I'm looking for an opponent! I'd like it to be a league game. If you like to play the Allies, it would be perfect.

[Rolls:]

can someone guide me to this particular dice roller

;aaa 3@1 4@4 5@3;

If you replace the ";" by ":", it will give:

Rolls: 3@1 4@4 5@3; Total Hits: 4

3@1: (3, 6, 6)4@4: (3, 2, 4, 1)5@3: (6, 6, 4, 6, 6)

[Rolls:]

Rolls: 3@1 2@4 1@1; Total Hits: 5

3@1: (6, 1, 1)2@4: (4, 1)1@1: (1)

Thanks for the input guys. My oponent should really have landed in Africa with UK on the first turn.

I also thought that sending a Russian fighter in Anglo Egypt was a big mistake made by my oponent, so was it to not leave Leningrad completly empty.

My bad I said 1 inf and one art from Africa but of course it was 1 tank and 1 inf. I also forgot to say that my two subs in the baltic were moved in  seazone 7. I knew my navy was going to be destroyed, but it forced my oponent to split his airforce, and I saved a sub and killed one fighter with my transport/dest fleet.

I guess my oponent did not play really well  with Russia because even thought I had few land units on the Russian front, my fighters always allowed me to trade territories and to keep UK and US navy at bay for a while.

Now I have to explain what were, in my opinion the advantages of such a move. UK and USA had to buy much more navy to protect their transports, so even thought my russian front was some kind of weak, Germany was almost never threatened, and the Allies coult not build any fleet in the Pacific. On UK1, my oponent send his Indian SZ Fighter to destroy my tank in Anglo-Egypt along with the Transjordan inf. He succeded, but my lonely Japan transport stayed alive, so I only had to buy one on J1 and could already build a factory in Mandchuria. On J1 I took China and Buryatia. Two turn later a factory was build in French Indochina, and another one in India a turn later.

However, I played this strategy last game against a guy who beats me 2 times out of 3 and I crushed him hard. It looks like you underestimate the power of 10 fighters and 1 bomber against the starting weak fleat of the allies.

Anyway anyone has real strategy to counter that instead of saying that Germany would not have enough land unit?

Let's say the axis start with a 7 bid, which is 1 ART and 1 INF in Ukraine.

Generally, Russia takes strongly West Russia and leaves Leningrad pretty openend. One russian fighter doesn't fight and goes to Anglo Egypt.

My Germany first buy is 4 fighters.
Combat are: Leningrad strongly, since there is almost nothing there to defend it. The three infantries in Norway stay in Norway.

My sub in SZ8 goes fort the english battleship in the Med, so do my norway, france, germany and balkan fighters. I send the two others fighters in anglo egypt with my bomber, plus the art and inf that where already in Africa and I transport an inf and a tank from Italy. My battleship takes the english destroyer. Everything goes perfectly fine for me, Anglo Egypt is taken with a tank and I have zero planes lost.

HOW do you counter that?

Jazz and rock on!

I always played Germany when we began to play: my strat was to only buy tanks, and if uk and usa were pressing too hard after some round, I built subs and... more tanks!

By that time, Russia was buying bombers and tanks, UK was going all out on Ic and destroyer (hey, Germany had subs), and Japan was only fighting USA on the water.

We were always screwed up with planes when there were islands and AC...

Here is my noob question: why CV for an aircraft carrier?

My main language is french. When I was younger and didn't speak english, i found it very funny to see english people talking french and not using the proper genre for a noun.
To me it was so "normal" that  a chair was femenine gender when a boat was a male...
Now, I realise how strange it is to give a gener to nouns. I guess it's because we are  french 

Just be sure to give credit for the concept to the proppe source 

I hope you don't think you were the first to think about this strat! 

Jen, 400 to 600$ a month is a huge amount for the poor people!

well then the astronomers should just get together and decide on a fixed orbit

Dude you're right!
I forgot that our world was so simple

I prefer to reduce incoming heat.

Good luck

Not to deflate your hopes, but we could fill cannisters in space and bring them down.  The added gravity would put them under more pressure and we could release the gas.  Woolah!  No heat absorbed!  No added expense, we just fill em as part of our currently scheduled misions and let the gravity of the world pressurize them for free upon reentry.


Gee, why am I the only person on the planet that seems to figure this out?  Oh wait, I'm not, just that when people come up with rational ways to "effect" the planet's atmosphere you say it's unfeasible because it wont do enough or try to pick holes in the logic.

Come up with a better plan that doesn't involve punishing only US Citizens like Kyoto.

 
I hope you are not talking seriously...
If yes, it's a pity.

If it were just one topic, you would be correct Mech.

But it is EVERY topic.

Sometimes you just got to let it go, and let the person that you beleive is wrong, to continue being wrong and just hope he/she realizes that they are. 

But for some people (i'm one of them ans switch surely is too), seeing lies and half truths getting spread all around is really annoying. In fact, i don't care if Jen doesn't change it's mind (and principallu her way to "debate" and to bring "proofs"), I just find it SAD to see taht much bullshit beeing spread. Worst thing is too many people (thoses who aren't well informed and those who absolutely need something to beleive in) are buying bullshit.