Posts made by rjclayton

Yes.  But I think the russian sub issue was addressing the question of why the counterattack to sz7 was only with air, not with the BB/trn from WMD sz.  The russian sub can prevent the med fleet from engaging in combat in sz7 on G2.

@Apollo1q:

Thanks for the help everyone.

One last question  does anyone have a link to the “revised rules that most of the board members here play with”

LHTR 1.3 rules.  Can be downloaded from the home page of this site (www.axisandallies.org)

From the home page, look in the articles section (hint the article as of this writing is on page 3, the posting date of the article is January 16, 2007)

Oh and Baghdaddy - one day you are going to have to give me a lesson on how to search wikipedia.  I searched high and low for an article like that…

@Janus1:

Again- no one was saying you were wrong

Hmmm…. that might not be true Janus:

@rjclayton:

I am afraid I am going to have to call her bluff.  There is no polar zero folks.

And for that I apologize.  To be fair to Jen, she did try to explain to us (a little) but maybe fell a little short of what was required.  Baghdaddy’s post was very well written (as always), and had an excellent source (the wikipedia article).  I have just one remaining question and one remaining comment on this topic:

COMMENT: I still think that Jen’s first source was an essay about a lot of things but not about a polar zero.

QUESTION: How do I change my vote on this poll….

Was the increase in traffic related to the Spring Singles Tournament do you think?

@Apollo1q:

so that there is no whining over implementing the correct rule

Well, you sure like to take all the fun out of it!  :lol:

It’s in the OOB revised rulebook on page 30 under aircraft carriers.

Yes and Yes.

Fighters on a carrier always defend.  Even if your fighters are on my carrier, they still defend if we are attacked.  However if I am the instigator of the attack and move my carrier into combat with your fighters on it, then your fighters do not attack, they are considered cargo on my carrier.  And if my carrier is sunk, the fighters are sunk with it.

As for transports, yes your posted move is legal.  Remember the following rules:
1. After you unload units from a transport, those units may not move any more this turn. (ie. a tank may not unload, then move a space).
2. After a transport unloads units, the transport may not move any more this turn.
3. A unit may not load into a transport if it has already moved this turn (ie. a tank may not move a space, then load)

So basically a transport may load then move then unload in the same turn, but it may not unload then load because unloading ends its turn.  Hope that clears it up. (like mud)

(edit: Baghdaddy beat me to it!)

Hmmm… I am the fourth member of the group of three  8-)

I have nothing else to add.

yes it does to me.

@JLord:

Good analysis. So as UK which plan would you go for? Attack with planes only, or bring the fleet in?

Probably planes only if you bought them extra fighters.

@JLord:

Is this assuming that the German Med. fleet will be blocked from joining the battle by the Russian sub?

Yes, forgot to mention this.

@JLord:

Given this, then is there any reason to not go for the channel dash as Germany if you are not going to be adding to the Baltic fleet? Unless you get a carrier up there on G1, the UK player choosing option 2 would obviously attack the Baltic fleet. So it seems to me that you either buy something to add to the Baltic fleet or you might as well channel dash and force an allied decision rather than just sit in the Baltic and get destroyed. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense.  I bet there are a number of players on these boards who would swear by the channel dash.  Additionally, if you are forcing UK to attack you in sz7 on UK1 then the bomber cannot be used to re-take Egypt.  As germany I would probably forgo the Gibraltar move on G1 (I can always do it on G2 if the merge is on) to take (and hold) Egypt if possible and put more pressure on UK to make choices early.

In summary, I think you’ll find a lot of players on these boards who would swear by the channel dash if they are not adding to their Baltic fleet on G1.

Well Switch, I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t studied extensively on the subject.  Flipping through a 20 page essay does not constitute studying extensively either.  However Jen’s assertion in this thread peaked my interest enough to go looking for more information (as did Jermo).  I would have preferred if Jen tried to explain it a little more, or if she had quoted something from her book in an attempt to explain, but she did not.

Is it possible I missed a reference to this in the 20 pages I read?  Absolutely.  All Jen need do is quote the section from the book that supports her assertion, and cite a page number so we can readily verify the quote, and this discussion is over (with Jen the clear victor).  But unfortunately she doesn’t seem to want to win.  Which makes me wonder if she has the proof she claims she does…

The funny thing is she’s spent 4 pages of this thread (plus another thread “tired of games”) trying to argue why she shouldn’t have to cite sources or explain theory because it takes too long.  I’ll bet she could have whipped up a quote from this book that would have more than sufficed in ten minutes - a lot less time than she’s actually spent on this thread to date I’d wager.

Jen likes to cry foul that everyone is out to get her, but I honestly went into this topic treating it as a learning experience.  It boggles my mind that Jen, a self-professed scholar, wouldn’t have the same openmindedness going into these types of discussions.

I think this is called a “channel dash” although  I have never done it.  I am sure others on this board can give you better analysis than me, but what the hey, here’s a shot at it.

UK will likely counter with at least 2 fgt 1 bmb and maybe also 2 trn plus perhaps 1 bb.  If you submerge your subs the US will get a free shot with it’s bomber before you get to merge your fleet.  At best I think you might end up with an extra sub in the med.

A cheeky counter by UK might be to build a carrier plus a trn and attack your fleet with everything (2 fgt 1 bmb 2 trn 1 bb).  After 1 round of combat assume Germany submerges all remaining subs (probably 2 or 3).  UK will have lost either a fighter or a transport on average (or maybe nothing).  Now UK places the ac plus trn in the same sz (sea zone 7) and leaves the carrier empty.  Now the US can attack with 1 bmb 2 fgt from EUS and Germany might have 1 sub left to submerge (the same sub that started in sz8 that you could have already merged with the med fleet off Gibraltar).

If you want to counter this combined navy in sz7 (2-3 trn, 1bb, 1ac, 2fgt) you could hit it with 5-6 fgt plus bmb.  After 1 round GER trades 3 fgt for 2trn 1fgt.  A second round would be 2 hits each.  A third round GER would clear the BB with a bmb left.  With the allies I think I am happy with this.

If you buy a few extra fgts on G1 then it does improve things for this G2 counterattack on sz7.  First round of combat you will take 2 trn and 1-2 fgt and lose 3 fgt.  Second round you should clear losing 2 more fgt (3 fgt 1 bmb left).  As GER I am probably happy with this, so as the Allies I would probably do a sz7 lite attack (without the BB) and then I wouldn’t place my fleet purchase in sz7 either.

Bottom line, the channel dash with a 2 fgt buy might get you an extra sub in the med (1 bb, 1 trn, 2 sub).  the channel dash without the fighter buy will probably get you nothing, or maybe an extra sub in the med.

@Jennifer:

Phenomenology, Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics
Richard Tieszen
ISBN 0521837820

Essay #3

So……I stumbled upon a copy of this today and checked out Essay #3 (it’s titled “Free Variation and the Intuition of Geometric Essences: Some Reflections on Phenomenology and Modern Geometry”).  The essay spans pages 69-89, so I read through the 20 pages looking for some mention of a polar zero.  I thought I was getting close at the top of page 85 when Tieszen said

…toward invariant and never attainable poles.

but unfortunately he never went where I was hoping he would go.

I could find nothing in Tieszen’s essay #3 to support Jen’s assertion that a polar zero exists.  Since this is quoted as one of her sources, I am afraid I am going to have to call her bluff.  There is no polar zero folks.

Maybe try uninstalling mapview then reinstalling it?  When I dragged and dropped units it showed the unit the whole time.

I understand what you’re saying, but I thought that issue was solved with limits ie. like in my earlier post:

lim 1/x = - infinity
x -> 0-

lim 1/x = + infinity
x -> 0+

when x=0:
1/(0) = undefined

So there is actually no value for the function when x=0 (rather than 2 values as you claim).

Or does higher math undo these teachings and replace with new teachings as you claim?  dun dun dun!

WTF is a position recorder?  A digital camera on-a-stick ???  :-P

I really like the blue german pieces.  It makes me wonder if the colours for the other powers should maybe also be a different colour from their territory.  It makes it much easier to distinguish the units (even with the white background it is still a little difficult).

It is not that hard to go hybrid.  If you play face to face you could play for 5 rounds say, and then if you are out of time you could transpose the board to mapping util and finish the game online or something like that.

Here’s a .mvf file of the initial setup.

Someone should check this to make sure it’s right.

[attachment deleted by admin]

I don’t buy your example.  Sure you can approach 0 from both the -ve or +ve side.  But it would be written like this:

Lim f(x)
x -> 0-

or this

Lim f(x)
x -> 0+

Still doesn’t mean 0 is positive or negative.  Next example please.  Or a souce would still be preferred, as requested.