Posts made by Zooey72

And CC, don’t hide behind christian “whatever” you want to call it. I could honestly care less about the church. I do not love people who want me dead, I want them dead before they kill me. That makes me evil right? But if I was a palastinian who said that, than I am justified… right?

First off, knowing I am posting on a world war 2 board I took for granted you would see what I was relating to.

Germany lost land in world war 1. It (argueably) waged an aggressive war and lost. As a consequence it lost territory, and that territory still had Germans on it. Hitler took Austria and the sudetenland with the same kind of reasoning that the palastinians have. It was ours, you stole it, blah blah blah. The only differenece between the 2 situations is that Germany was a mitlary threat, where the Palastinians are only a terrorist threat. We will negotiate with other countries, we won’t with terrorist (who also hold no real power outside terrorism).

Mexican American war, niether side was comepletly right… but I would say the US was more wrong than mexico was. To this day Mexicans complain about how the west was stolen from them, and that may be true. But I’m not giving it back (any more than they would give the land back they stole from the indians that they wiped out that lived there before them).

As to “might making right”, you are being naive to say it does not work that way. It works that way in a school playground all the way up to the superpower of the world. It has many forms, but it all accomplishes the same thing. In its basic form lets say one man is born smarter than another man. Because of his intelegence he gets a better education, and has a higher standard of living because of it. In this case intelegence is the “might” and in the end, it is proven right because that is the reality of the world.

You are confusing lack of there being a world war 3 as being “we don’t wage wars of conquest any more”. Very very naive. Because there are no foot soldiers shooting people? Why do you think that the British colonial empire collapsed (or all colonial empires for that matter). The romantic notion is that the colonies “had had enough” and “forced” England to give them independence. Not the case at all. England was in economic ruin after WW2, they needed the US. The help did not come free. Pressure from our government forced the english (and everyone else) to let thier colonies go. Very nice of us eh? Not really. We knew we could make better cheaper products than the rest of the world. So an open market was to our advantage. And, like a loan shark we loaned $ out to 3rd world countries (and so did USSR). These countries for the most part were not going to be able to repay these loans, hence we have taken over the part of the British. Where they held these countries “in place” with a gun, we do it with a check book. And to be honest, I don’t see anything wrong with that. No one forced them to take the $. They did it on thier own. It is like a person who runs up credit cards putting himself in a hopeless situation, than complains that the credit card industry is “oppressing him”.

I have gotten off track. My point is that the power that we hold now in the world is a war of $ instead of with troops. After 911 troops were needed again (whole different conversation). But the “might is right” aspect of how human society works has not changed at all.

I apply darwin (and in evolution, might does make right) to all aspects of human society/life (someone suggested I quote the bible a lot here… although i do know it, I don’t ever remember quoting it or saying I was anywhere close to being a christian). This will not be popular, but I will say it anyway. The idea all human life is equal is total nonsense. If that were true than that would make both anne frank and Jeffery dalmer equals. And they aren’t. More “value” is placed on anne frank’s life than that of Jeffery Dalmer. If you recognize that as being true… the only arguement you can have with me is one of degree.

Human life is also not equal to the individual. This one should be a no brainer. Typicaly you hold more “worth” for people who first share the same genes, second the same society, third the same values. 1st one meaning, if your mother or my mother had to die of cancer… and you got to choose which one died, you obviously would say my mother should. As I would say yours should. Why, because we both have a genetic link to our mothers. 2nd point, who here would of rather that 911 happened in a different country? Lets say the planes crashed into the eifel tower instead. Now there would have still been an outcry in the US, but nowhere near as loud. Do you think the people of Paris would rather the planes hit them instead? Of course not, because they put more value (as do we) in people of thier own society. The last part is “values” is a hard one to explain comepletly. Using the middle east as an the example versus western values. Many people in the west have become desenitized to human rights violations in that region of the world. The sheer number of them is staggering, and adds to this. Thier cultural norms are not the same as ours (husbands having the right to hit thier wives, etc etc). So when people hear of these things in this part of the world they have a “that figures” kind of attitude. Now, if in England a new government was formed that had the same exact record of human rights violations and what not, we would all be up in arms. A better example might be Japan. Because before WW2 they were seen as the “that figures” group, now they have become very much like us culturaly and we can empathize more with them than we could 70 years ago.

I have been all over the place with this, sorry. But my general point is that might does make right. People/culturs/values are not all equal (unless you think the nazi government was the equal to ours) and the best will rise to the top. And best is defined by “might makes right”. The good guys never lost a war in the history of the world, beacuse they were the ones who wrote the history books :-?

Oh yeah - and i almost would like to see you attack Iran and NK. You would get the most obscene a$$-kicking you ever imagined. You are having trouble in a nation of 25 million moderates? I’m thinking that 68 million Persians are going to hand you your a$$ after ripping it off.

This is naive, to put it mildly. Lets say Iran or N. Korea gives a nuke to the terrorist and it is detonated in the US. We are using kid gloves in Iraq, the kid gloves would be off after that. Ever see what our airforce did to Dresden or Tokyo 60 years ago. Apply that now with 60 years of tech to back it up. No one would be left alive. All the terrorist can really succeed in doing is getting us to fight a total war (just short of nuclear). And than there is no middle east any more. That is a fact. If you think for a second that those countries could stand up to the US (during total war), you are not living in reality.

as to this CC,

As for the war - this is such a joke for the rest of us watching the US pi$$ your money away.

There is one real reason we are in Iraq. A show of force (to aquire the bases needed for future shows of force). Any more planes fly into buildings or what not, 100,000 pissed off Americans are going to invade the country who let it happen. That is a DETERANT! That is worth fighting for. That makes us safer. The fanatics in the middle east respect and respond to 1 thing, and one thing only. Strength, either we show we have the ability and will, or they win. Know what OBL favorite movie is? Black hawk down. Kill a few americans and they run.

It is impossible to argue logicaly on this with anyone who can not grasp the very simple reality that the only language people (and the governments) of the middle east will understand is force.

@Mary:

God forbid we return to the days of budget surplusses, peace, and a robust economy :roll:

Is anyone really happy with the direction the country’s headed in?

ahh, and the days b4 N Korea became a nuclear threat, letting bin laden go on 2 different occasions, ending the term in a recession, building up the whole .com bubble so that it would burst, giving our tech to the chinese, handicapping our trade for decades to come with Nafta, getting us involved in 2 conflicts we had no bussiness being in, the list goes on. Bush has his problems, but Clinton was a jacka$$.

@F_alk:

@jckeil21:

i wouldnt vote for her if she were the last person on earth!

Of course not. If she was the last person on earth, you wouldn’t be there and thus you couldn’t vote :).
And still, if she was the last person on earth, she would be voted with 100% of the votes.

Not true falk, florida in 2000 proved that dems are not capable of using a voting machine correctly. Perhaps if there were only one hole to punch it might be a sure thing.

@cystic:

@marine36:

I support Israel, because the palestinians are terrorists, and hate the United States. Very simple, its obvious because they burnt our flag and celebrated during september 11th, that the palestinians are our enemies.

two words:
cause
and
effect

i’m guessing that if i were Palestinian, i would be hating the US as well. So would you - probably more vehemantly than anyone.

Ahh, I am glad you see things that way. So you condone US military action against the palastinians since we have them on tape celebrating 9-11? They obviously hate us, so that justifies us hating them and taking action against them. Oh, but wait. It is only fashionable to hate the US for the evils that it does. I keep forgetting that one.

They joined in an aggressive war against Isreal hoping that they could do a “Holcaust 2” when the arabs won. However, they lost, and as a consequence they lost land. To the victor goes the spoils. Or do you think had the war gone against Isreal that the kindly palastinians would have allowed Isreal to exist?

As to the garbage about Isreal taking thier land. Yep, they did. But the Palastinians are using the ame argument Hitler used to start WW2.

I voted Dunkirk 2 with the stipulation that Rommel had a free hand during the landings. I think he could have pushed us back into the sea. Now, the question is would it be a dunkirk 2? Only if we were lucky. Merely stopping an invasion was not the sole goal of Germany, more not allowing another dunkirk to happen. IF (and only if) the bulk of the landing forces was either taken prisoner or destroyed there is a chance it could have altered the outcome of the war. I don’t believe that Britian and the US would have made a seperate peace, but I do think that for quite a long time there would be virtualy no threat on the western front. Thus, troops get transfered to the eastern front. The new influx of troops may have stabalized the front. I think this would only have been possible if Generals like Rommel, Kesserling, Manstien, and Guadarian had a free hand instead of having to answer to corpral Hitler.

Even a longer war could have had drastic changes in the outcome. Imagine fleets of ME262s stopping the air war over Germany while Britian gets battered senseless from V-2 rockets. The type 9 subs that were equipped with snorkels were a harrasment to the allies. Imagine if they would have come out in force? Would have been like 1940 all over again. Not to mention the Germans were very close to having surface to air missles. And, it can be speculated that the manhattan project would not have recieved as much financing if the allies lost huge on D-day (resources would have been needed to replace losses).

just wanted to add, your first turn scenerio will not work out the way you are stating. You say you will attack my baltic fleet? with just your airfrorce? That is a close battle to say the least. Will you use the British Battleship to take the baltic? If so it does not have the protection of the aircraft carrier, and you just lost the battleship because you did not conolidate them. Bare min. you attack my fleet in the baltic with your airforce and destroy them, but in turn I destroy your airforce… I will take the trade. If you use your battleship, you lose your battleship. Even if you win, you lose because I get to trade a fighter for a battleship on my upcoming turn.

And although you have a fighter on your british AC. You don’t have 2 BRITISH fighters on the AC. You lose your airforce attacking my baltic fleet like that. Your ability to attack is severly diminished because you can not consolidate a British offensive. Destroying the German fleet in the baltic does come with a price.

I am a strong believer in the 1 fighter a turn method, at least until it becomes hopeless and you are just defending waiting for the inevitalble conquest of Berlin.

The scope of the effect the fighter or bomber would have is not only limited to an atlantic sea battle, although should the opprotunity arise you should seize it. Also, in your scenerio of having an over-whelming fleet you do not put any pressure on Germany for at least 3 turns. I am guessing you are holding your fleet back NW of Great Britian until more ships arrive. I would almost never attack the fleet you described. But if UK tries to land any troops (whether it be in Eurupe or Africa) before they can consolidate with the US fleet I will attack it (you can no longer hide from my airforce once you land somewhere). Also, you underestimate the power of the threat of an attack in the sea. Lets say that you force the UK or US to buy an extra carrier because they fear a german air attack. They just wasted 18 IPC. Yes, they may have a little bit more manuverability with the extra carrier… but that small perk is hardly worth 16 IPC (or imagine if they wasted 24 IPC on a battleship?). All the while you still have your versatile air force that can just go to another theater to inflict damage.

As to the 10 ICP fighter issue compared to the 3 IPC infantry… A slowly growing German airforce gives you enormous versatility. And in general the German airforce should grow because if the German player is playing smart he will covet his airforce and not squander it foolishly. An end all battle with the atlantic fleet is a once a game thing, that can very easily decide the game. But barring game deciding moves, the german airforce should stay in tact for the most part. Lets say it is turn 3. The Germans have taken Egypt, the UK put a IC in south africa. Pretty standard game situation. Leaving a token air force behind in Eurupe to exchange territories with the Russians, move the rest of it to Africa. Lets say realisticaly that is 4 figheters and a bomber (leaving 2 fighters behind in Eurupe). Now the stalemate going south turns into a route (I feel stupid at the momment and can not remember how to spell that correctly - sorry). You march down Africa and take the IC. You may say the Americans or British will land troops in africa, ok. Now you have your airforce there to destroy any invasion force that lands. Of course they may take thier planes off the carriers to protect thier land forces. I will attack the navy just because I can’t stand empty carriers lol. You can see the versatility of this I am sure. You mentioned rockets… they are nice, but if you go for a developement I say it should be long range aircraft. You at least double the threat posed by your airforce if you are lucky enough to get it. In revised, the map is bigger. The US player usualy uses Canada as its jumping off point to Eurupe now. With long range aircraft they need to put some serious defense there to protect the gravy train of troops that comes. If you get so bold as to get an extra bomber or 2, even the eastern coast of the US is not safe from the German airforce.

Airforce means versatility to the Germans. It has the range and the power to effect any theater of the war. You like infantry with the German, and lord knows you are right by knowing they will need them against the Russians. But you can not instantly transfer troops from one front to another the way you can airforce.

I know that you are going to say that given what I have said the allies going whole hog after Germany can take africa, and have the gravy train of troops coming into eurupe while putting pressure on Western. True, it is inevitable in that situation. But the key to victory than is to make it take as long as possible for them to do it. I never claimed Germany has the ability to defeat all 3 powers by itself. It can’t. But by correctly choosing your fights, and making every advance cost the allies in wasted IPC from fleet, or reconquering taken IPC in africa you delay them long enough for the Japs to run rampid through the rest of the world.

Last thing, a strategy I have used with my airforce towards the “end game” (meaning a dash to moscow) is upon making my big push to moscow I start it with a suicide charge into the atlantic with my airforce (suicide is relative, I mean going into the battle knowing I will lose my airforce to achieve time. Insane odds I won’t do this - but insane odds also means that I have made the allies over buy thier navy). If I can do an exchange, my airforce for thier navy I will do it (and buy 2 fighters that turn to keep a minimal threat to naked transports being placed). My airforce of course would be a great help in a russian offensive, but I will gladly trade them for 2 or 3 turns of “alone time” with the ruskies.

Keep in mind, I am not advocating the first turn buy being 4 fighters or something insane like that. Just 1 fighter or bomber a turn (and if you feel lucky go for long range aircraft). Germany can afford that, and it will play hell with the allies ability to move troops. A short coming of the game is that subs play nowhere near the role they did in WW2. A German airforce can play that historical role, if done correctly.

I have been playing A&A since it came out, and Germany has always been my best country. Although in both games (A&A and revised) the axis have the odds stacked against them, I find victories with them are more rewarding because they are so much harder to come by. Be that as it may, this is what I have found playing Germany.

In short, hit the allies where they are not strong.

Although the first turn buy is important, I see it as being more of a “feeler”. I tend to wait and see where the allies commit themselves before I decide what my exact strategy is going to be. The exception being Russia on t1 (because they are the only ones b4 germany). If Russia does the standard thing on T1 and fully commits to the German front than you should hold off. If however they get “creative” and send more than usual amount of troops to fight the Japs, than you see the weakness and should exploit it with large attacks on Russia. However that rarely happens.

As usual with most people who have some proficiency playing Germany, I knock the hell out of England turn 1 because they are spread so thin. The damage you can inflict on England before they can consolidate is never the same as on turn 1. Use your Air Force and navy to its fullest to exploit this.

Now it is a waiting game to see how the US and UK plan to wage war. If the UK goes all after Navy in the Atlantic, hit Africa hard. Your 1 inf 1 tank a turn will force the British to put large amounts of troops in Africa. If they fully commit to Africa, slam them in the ocean removing the threat of a cross channel invasion. If they go to India, same is true. There are only so many places they can spend $ and be effective. If they try to “do it all” they only accomplish losing on all fronts.

Now the real trick is with the Americans. If all 3 powers go all out against you, you have much fewer options. Thankfully in revised the Atlantic is not a quick jump over to the English sea square. Africa can still be exploited however because the US starts out with next to no navy in the Atlantic. Many games I have seen (if not most) develop into the UK building up an atlantic navy to threaten western Eurupe, and/or feed the Russians troops, while the US goes full force into Africa taking away much needed IPC. If this is the case, you really need to rely heavily on the Japs to do thier job and do it well since they are virtualy uncontested. However, your job turns into a delaying action to the inevitable. Airforce is huge in being able to do this well. 1 fighter or bomber a turn is huge in deturing an over ambitious US. With the threat of a large air reprisal on thier fleet where they land, the US and UK will need to overbuy ships to protect thier transports. Idealy, you never have to attack the allied shipping because they have gone to such a gross extreme over buying ships to protect it would be suicide. You still have your air force, and they have a bunch of ships that will never see combat (unlike your airforce which will see a lot of combat reguardless). This buys you time. If it is apparent that the Americans are going to go whole hog into Eurupe I suggest a very speedy conquest of Africa before the US can land in any force. You may be spread thin, but you get the short term IPC and than make the US chase you. Do not put your forces on the coast, put them one square away and make the Americans chase you. Move back 1 square every turn to stop the quick blitzkrieg. All the while they can never truly take you out because they will not have infantry support. If they try to take you out with only tanks and airforce than you got your $'s worth out of the Africa corp because they will be losing tanks to your infantry when they attack.

Air force is the key to German victory. You must give the Russian front “its due” of men going into the meat grinder. But a plane a turn for Germany will ensure a constant threat to the allied forces on all fronts. If you feel lucky, long range aircraft DOUBLE (in my opinion) the threat your airforce presents, and if you can spare the IPC I suggest you get it.

In my opinion a winning German player does not truly come into the game with a concrete strategy. As the Germans you need to look at it not as what you are able to do, but as what the allies are not able to do.

Create a situation where the allies are trying to stop a damn from bursting. As they plug one hole, open up another one and leave the small crack they have filled for the one you are now trying to exploit. The allies can not cover every “crack”, and you need to use that to your advantage. Sooner or later they will run out of fingers to plug the dam. Above all, do not fight thier fight, meaning a heads up confrontation against an allied concentration is suicide. They will win every time, they can out build you. If they are funneling troops to Russia spend IPC to take Africa away. If they want Africa hit Russia hard. If they are going all out to kill you, make them over spend to protect thier navy while Japan gobbles up the rest of the world.

The key to victory is the German airforce, with it you are a threat on all fronts. Without it you are fighting thier fight, and when that happens you better hope the Japs have thier shiznit together because if they don’t there will be hell to pay.

Well, I would rip the Russians and the UK a new ahem if all I am fighting is a depleted Russia on turn 1 and UK who is splitting thier forces into india and Africa leaving my western front virtualy uncontested.

German Air force will solve the Africa problem. Keep dropping your 1 inf and tank a turn till it turns into the meat grinder in Africa. Than, put the vast bulk of the German airforce into Africa and proceed to march down the continent and take out the UK IC. This may take 3 turns till you get the full use of the German airforce again in Eurupe, but you will be making a lot of $ and can afford it. I would than solidify the coast ensuring I will keep Africa unless the US mounts a MAJOR landing. With the extra IPC Russia will fall like a ton of bricks very quickly.

Russia will fall well before the US can take out Japan. After Moscow falls, it turns into a war of attrition that the Axis will win.

As far as countering the US. You can’t, you can only slow them down. Whatever the US wants (if they fully commit to it) they will get. You just need to hit them where they are not committed.

Thanks,

Having a hell of a time getting it to work though. Tried to DL java, and got “net beans 4.1” totaly lost.

@cystic:

@El:

For 45 years Fidel Castro has been Dictator of Cuba(pronounced “Ku’ ba”.)
For most of that time the US has embargoed most, if not all, products/trade to/from Cuba. Yet with the trade of other countries Fidel has held a Leaky Iron Fist around the throat of the Cuban peoples.

that’s a cute metaphor. It’s not really that accurate, however.

Don’t you agree that free trade would have opened the doors and changed the government in a shorter time…see Vietnam for a ‘moderate’ variation on this idea.

ABSOLUTELY!!!
Finally a conservative/republican with a reasonable perspective. The US has done everything wrong with Cuba since forever.
Look at the Spanish-American war and the sinking of the Maine (although maybe don’t look at it from the perspective of a conservative site this time . . . ).

What’s happenin’ now?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/18/120401.shtml

this leaves out a LOT of background and colors the events in a very biased way.

A short internet history of the Cuban Revolution…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution

not enough time to read it, but again missing a lot of background up until 1960.

I generaly have little interest in cuba. Castro is Castro, and cuba is not going to do anything major ( either way) for or to the US economy. I say don’t trade with them, if for no other reason than the rest of the world who hate our “meddling” in thier politics can look to Cuba and see how great the world can be w/o the US in it.

Fidel was popular, the people supported him. Now they can reap the poverty they have sewn with thier beloved dictator. If they get sick of him, they should overthrow him, and than I can see US support and/or trade. Until than, they’re on thier own.

@Guerrilla:

FIC… IF you sucessful in Taking India and it has an IC on it you can pump 6 Tanks into persia a Turn… very devestating to the Russians

How do you get 6 just from india?

Quite a few months ago I saw a post on one of these forums (presumably this one) about a download for AAR. Anyone got the site? I remember trying to DL it before and had some issues as far as where on the site to go to do it. Thanks :P

Jefe had an interesting post…

Good ole kentucky. The people down here in TN love to make jokes about them. Inbred, dumb, blah blah blah. Like Nashville is athens or something lol. They base thier assumptions (or stereotypes) on the reality of the situation that they live in. Nothing wrong with that, it is not racist. I have only lived here for a year and a half (lived the rest of my life in IL). To me, all of you southeners are banging sheep and your sister. Not a fair way to look at it, but hell, it’s funny so I like to joke about it (although living here I have seen why there is that stereotype, I live in the boonies now - deliverance country).

My point is that the stereotypes are not always some huge insult to the people who recieve them. They can be taken with a grain of salt and be seen as being funny. When I go home to Chicago they joke with me about leaving my GF for some livestock. Funny. I think the over-sensitive way some people are is just being entirely too serious.

Where is the line between insulting and funny? Depends on the person I guess, or the society to be more specific. I saw a movie last night “Guess who” about a white guy with a black girl. He meets her family and they egg him on to tell some racist jokes. He tells a few, and they laugh thier asses off, till the last one where he crossed a line (btw, I have known a lot of black people in my life, and one of the jokes from the movie I can’t wait to tell a guy I know. Funny is funny).

All I am saying is just use tact, AND don’t let the overly sensitive people of the world dictate how you conduct yourself. They are the minority. And if we all had to worry about not saying something offensive to the degree that these people are like… we might as well be mute.

Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.

Good statement Jen… Don’t forget to the rest of the world we have a cowboy in the white house.

Not a fair assumption of Bush at all. Honestly I think the man was too privlaged in his youth, and too old now (and still privlaged), to be a cowboy. But if he wants to stop that stereotype than stop vacationing at a ranch!

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.

I disagree with this reasoning to try to justify what i see as nationalism.

…But saying something like “The French have not won a war since WWI” is perfectly legit since they technically lost WWII, lost Vietnam, and lost elsewhere when they were supposed to be a major player. It’s like saying the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.

You really need to check your history.
Hitler never was elected into office.

You’re splitting hairs. It was not a coup. He came to power legaly, and you know that. It is a very weak argument you have if you bring it to this level. Like saying that Hitler wasn’t even German, he was Austrian. Ya, you’re right. But what difference does it make? Argue the point, don’t nit pick over irrelavent facts.