I'll play you till they lock the thread.

Dinosaur vs. UD Turtle
Corr. April 2010 - ??
1.  e4   ??


UD Turtle vs. Dinosaur
Corr. April 2010 - ??
1.  ??

your moves UDT
remember, no computers, and no friends, but you may consult books.

Go is better than chess, but you will have a hard time finding folks that know this game.

How can you even compare the two?  Checkers is a dead draw every time.  How about comparing chess to Go?  I can't even get started with Go, and I can play a competent game of chess.

I think Rome Total War is awesome.  I haven't played all the factions yet, but I expect to play at least half of them.  In order to give the game balance, I have had to not abuse the abilities of some units.  For example, I don't buy War Dogs and I leave them in the rear on guard duty if I am awarded them.  Some units ruin game balance.

The second version of Medieval Total War looks pretty good and is much like what they did to improve Rome from the first version of Medieval Total War.  The units move instead of jump from territory to territory, and there are "followers" for the leaders to improve the abilities.  I haven't played that much.

I hear there is a version of Napoleonic War coming out too.  That should be a good game.  I think the Total War games are worth the money.

So what is the carrier used in Revised for the Soviets?

I like the long bayonettes of the Japanese, so I hope the new soldier piece still uses that.  The officer/commander piece should have a sword, too.

The Zero is already OOB, isn't it, so we should look for another fighter.  I believe the TAC plane needs to be a Naval plane, I guess a dive bomber since the torpedo plane would be silly attacking Calcutta.  For my part, I wouldn't mind having a "land based" TAC plane and a navy TAC plane, but that will have to be discussed later.

I also don't think we should duplicate any OOB ships.

I'm still trying to get my head around a Japanese Tank and Mech Inf unit.  You just don't think about that much when you think of the Japanese war machine.

Wouldn't it be great to have a special piece for Kamkaze attacks, such as a small plane on a stand in a shallow dive with a smoke trail?

I will make something for you at half the price (or less) but it won't be made of fine wood; just an oak dowel and a pine push/pull face.  Is three feet long gonna work for y'all?

$75!!  What are they smokin?  Something imported, clearly.

I am not very well educated on the specific accomplishments of the generals but my own opinions are similar to the others above.  I believe Jackson and Lee were exceptional but even that is difficult to prove.  The Southern Generals were fighting on their ground and had assistance from the population the Union troops and leaders didn't enjoy.  Also, for most of the war, Lee didn't face a first rate tactician, so he may appear better than his true capability.  Jackson did run wild against union forces, but his knowledge of the terrain may have been more of an advantage than most can quantify.  Jackson taught at VMI so he was certainly very well acquainted with the geography of the Valley.

The Union generals have no qualities to recommend them.  The few that achieved success were either facing little to no genuine resistance or had such resources that even when squandered would produce some positive results.  Sherman would be a war criminal even only 80 years later, and much more by todays standards.  Grant would have been reviled for his unnecessary losses.  He could not have been elected president on his war record with the media we have today.  Burnside, McClellen and others had some good qualities but there were no top ranking Union tacticians I can note.

It is unfortunate that Lee's men didn't take the ridge at the first opportunity (Gettysburg) for the purpose of giving him a better rating as a field general.  On the other hand, I know only few that truely wish the Soulh had successfully succeeed from the Union.  If the South had a significant victory at G-burg, all history may have changed significantly.

Part of the problem may be the money you spend on minor ICs, and that you let the UK player build them on islands where they don't belong.

If Japan doesn't get of to a big start, they are going to have a rough go.  I would hope that after turn three China is practically out of business, and by turn five Calcutta is in dire straights.

Have you tried the J1 approach or are you afraid to go big until J3?  The US boost is not as bad a 40 IPCs sounds, because the Japanese player gets a lot of compensation in some of the little targets they pick off in the first turn.  The PI and Hong Kong are worth about a 20IPC income swing, for example.

I only wish FMG could make a special exception to the US and give us a couple extra pieces.  The US needs iconic Navy and European fighters, TAC bombers and regular Strat bombers.  The B-25 is a wonderful iconic aircraft for the war, but doesn't pass the "Looks good on a carrier" test.  The P-51 and the F4U would be great to solve the fighter in Europe and Pacific theatre problem.  The B-17 can work for a single strategic bomber, but you still need a carrier friendly TAC bomber.

Likewise, I would like the US to have a sculpt for regular infantry, Marines and an elite soldier such as an Airborne trooper.

The tank isn't that important to me because the tanks should be in Europe, along with the Mech units.

But I think what FMG is doing is so much better than what we have now, or any other alternative I see, that I'm not complaining about any of it.

If I am buying cruisers, I have already won the game.  Destroyers are better than cruisers except in one case that only comes up occasionally; attacking an island that can't scramble aircraft.  Aside from that, destroyers are always a better buy.  Subs can also be a very good buy, such as when you need to buy time to stall the enemy navy.  Please do not infer I am saying you can "sub stall" in this game.

All the ME 262s in the world wouldn't matter without the fuel to get 'em in the sky.  The problem was bigger than a lack of hardware.  The Atom Bomb, on the other hand, would have been a game changer with the other resources already at Germany's disposal.

This looks very good.  I wish I had time to look into it.  I can see lots of "supportable" units, which I think helps give the game a combined arms look using a variety of units.

Everything was set in motion when we knew they were coming and we could deploy our forces to meet an unsuspecting enemy.

I do not accept the premise that because China wouldn't have done this or that, we will make a rule that China can't do this or that.  If this is true, then there should never be a KGF strategy.  The US would never have ignored Japan for months (years) while it dove into Europe only.  On the other hand, I'm not asking to see a set of Chinese battleships and aircraft carriers from Wizards either.  I think letting China go into any Asian territory is as close to reality as KGF or KJF.