Posts made by stuka pilot

I also agree. Although the .45 has one of the lowest velocities of any caliber I still would prefer it. I own a Colt 1911 model. My favorite gun. :D

@dezrtfish:

I’ve shot them all and that’s just the way it is. :wink:

Me too. The weapons that I have fired while in service are:

M16 A2
M240 G
M240 E
88 mm mortar
9 mm Baretta ( :roll: )
50 cal. machine gun
AT 4 rocket launcher
SMAW
SAW
25 mm chain gun

and the mother load: the TOW anti-tank missle 8) <<< which was my primary MOS.

@Ozone27:

@cystic:

I’m goin’ w/ Spain on this one. It’s a fantastic place to land and forces the Germans to be more versatile and “aggressive”. They can not afford to leave a token defending force in WEU with a landing on Spain by a determined Allied force.

True, but is defending Western Europe even worth it? I mean, regardless of whether the Allies land in Spain or attack directly from the North Sea/Eastern Atlantic, if Germany has NO units in Western Europe and instead builds all INF/ARM every turn in Germany/Southern Europe and has the majority of their ARM and all their FTRs in Eastern Europe, then the Allies are gonna hafta take a good long time to build a force large enough to take Western Europe and HOLD it no matter what. In this case, it’d be better for the Allies to land 1 dude on WE, and just trade it with Germany, than land any force in Spain where it’s doing nothing. If Germany plans to trade Western Europe, then landing on Spain makes no sense at all.

After reading a book about Napoleon’s plot to sieze Ireland, I tried to develop a plan for Germany to take over Ireland and use IT as a base for attacks against England. What I eventually figured out was that ALL of the neutrals basically are dead-ends–you can’t do anything from a neutral that you couldn’t do faster, easier or cheaper from a normal territory.

Therefore, my vote for best neutral is Switzerland. Sure it’s pointless, but it’s fun to land a Japanese INF there, take it over, then build a complex and start pumping out ARM and FTRs into Europe to help the Germans. Of course, you could drive/fly them in a lot faster and cheaper, but seeing the look on the Allies faces when you do this is just priceless! :)

Neutrals–they’re worthless. I’m glad they did away with them in the new game.

Ozone27

I have to disagree. If you use Spain as a landing zone with a sizable force. You can attack WE on two fronts (an amphibious assault and from Spain). This will double your attack with half the transports.

Here’s a quick example:

Lets say you have 3 transports, 6 inf, and 3 tanks. First turn, land the six inf in Spain. Next turn, attack WE from Spain and land the 3 tanks from England for an amphibious assault.

That was demonstrated in the simplest way. Throw in some airpower and you probably could be successful. Of course you may have to gauge the attacking forces by what Germany has in there but the point is to keep your transport buying to a minimum for they can get costly buying so many.

Makes sense. I would agree there that most combat is usually in closer range (i.e. urban areas).

On a side note, the newer M16s (A2 - A4) have settings for semiauto and 3 round burst. It is no longer fully automatic.

What new rifle would you suggest with 7.62x51? I wouldn’t see any reason why it wouldn’t benefit US forces outside of the price tag to replace 400,000 rifles. :wink:

The thing I don’t like about sports games is the controlling seems to get more and more complex as new games show up. Maybe I just getting to old and lazy to learn them. But I miss the older sports games like Nintendo Baseball, Techmo Bowl :D , and Excite Bike :D :D :D .

@Desertfox:

Which calibre is better for the army? I say the 30-6 is because if you have twenty rounds in a mag and it is only semi auto you will A) Not waste ammo as easily as a M-16 and B) Have better knock down power.

there are advantages and disadvantages for both. The advantage for 7.62 is like you said, knock down power but also since most countries use this type of ammo, you can salvage extra ammo from abandoned weaponry. On the other hand, military ballistics has proven that the 5.56 is a better round for accurancy and it has enough knockdown power to get the job done. Also you have to look at the given weapon these rounds are being used in. For example, the M16 A2 could accurately hit a target from over a thousand meters. While the AK 47 has good accuracy from only about 300 meters.

I think I would rather have the range then the knock down power.

:oops: Oops. I screwed up the poll. I thought it was lost so I rewrote it. My bad.

Okay. So here’s a lighter subject for us to discuss.

What would you say is your musical preference? Gimme some band names.

I am into punk music mostly although I listen to alot of different types.

Some of my favorites are:

Cop Shoot Cop
Iggy Pop
Fire Water
Clutch
Mr. Bungle
Sex Pistols
Black Flag
No Means No

@Janus1:

stuka: anarchy is self-defeating. it is not a government type, or even society type, merely a temporary classification in times of transition. nature abhorrs a vacuum. whenever there is a power void, it will be filled. anarchy cannot last. it is the most (by a factor of 10x10^infinity) unstable system.

.

Well, you almost made my point. Utopia is fantasyland. If there was a utopia there wouldn’t be any need for a residing government. How it would have to be possible is with the people themselves who hold no evil soley to exist. There has NEVER been a utopia. Unless, of course you would count the Garden of Eden. That’s why I said that anarchy would be the closest thing. No government. No rules. No wrongdoing.

Hello “La La Land”……

All these others ARE forms of government? And what is government really for?

I would describe it as a group of officials providing stability and a way of life. Why would you need to have officials providing stability in a utopia? If it is a utopia the stability came from the hearts of the people.

:lol: Lol. I kind of figured that my explanation wouldn’t go over well.

The point I was trying to make was……

eh, who cares… :P

I don’t believe that any of these forms of government could create a utopia. Anarchy would actually in my opinion be the closest thing to it.

:o Stuka, what the hell are you smoking? :o

Just hear me out and then make your judgements. When there is a ruling government there is some form (no matter how large or little) of repression. Repression is flexible but still breaks.

With anarchy, there is no ruling government. There is only the people of a lawless world. Now if this was “la la land” this has the potentional of being a utopia for the people would actually have the ability to contibute to greater good and be able to coexist without prejudice.

A Utopia IS “la la land”

I don’t know if this was well explained but that’s how I see it.

Happy 100th post to me :D

@AgentSmith:

Well the major problem of gas prices is not just supply but also demand. In fact demand in the US has risen sharply in recent years, and there are specific reasons for this. Did you really think there wouldn’t be a penalty for the excessive consumption brought on by the SUV craze? I think the gov’t should impose heavy taxes on these vehicles to deter people from buying them since they hurt even those that don’t own them.

Well, our Bush bitch-boy, wrote up a tax break for any businesses who buy SUVs. So now rich people buy SUVs for their businesses and write them off their taxes. I think that’s how it works :-?

it’s over $2.20 where I live. I try not to complain about it too much. If you look at what ppl pay in certain European countries, you will see we still have it pretty good.

If both sides are being played by veteran players, 75% of the time I’d say the allies win. Yeah, Germany is damn powerful, but despite that, it is really difficult fighting a two front war as history proves.

I am so leftist, I might as well be a commie. :P

Russia I believe has the most good NA’s.

I definitely feel that Severe Winter makes Germany stop dead in their tracks. That one turn alone has the ability to turn the tide of the game. I mean, COME ON :o , inf defending at a 3? for the entire round? Any vet German player knows he won’t being heading east that turn and that can foil some serous plans for a quick victory over Russia.

@cystic:

i think the whole vegas-marriage thing is ridiculous myself. Still, just because the word “marriage” is being soiled does not mean that it is not possible to put this trend on the skids, so to speak.
So what additional rights come with getting a marriage vs. a civil union that enables you to make this comparison?
I guess you could call any union between two people and label it a “marriage” - heck, we use that term when remarking on the amalgamation of 2 corporations, associations, etc.
So then what are we debating, i guess. What does marriage mean?
Maybe there should be a complete dissociation from the whole term marriage in that unless you are affiliated with a group that provides these, then you are in a “common-law/civil union” relationship. I still do not know why the gov’t sees it’s place in legislating this.

:lol: Lol. This has been the best part of your arguement that I can somewhat agree in. Yes, perhaps there does need to be a dissociation with the term ‘marraige’. Or they need to invent a more marital type word for gays. Hmmmm…… I dunno.

You are still missing the point. A church has a right to refuse to marry anybody. If that happened for gays, they could hire a person who is licensed to marry. A church cannot, however, interfer with the law.

Cut and dry…… I don’t dispute the fact that gays could get all the same rights out of a civil union. Yet, it reminds me of the days when blacks were granted the same rights as whites but it was followed with dumbass rules like, “you can only drink from your designated water fountain but you can’t drink from the one that says ‘whites only’.”

It’s the SAME thing here. “It’s okay for you to have civil unions but you can’t call it a marriage. That would take away from the respect of those drunkerds getting hitched in Vegas.” “We don’t want you gays soiling up the word marraige.” :roll: :roll: :roll:

You know, I see way too many people speak out against gay marriages. And 99% of those people use the words God and religion. Wake up. Church stays out of state. The church DOES NOT RULE our country. And by legal right, gays can marry. If it is not a legal right, this is no longer a free country.

If someone wants to make an arguement on why gay marriage is wrong, then, do so without any religious content. Otherwise, there is no arguement.

@November:

In my opinion, opinions are irrelevant. . . .I heard a chuckle. Someone gets the irony. Wow, tough crowd.

Person A says Gay Marriage is wrong.

Person B says Gay Marriage is right.

It is certainly our right to form an opinion and certainly our freedom to express it on a Board Game Forum.

But arguing right and wrong is missing the target. The issue is : Are all human beings equal? Do all human beings have the same rights?

Well that gets complicated. Certainly no one here would argue that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Or if they do then debate any further is pointless atleast as far as I’m concerned.

The issue is then divided into marriage as it pertains to government and law and marriage as it pertains to religion and church.

If we need to debate homosexual marriage under the law then we are even further behind than I thought.  But I think we can all agree that as far as the government is concerned all human beings have the same rights. Unconditionally. Equal. Unequivocally. Period.

Therefore “Marriages” or “Civil Unions” or whatever term makes you sleep better at night is 100% “right” as far as civil law is concerned and as long as homosexual marriages enjoy the EXACT SAME rights and privileges as heterosexuals. There is no arguement to this. These are the principles our country is based on.

As far as religion is concerned I’m afraid that’s a different story. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ARGUEMENT IS. This is where opinions are at last relevant.

And here’s mine.

Judgement is unfortunately one of the cornerstones of Christianity. I’m sure that’s gonna spark some debate (And one I would love to get into) but for the purpose of this there is no ignoring it. It’s what Christians do. They make rules. If you do not follow those rules they condemn you.
They define reality with right and wrong and with do’s and don’ts.

But here’s where the arguement gets tricky.

Christians, “in my opinion”, not only have every right to decide if homosexual marriage is “right” for them, but they MUST. It’s what they do, it’s how they define themselves. It’s how they exist.

The point. If Christians don’t like the idea of a church sponsered Gay Marriage then that’s WONDERFUL. It’s just peachy. It’s their right. It’s what they do.

If Christians decide that the idea of church sponsered Gay Marriages is okay then that too is WONDERFUL.  It’s their right. It’s what they do.

As for me, as long as all humans are equal and enjoy the same rights,  
I say its up to you individually to choose to like it or not like it.

That is one of the most intelligent statements I have read so far. Now here’s is the dilemma (at least for me).  I see no wrong in gay marrages. What should I do with that? Should I keep my opinion to myself or should I leave the Christian faith do to the fact that they would label me as a gay sympathizer?

Well, this may be too exaggerated being that I don’t go to church anymore. Yet, it would be still something to ponder over.