole world perceive those two countries as threats)? We will killing, what, some millions of people to protect life of billions!
And sorry for my bad phrasing/logic. My English, as you can see, is not very good. And since I am doing some homeworks at the same time, I don’t have time to make beautiful sentenses.
Reason why Canada needs no bigger military power :
USA
USA being our ally would not let any country invade us (Why would a country invade Canada in the first place?)
If Canada is going to be invaded, only one person can do it, and its the USA. And some more billions$ into conventional weapons are not going to prevent an US invention
Your logic that we need weapon to defend ourselves is flawed. If someone barge in your house and want to kill you, I doubt you will have the time to wake up from your surprise, go grab your gun (that is well hidden in a safety spot, away from children) and kill the murderer that is sitting in your sofa, eating your pizza.
You don’t make peace through superior weapons. You make it by discussing with others. Hopefully, Obama sees this. Bush didn’t.
You know, eventually, if we continue going the weapon route, some countries like China, India will get superior military power. They are over 1 billion. Their economy is going up daily. They will surpass USA economically. They will, if they want (and I hope not) surpass USA militarily eventually. Not today, not tomorrow. In years maybe. You guys are way ahead of them right now. Although I hope they do not chosoe that path for the sake of our world
US military may be superior than any country. (It is indeed, in conventional way). But if you truly believe that you can just go in and blow everything, you are dead wrong.
Diplomacy is the way to deal with countries nowadays. Not military.
I voted : SO WHAT
USA has them. Many western countries have them
India, Pakistan have them (and we know how India and Pakistan hate each other)
We shouldn’t tell what others can and can’t do, if we can’t do it ourselves (Aka, don’t get bombs, although we have it. The WE refer to USA, and not Canada, because Canada doesn’t have the bomb)
Of course, I am very concerned. Why do they want the nuclear weapons? In my opinion, it is only to feel more powerful, a national pride, a desire to be acknowledged as a major power in the world.
I don’t think anyone rational would want the nuclear weapon to use them as a weapon. Its more as an indirect tool of negociations
Robert
Well I suppose, Japan could still try to take over Russia, but with less income than Russia :D
Robert
consider the cost of shipping by AIR or by SEA. Both are expensive