Posts made by Pervavita

thats what the “quote” button is for  :wink:

i thought if a capital falls then any teritory liberated by there allies untell the capital is allso liberated goes to the liberating nation.
for example if UK losses England and India, then USSR liberates India, the USSR gains India as it’s own.

yah, globel warming, it’s getting so warm that it’s snowing in Baghdad.

sorry couldn’t help it.

i don’t see how this has gone like it has, but reading exactly what you both have quoted tells me that the AA guns in the situation hear would be the UK’s as the USSR would never have had control of them to move. as soon as USSR walked in and deffeted the Japs the teritory would become UK’s and never be the USSR’s for any length of time.

see page numbers work great  :-D
oh and can we direct quote the book hear? i ask as on other game fan sites they tell us not to as it copy right infrindgment.

as this seams to be contested, can we have a page number (with paragraph)?
this way if debated in a gaming group we know right whare to turn… it’s better then saying “well Jen and Amon on A&Aorg say so.”

i remember the snow in NC, it’s funny how it all shuts down there for just an inch of snow. but stuff shutting down wasn’t the funniest, it was that people would rush the stores like they were going to be trapped in there homes for a week from just the forcast of a inch of snow. that was funny.

Rush, i don’t care for my self, i think it’s all his presintation. he just seams to full of him self, although Savage also seams that way, but i like him so i think there is more to it. couldn’t say for sure. i prefer though Glenn Beck.

ya but it’s no fun for those your playing against.

the problem with Egypt is that early in the game it’s gone if Germany is making that push, late in the game it isn’t nearly as vital and may not have much advantage.
SA complex i have had used against me 2x’s and both times it worked well to slow Germany and Japan from taking Africa. so once it’s built i usually will forget about Africa for any real combat as it becomes a money sink pit for both Germany and UK, and Germany can’t afford it.

first if it’s the buy or the starting advantage(Natonal advantage) makes a diffrence.
India: is not a good choice unless the allies are sending loads of support to hold India well the UK builds it up… but then USSR is weak on the German front so not a good idea.
so India is out if buying the IC
if your taking it as your NA, then it is a good strat as the UK can dump 3 units there on turn 1 to hold back the Japs and it becomes a thorn in Japans side the whole game… if US also builds an IC on US1 in China’s western teritory with some USSR units there to hold it for a few turns, then Japan gets an early shut out as most of Japans expantion is cut off and they have to send tons of troops on land to push or atleast keep the allies from pushing Japan of the main land.
South Africa: buy it if you want, it’s better then buying in India as it won’t just fall and if it dose it gives ether Germany or Japan no real advantage.
what is it good for? it helps (with US support) keep Germany out of Africa early in the game and thuse gives the Germans less $ to fight USSR early.
later it can build a navy to help hurass the Japs but only if Japan is in other waters.
Both: no, it’s a waist of $ to have both fronts going.
stick with UK: better then buying in India thats for sure, it is by some peoples standard the best option.
other: Austrelia; this has the $ to produce units, the starting man power to hold off from assaults early, and the sucurity to build a navy to attack Japan latter. this is better then India and can work IF the US is also putting man power into Japan.

edit: yeh 100 post, now i can karma people… Scalenex by virtue of you being who i was replying to when i hit that mark, +1 karma  :-)

@dezrtfish:

Him “I voted for Clinton.”

I said, “Why the hell would you do that?!”

He said “Well I knew he was going to win anyway.”

I had no response…

It’s too bad so many people would rather be on the winning team than vote their consciences.  :-(

thats why i don’t like this system for the primaries. you have too many people who are swayed to vote not for who they like or think is best, but for the guy (or girl) they think will win.

i like Thompson too, he has good plans but the problem with him is that he has had trouble spreading his message and that is a killer for him IMHO. Bush may or may not be a bad president in some areas, but there is no deniying that the man has trouble telling the people in a way they understand “what” he is doing or planning. for example Iraq, it is unpopular for 2 reasons, 1 is we have a vary large anti war group in the US; 2 the media propetuates it. the president (Bush) should be working hard to stop #2’s effect, not by steping on the constatution but by having his own reasons come out and be understood. he hasn’t so the two punch strat is working against him and the war is unpopular. now the relavence is that Thompson i see as being the same as Bush in this regard… though i think he would be a better conservative president, it dosn’t change that he would be un popular and be painted by the left as incompident and in effect give the Demicrats more power come the next election cycle in congres.

why people bring religion into it like this is beyound me. i’m no fan of the Mormon religion but that is no reason to attack him. he has good plans and has done well on the job.
you argue that McCain dosn’t flip flop, thats true, but he holds true on things that make him un electable, his voting record shows that with his non conservative votes on issues that conservatives find important.
Romney has fliped on one issue that i know of, and that was Abortion, he went from pro abortion to anti abortion. pro when running for office and anti once in office and before sighning any thing into law. i have heard him explain that change and it was a good and to me heart felt ansower.
as for the auto industry, i hope that Romney was telling the truth, only time will tell on that though. the US needs to get manufacturing back in country and away from the globel market, it’s why Romney is best for the job when it comes to the economy, because he has plans to get jobs back into the nation in these areas and he is a buissness man with experiance in running buissness.

on that McCain winning “one that matters” it’s why i don’t like the current system. we have people winning one of the first two states and people become convinced that these little states that have no real value in the numbers are now the “these are how it’s going to go so give up now” states. WY was as large a win as Ohio, Mich was as large a win number wise as 3 of the previous states. i think Romney won the only big win so far.

he is and has been even before Michigan IMHO. he has been the most consistant of all the others. all the others for the most part have been hit or miss in the state primaries well Mitt has been top one or two in most (as you said).
i hope he can keep it up, he is the best man (or woman) for the job when it comes to the economy, better then most on the boarder, and although not the best on war he knows enough in buisness that i’m sure he would put the right person(s) incharge of it making him the best for the job in that area as well. how do i justify that? simple, i would rather have some one who knows they don’t got a clue in war time decisions but dose know how to read a resume and puts the best man (or woman) for the job there, then have a guy who has millitary experiance (although i think this is also important) or thinks they know how to run a war and blunder it through political compermise or poor decisions. i think McCain would compermise or just make blunders because i feel he would get his hands in too deep, Guiliani i think would do the same thing but make bigger mistakes. not that ether would be ill intended in this, i think they would both mean best but good intentions don’t work out like you always plan… accually they seldom do in the government.

i can’t say the exacts on the speach, i heard the part she said and it did sound like she was saying what Jen said to me as well.
now that may not be what she ment, but it is how it sounded and how it sounded to others, other wise she wouldn’t be trying to mend the racal tensions with Obama now. i worded that wrong i know, but i can’t think of a better way to say it (i don’t have a speach writer after all or political stratagest to make sure i say things write).

in East and West (cold war version), it cost i think 10 IPC, the peace is on the board like other units. to drop it you have to have a bomber do it. the nuke kills 5 units on sea or land.
you can develop the tech to fire them with a move of 4 i think, then you can upgrade again to have them kill 10 units.
ether version also reduces the IPC of target teritory by 1 IPC for one or two turns per nuke used.
nuking a teritory with a nuke causes the other nuke to blow giving the effects to stack.
for all you also have to make a consiquence role. some cause anti nuke protest (can’t build nukes for a turn or two… USSR un effected), political strife with neutrals, or no effect.
i think it was well balanced out for use, although the games i played the nukes turned into a game of who can do the most damage with the nuke and gain the most head way from it… nuke wars are no fun really and that was with nukes that wern’t over devistating.

there is one by Imp Games. you just got to own other versions of A&A as it dosn’t come with enough peaces to set up… but rules are good.

heavy bomber rule i think origonally was this, but it got toned down for game balance in the new edition so it wasn’t the game winning tech that it once was.

transports shouldn’t be that good against plains ether, but they atleast get a def 1 that hits plains.

we could if given permission make two polls. one for each party and have people ether vote on who they want to win in that party or better who they think will win the party nomination.
then when we have that in a few months we can do the same for pres.

i think you could get the same “Boost” to the R camp if a two of them banded together, say McCain (good for war), and Huck or Mitt (Huck and Mitt have hit eachother too much to work well together).
Thompsan as he isn’t one of the big leaders may be a good choice though as he is popular but he has Bush’s big problem… he can’t sell his ideas, not because he has trouble talking in public but because he just dosn’t have the charisma (ironic as he is an actor).