Diplomacy

Something new coming to Combat Miniatures:

2efc8cf7-ac93-44e1-9d44-0f76411bdff9-image.png
f4b41626-8065-4d92-b676-80dd12c28b05-image.png
4359da2c-37d1-4394-9e5b-3b3a1c5b661e-image.png

@Panther it is still live. I’ll get a new link up

Re: Imperial borders

With this game being released next year I was wondering if HBG would be doing pieces for each country. I would be very interested. Thanks

pic287451 (1).jpg

I am on a quest to convert most of my “pushing plastic” games’ maps to a larger roll up format. I have been able to do that with all of my A&A games thanks to this site! Does anyone have a hi-res scan of the History of the World Map? Either the New Avalon hill version or the Z-Man Games reprint is fine.

d93f66b0-5dc0-49a6-b5eb-9aaabb9cb86a-image.png
11. Now it is the Allied turn. The same procedure is followed as before. The defending CAP fighter shoots at the incoming planes, and they get to fire back.

60a67951-1011-4c1e-9ffd-f94fd6c8f5d2-image.png
12. The Japanese CAP fighter misses, but the Allied planes shoot it down.

2129d056-f69b-485f-b643-702ce095bb5c-image.png
13. Both planes select the same carrier group to go after. The ships miss their AA fire, so the planes are free to attack.

e019c53c-2e8b-40a9-b87a-2e9e185c6ebe-image.png
14. Both planes score a hit on the carrier and it is sunk. Planes must now return home.

6f9e0a4a-af7b-4f32-bf0e-04275bd91043-image.png
15. Planes on both sides must land on their carriers. The US plane lost its carrier, and so must ditch at sea (destroyed). Both sides may reshuffle the composition of their groups. At this point, the Japanese player decides if they wish to retreat, and they choose to continue the battle instead. The Allies, however, choose to retreat, The Allied ships return to port and the Japanese fleet continues on its original mission.

@CWO:

@Private:

Further the US were less keen on the survival of the British Empire than the UK - no surprise there!

I would even go so far as to say that the US would have been quite happy to see the British Empire dismantled, if for no other reason that at the time it had a tariff system that gave preferential treatment to British / Imperial / Commonwealth goods.�� �� The Americans much prefered the concept of open markets, and disliked what they saw as British protectionism.�� �� The Anglo-American tension on this issue can been seen in the fourth point of the 1941 Atlantic Charter, which stated "Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity."�� �� Most of this point reflected the American position, but the “with due respect for their existing obligations” part reflected Churchill’s wish to include a “notwithstanding clause” that would (in his interpretation) let the system of Imperial tariffs continue unchanged.

I know we are way off topic, but I thought you’d find the following interesting Marc - especially the final sentence:

On May 10, 1982, Henry A. Kissinger mounted the podium at Chatham House, the London home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, to deliver the keynote address for the bicentenary celebration of the Office of the British Foreign Secretary. Kissinger boasted of his loyalty to the British Foreign Office on all crucial matters of postwar policy matters in dispute between the United States and Britain. The crux of his disagreement with his own nominal country, the United States, he told his audience, was the basic dispute in policy and philosophy between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, reflecting our different histories.'' Roosevelt, Kissinger stated, had condemned Churchill as being needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism had always tended.‘’
It is Churchill who was right, and Roosevelt, who was wrong, in these matters, said Kissinger.

While the majority of Kissinger’s elite audience was keenly aware of the bitter dispute between Roosevelt and Churchill, a different history has been made available to the average American: a mass of lies and half-truths about a so-called ``special relationship’’ between Britain and the United States, based on common ideals, supposedly supported by both Churchill and Roosevelt, and intended to last into the next millennium. This rewriting of history began almost immediately with FDR’s untimely death in April 1945, and has continued to this day.

Thus, what was perhaps the defining battle that shaped the course of current history remains unknown to most Americans. It is important that this story now truthfully be told, especially as a young American President has taken the steps to walk away from Britain and the ``special relationship.‘’

The historical evidence shows that Roosevelt entered into the military alliance with Britain with only one purpose in mind: the defeat of an enemy. The historical evidence also shows that Franklin Roosevelt was committed to dismantling the British Empire–and all other empires–and to replacing them with sovereign nation-states, modelled on the American constitutional republic, in which each citizen would be given, through access to modern scientific education and Western culture, the opportunity to create a better life for himself and his posterity.

It is this view of man, in the tradition of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, that places a value in each sovereign human individual, that the oligarch Churchill bitterly opposed, and that President Franklin D. Roosevelt espoused.

In 1946, as the history of the period was already being rewritten, FDR’s son, Elliot, published a short book, titled As He Saw It. With pungency and force, using first-hand acccounts, Elliot told the truth about his father’s bitter fights with Churchill, leading the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to state in a contemporary review that the book’s central thesis was that Roosevelt saw Great Britain and its imperial system as a far greater adversary to the United States than Russia.

Here’s a link to the full article if you want it:

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/FDRlw95.htm

I just discovered this game.  If you have played LUXDelux on your i-devices you will love this.

THIS IS NOT RISK

http://sillysoft.net/vox/

I’ve always found the history of the War card game quite interesting, especially when you compare it to Solitaire. War is one of those classic card games that is so simple yet engaging, much like Solitaire. Both games have been around for ages and have a sort of timeless appeal. War is thought to date back to at least the 19th century, and it is often one of the first card games kids learn because of its simplicity. Solitaire, on the other hand, has a rich history that goes back even further, with origins in Europe in the late 18th century. What I find fascinating about War is that it relies heavily on luck, while solitaire requires a bit more strategy and patience. This makes each game unique in its way. War is straightforward and fast-paced, which is great for quick, casual play. Solitaire can be more relaxing and requires a bit more thought, which can be very satisfying when you finally win. Both games have their charm and offer different kinds of enjoyment. War might not have the depth of solitaire, but it has its own appeal in its simplicity and the way it can quickly decide a winner. I think both games have survived for so long because they are easy to learn and play, making them accessible to everyone, regardless of age or skill level.