another words the GNP of Iraq was crippled because of the sanctions and therefore price were high for and some people couldn't buy anything...yes Saddam, but some were related to the fact that there was sanctions....

No, it is fault of Saddam.  Those sanctions could've been lifted, but instead Saddam chose not to adhere to the policy of the UN.  No shooting at US planes over the no-fly zone, not allowing weapons inspectors, ect.  

your comment about loss of life doesn't makes sense cause that's what I said!!!

What loss of life are you talking about now?

the Civilians lost...
yes I've already said Saddam was bad and caused innocent murder... but the US and UN were not angels either....
but never mind you win the arguement....

another words the GNP of Iraq was crippled because of the sanctions and therefore price were high for and some people couldn't buy anything...yes Saddam, but some were related to the fact that there was sanctions.... your comment about loss of life doesn't makes sense cause that's what I said!!! Thanks for beating me up      !!! Ha, but in my own mind I'm right so what does it matter...  

true both of you saw flaws in my writing... yes Germany did get bombed, but Japan was hit more as far as losses(Both could be chosen for the arguement).... Yeah and we supported the British in there blockade! why didn't stop them.... wether saddam killed them or not we could have looked more like the "good guys" by supporting the people at least trying to put aid into the country...  True Saddam killed thousands but some died instead of being shot that were not starved by him, instead there was no economy....

people really anger me talking about how we should leave iraq and stop the rebuilding effort.

we helped rebuild japan and germany after WWII and now they are major economic players nad allies

yes we rebuilt them but in Japan we killed untold, innocent millions in bombings even unrelated to A-bombing... in Germany, during WW1 we blockaded them for 2-3 months after the war because of "hostilities" and killed 12,000 children due to starvation... we also killed more children by putting sanctions on Iraq then Saddam and Mesivoloc (wrong spelling ... the Balkans chap...) and Russia's first Democratic president (another M-name killer ....) combined between 1991-2003... we probably should be(I'm being serious. Not Fesicsious...) in Iraq for some reasons but the WW2 comparison isn't exactly fair.... and we really owe them (Iraq) alot for what we did.....

if your saying this historically, then I'd say no! Russia outproduced Germany and had alot of production in Keraila SSR... otherwise yes it is a neat idea.... but it is crippling for Russia maybe too much...

yep, this is the best way to go....

I believe the P-47 Thunderbolts would have represented the US player better than P-38's or P-51's. Were they not in use the most often (strafing runs, etc.) and could both give and take massive damage?

 the P-47 was yes the greatest ground strafer (8 .50's!) and were very beat uppable .... but unfortunatly not to good as far as manauevering goes therefore they built the P-51    ....

I know this isn't exactly the place, but you guys seem to know a fair bit about how A&A "interacts" with the actual events and logistics of WWII.

When (what time of year) in 1942 does A&A start?

actually to tell the truth I don't think it interacts with history... the Russians outnumbered the germans in production and the USA outnumbered all the Axis countries in the same (USA should really get about 60 per turn ) the makers though had to "balance" it so therefore it is what it is a great strategy game .... not necessarily a historically accurate game

Hawaii AC would be doing coral sea battle next turn so I think April.... posssibly May...

So does that mean the defender chooses to destroy their own AA or IC as a casualty?

If only the AA and/or IC are left, MUST they be destroyed before the attacker can take the territory?

no... the rule is to represent Russian scorched earth: the destruction of infrastructure so the enemy cannot use it.... although as russia you probably wouldn't do (because next turn you will take it back) it, but for India it's great.... yes the Defender chooses it and no the territory can be taken without the AA or IC being destroyed (sorry for the misclarification)....

hmmm... immediately my mind thinks NO! there is only the best way to do it... but thinking about it, it isn't that bad... the aircraft on the mainland obviously will be versatile in attacking land as well as sea targets, but does your friend(s) as the USA attack Germany or Japan or both???... if Japan, then your strategy is good in the fact that you can sink the USA fleet(s) before it attacks the fatherland... if both then your strategy is still good, just the USA won't have as much to sink... if Germany then it is looking a bit low... the one problem is that your strategy doesn't allow yourself to take casulties... buying all fighters will eventually run thin... ofcourse you maybe TG Moses's sister and be the terror of Axis Factory workers, and the scourge of Allied Sailors(but nevermind ) then your strategy is perfect you are an AAA Master!!! but assuming you roll like the rest of us, then japan will go down fighting, blowing enemy vehicles and men left and right, but she will go down... just a thought. this is not saying your strategies bad,  "intelligence" always can be defeated by dice....  

GG

thanks a bunch for the input Zhukov... Question: did it work for the axis?

tired out??? what do you mean?

check out my transport airlift rules in house rules....

yeah I've not seen it played out but heard it from the master's e-lips several times... you must be one of them