Here, how's this for more specific:

UK1 build 2 tp 3 inf 1 arm, kill your Baltic fleet with air. Invade Algeria. US1 build 2 carrier 1 fig, reinforce Algeria. Algeria's fleet is 4 tran 1 dd 1 bb 1 sub. If you attack that with 5 fig 1 bom you will lose (I usually attack Ukraine so you're 1 fighter down).

Turn 2, Germany gets their 10 fig 1 bom airforce in W. Europe. UK sends more units to Africa, builds more men. US links off of Algeria for a second time. The fleet is now 2 carrier 4 fig 2 dd 1 bb 1 sub 6 tran. 10 figs 1 bom is going to get their butts kicked - they might get all the transports/destroyers, but lose all the airforce in return, and now Russia is pushing even harder without any fighters to stop them.

In any case, the Allies are safe from the airforce on turn 2.

But let's say that the Ukraine fighter didn't die. Oh well, don't land in Algeria on turn 1. Land there on turn 2. Germany will be in Africa one turn longer but it won't make enough difference.

Well, don't forget I said it's easier to show it than to say it. I didn't believe for a second that you'd take my word for it, but I had to try.

It's easier to show it than to say it; basically Russia should push hard on you since you're low on land units and also push with aa guns to discourage you from trading certain territories. The Allies might have to build another carrier in the Atlantic to keep their shuck safe, but that doesn't slow them down much and soon you have too many fronts with too little infantry to defend.

I'm a big Ukraine/W. Russia fan. Takes out a lot of offensive German gear, and downing that fig early seems to me to help out the other Allies land safer. I don't mind very much losing the Russian arm that early; I just rebuild it. Germany can't afford to trade 1 on 1 with the Allies, and that is exactly what you're doing with that move before they disappear into a huge mound in E. Europe.

Doing W. Russia solely has some merit, but IMO you should be trying to trade out a little bit more than that; at least go W. Russia/Belorussia if you don't like to risk big Russian units. Remember trading one on one with Germany is a good thing generally speaking, because how long can they keep that up against all 3 Allies?

That's exactly it! Remember there might be some strategy in which battle you choose to resolve first...

I agree it's a bad move in both; I was simply asking Jen why she thinks it's so much better in LL than it is in ADS. The dice goes both ways, you could easily overpower all 3 territories and then Germany's in a mess. That happens just as often as disaster does.

NPB:

He said the tri-lateral attack (the Hat Trick) with Russia is much better in LL then in ADS, so much better, it's actually a viable move for Russia in LL while it's utter suicide in LL.

For what reasons do you say this? Mazer Rakham does the Russian Triple in ADS. The odds aren't much better, in fact there's almost 0 change for the total numbers. It's simply that it can go way way better than normal, or slightly worse (then just retreat). You only need W. Russia + Ukraine to succeed which is 80% or so, and Belorussia is just a bonus. You can retreat if the dice go bad, but if they go normal or better....ouch Germany!

An attack that is good in ADS is bad for LL.  An attack that is good in LL is bad in ADS.  Therefore, and with no disrespect intended to anyone on these forums, my personal opinion - and let me stress, my PERSONAL opinion - is that trying to say that what is good for one is good for the other is like chaining a flaming baboon onto a tiger and throwing the result into a grove of banana trees that has recently been doused in chocolate syrup and saturation bombing that whole mess with Islamic militants from the thirty-third century that were flung back through time by a mis-wired DVD player that was set to show the fifth season of the original Star Trek (which never existed, but let's not get into that).  In other words, my head explodes.

I approve of this post. I guess you are colonel in teh J3nf0rces for a reason!

Anyway, why don't we elect our president through a reality show like American Idol?  Since it seems obvious to me that no one really cares how any of them vote or their attendance records or even if they want to enforce the laws of the country or not.

That would HILARIOUS! 

Have them all sing a song and dance then have America vote via text message XD

It's really hard to say which one is better. I'd have to say the original, though. To me the original Ender's Game stands very strong on its own, and obviously I read that one first too so I'm biased. I don't know how clever Ender's Shadow is until you read Ender's Game. Ender's Shadow is very clever and very focused while Ender's Game has some more weird moments such as with the fantasy game, but Game has more punch to it. I think if you read Shadow first it'd ruin the "twist" to Game; I simply don't think Shadow could exist without Game so I have to say Game.

Will I get disqualified for not having daily turns?

Just a random point; I don't remember which book it's in but I thought the Bean series was somewhat disappointing with how Peter turns out. He makes a huge mistake which is unlike how the hero's operate (bean/ender), and he also turns out not to be that scary or that smart really. It's a big letdown from the Peter we see in Ender's game. The author does give an excuse; something about how Peter can't predict how the world turns out because it's like a chessboard with each piece moving constantly and a mind of its own, but I thought Peter turned out to be a copout. : /

Otherwise, the Bean series is as good as the original IMO. The original has a lot of awesome quotes and ideas, but the Bean series was exceptionally clever in how it weaved in Bean's story.

Q1 - is this right; can this lead to a territory with mixed friendly units (e.g., US and UK) together in the same territory?

Yes, allied units can occupy the same territory.

Q2 -  if this leads to a territory with mixed friendly units (e.g., US and UK) together in the same territory, what does this mean for combat?...If this territory is attacked, then who defends, all units from both the UK and US?

Yes, all units in a territory defend.

Q3 - if the UK wants to attack from this territory during its turn, can the US units assist?  Or do they just lie back idle?

They lie back idle; there are not joint attacks. Only joint defense.

Q3 - Who owns this territory - UK or US?  or whoever was there first?

Well, whoever originally owned it yes. If W. Canada is empty for example, moving a US unit there doesn't change ownership. The only time you can collect on your ally's territory is if their capital is gone AND you liberate it from the enemy. If you simply liberate it from enemy control, it goes back to the original owner. So if the US kills German units occupying Karelia, then Karelia goes back to the Russians for income purposes.

Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.

And IMO mr dog I think Revised is fine as it is with SBRs. I think the main lure of the game is in the basic core strategies of pushing with inf and transporting efficiently. If you want games with a heavier emphasis on the less-used units/techs/NAs/economic raids, try a variant like AARE. AARE has a lot of interesting things with bombers.

And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn't catch that.

I do agree Switch, HBs shouldn't only be used to blow up navy. Usually the first best use is to SBR with them, then switch over later to kill navy. Both parts of 2d heavy bombers are overpowered. The SBR portion of hbs makes the game too much of "hmm who got hbs first and who evaded the aa guns the most?" and the 2d offense makes it basically the Silent Seas in the late game.