Yes.

I will try multiplayer.

evil is the root of evil. evil is self-propagating. power, money, etc are not evil, but the lust for them is. evil inspires the lust for money and the lust for power.

Yeah. If you can handle something honestly, including the means to get it, it is not evil. But if you are driven to get it illegally, or improperly use it, it has become an evil.

Edit: On topic, nerve gasses come to mind, along with the entire Hollywood culture. They have no redeeming value. Nerve gasses are a horrible way to die, and Hollywood is filled with a bunch of rich people who think the world whould bow down to them because they are pretty, and also that whatever they say is right, even if it is completely unsupported, unproven, or proven wrong. It is a leech to our nation's intellect.

Rap would have to come in third, becuase of the immorality it promotes.

Fourth would be politics in general, where normally smart people lose all intelligence, morality and normal thought to win an election, and then spend their time arguing over issues that their party supports, even if they don't.

The patch didn't work.

My thinking was that more airplanes would provide better striking power.

Ok. We need to wait until a weekend and evaluate the skill levels of everyone accordingly to provide with a fun game.

Any number of friends you want I will play with.

I love Battle of Britain, and yes, El Alamein is the best for ground attack, and the B-17 is a nice target.

How do you get the Coral Sea? I have patch 1.6, but only the Battle of Britain.

Anyways, I still play too, and am decently good at flying.

I don't have any friend who own it, so we can't fo that.

Do you have two friends that could play, with one, or you on my team?

Maybe, you could watch me play a game vs. the computer to see how good I actually am.

I didn't see the board.

I was just thinking that 85% of submarine kills are by airplanes, so the sub really shouldn't live.

Submarines shouldn't survive a round of combat to retreat.

I do when I feel like an RTS, but I would love to play you. A warning, though. I haven't played online before, so it may do me some good to be teamed.

P.S. I economy blitz to the Inormation Age super tech against the computer, because then you don't have to think.

I made an European scenario that isn't very balanced, but fun, against the computers modeling the early 20th century diplomatic situations (and, obviously, the wars.) I made everyone have essentially unlimited resources, because I figure that most problems with production in that game are speed bottlenecks, and bombing factories would do that.

It may be more balanced if I made the computers harder, but I hate invading Russia when they actually fight back...

P.S. You play as Germany, because Tiger tanks are very powerful, and they are a great civilization to play as anyway.

Hey Nukchebi0.

Couple thoughts:

1. Infantry are pretty good on offense.  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of tanks kill?  How many infantry can 60 IPCs of infantry kill?

2. If you build a lot of destroyers, you are telegraphing your move and you will be Rock-Paper-Scissored into submission.  Fighters beat destroyers easily.  Subs are great as fodder, so having plenty of them along with a carrier group or two is the way to go.  I think you have discounted them too much in your analysis.  In no instance would I have a destroyer-heavy navy for controling the water.

Peace

1. Yes, in numbers, but they can't move two and can't blitz. Tanks provide more reliable defense. Maybe I should start buying infantry, though.

2. I have everything in my navy, so there is no Rock-Paper-Scissors opportunity.

3. Jennifer is right, though. Never send in expensive units without meat shields. The BB's take care of that for the navy, and other infantry would come in with the tanks.

3AC    48
4FGT   40
2DD     24
2BB      48

150 on the nose.

Subs suck because they don't hit well, don't defend well, and can't hope to live an air assault.

Destroyers are much nicer, and having three loaded carriers will pawn anything which tries to attack.

The two battleships with soak up hits, amphibious invasion support, and destroy anything.

Fighters also have more versatile uses than subs.

What if ennemy has a large fleet of subs. Your toast. You don't have enough fodder and those AC will probably die...

Just attack them with airplanes, to weaken them.

Math time:

Inf vs tanks: 10 inf for 6 tanks. 10*1/3=3.33 theorectical hits on defense. 6*1/2=3 hits on defense.

                   10*1/6=1.66 theorectical hits on offense. 6*1/2=3 hits on offense.

So yes, infantry suck for attacking. They are very good for defending though.

Now, subs vs destroyers:

3 subs for 2 destroyers.    3*1/3=1 theorectical hit on defense. The same for offense. 2*1/2=1 theorectical hits on defense, also the same for offense.

Now, for airplanes. 3*0/6=0 theorectical hits vs airplanes. Meanwhile 2*1/2=1 theorectical hits vs airplanes.

Considering 25% of the forces in a naval battle tend to be airplanes, we will take 75% of the anti-ship attacks and 25% of the anit-aircraft attacks and average them by dividing them by two.

1*.75=.75

.75+(0*.25)=.75

.75/2=.375

1*.75=.75

.75+(1*.25)=1

1/2=.5

Since .5 is 4/3 of .375, .375 is 3/4's of .5.

Therefore, subs have only 75% of the effectiveness that destroyers do, making the destroyers a better buy.