What's up with the strategies posted on this site?

  • I’m sorry guys, I’m going to be forced to lock this thread if you keep up with all the hostility.

    We’re working on revising the strategies right now. This sight has earned a reputation as a newbie sight, I want to change that. We should be on par with Don’s sight, or Thrasher’s sight. Hell, we got me dont we! :lol:

  • Newbie site? If I’m correct, this website has been up since 1997. It’s probably the first good A&A website I came upon in 2+ years of searching on the net.

  • Sud, I am willing to work with you on these
    issues. If you and Yanny are going to set
    something up I will be glad to shed some
    light and I agree that some of those strategies are BAD. I find myself completely ignoring the bad ones maybe I shouldn’t for the better of this site as you pointed out. Maybe we could talk about the importance of holding a territory. Many Newbies take a territory but seem to be confused about securing it. They may not even understand the importance of it. I guess we could start something that is rather basic and as we chat get more detailed. I think that this would work because newbies could throughly understand the basics and be able to adapt to more specifics.

    What do you all think about this?

  • Yes, I am willing to help.

    Despite getting off on the wrong foot, which I will take responsibility for, I would like to help if possible.


  • Maybe you can seperate the strats according to skill level. For instance: beginner (general principles), advanced (specific strats used by each country), and elite (play by play action on what to build and where to attack/defend).

  • Polish Calvary……lol ya, they outflank German tanks… good job, now what… Poland was totally out-classed by Gremany.So was France …good tanks for the time…bad generals and poor soldiers.

    [ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-20 18:18 ]

  • On 2002-02-27 19:55, Ozone27 wrote:
    A bit off-topic, but I take exception to the dissing of “French generals”. The French were defeated in WWII partly because of outdated strategy (massing troops in forward positions, over-reliance on fortifications, inadequate air defense, etc.), and partly because of political weakness. The 1st was a flaw most World Powers had prior to WWII that France suffered most from because she was one of the 1st states attacked by Germany; the second was one which all Democratic powers suffer from time and again–1939 was just a particularly bad time for it.

    I would like to point out to all present that France nearly took over Europe in the early 1800’s (under Napoleon)and amassed an Empire (albeit briefly) that DWARFED Hitler’s–and “French Generalship” should be respected just as much as any…

    Sorry, pet peeve of mine–I am not even of French descent… 😁

    The French at the time had the largest army on Earth!

  • What I find funny was that even though America was already a world power, before WWI America had the 15th largest army in the world ranking behind Persia.

  • lol, maybe if the French had Napoleon and his 19th century armies, they would have done better against Nazi Germany.

  • In any war, Napolean would’ve done the French glory. Remember a la Legion!

  • i was being sarcastic

  • Largest Army yes, but America has always won wars by production, not by brute force. Think liberty ships.

  • What’s the difference between production and brute force? Seems to me you need a large production base in order to supplement brute force.

  • The French Army up till 1939 was considered by many to be the most powerful in the world. people were aghast when the Germans invaded the Rhineland and France did nothing. Even Hitler himself admitted that this move was a desperate gamble: the Germans did not at the time have the power or the political will to prevent the Franch from taking it back. Here is where (as previously stated) the political weakness of the French nation of the time came into play. No one was willing or able politically to stick his neck out and call for war. France was caught off guard both politically and in terms of her strategic and tactical thought. I stand by my statement that the French do not deserve to be blasted for their defeat in 1939–if everyone knew how horrendous the Nazi war machine was going to be then both England and the USA deserve a whole heap of blame as well for standing by and letting it happen. But virtually no one in high political office did…cest la vie!

    In response to Yanny, I basically agree in terms of USAs MAJOR wars (that is those on which the strength of the nation as-we-knew-it meant) if he is saying–as I think he is–we have won wars based on crushing strength of numbers and materiel, rather than (necessarily) quality of the above. I am speaking mainly of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and WWs 1 and 2. However USA has won (and lost) most of it’s smaller wars on the strength of subterfuge, political cunning, and precise use of military strength, rather than pure brute force. And one could argue that since the invention of the atomic bomb and the switch to an “all-volunteer” (that is a professional rather than citizen) armed forces, the situation today decidedly favors the latter…

    Just my opinion. Blast away…


  • I don’t know exactly what you mean by “not necessarily the quality (men and material) of the above.” In all of America’s major wars, WII particular, the quality and skill of the US Armed forces and equipment had as large as a role to play as brute force. How else can you explain America’s extremely low casualties during the war?

    [ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-20 23:00 ]

  • All true. I am just emphasising the material strength and general numbers superiority USA typically displays. I do not underestimate the quality and fighting strength of US troops–others have in the past, and they usually lose!


  • Ha. I sort of miss the time when America was the underdog in a war instead of this vast, overstrengthed military. I really do consider the American Revolution and War of 1812 the most deserving victories in America’s histroy since no one tought we could win.

  • What about Vietnam?..…GI. So much for the over strengthened military.

    [ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-21 18:49 ]

  • Well, france lost for another reason. Their tanks had this big vent in the front, I mean BIG. Well aimed grenade and goodbye tank!

    Seriously, France was old fashioned. Also, Germans blitzed through the forest which France thought was impenatrable.

  • A lot of people consider Vietnam this giant military defeat on part of the US. However, this was never a decleared war meaning that American wasn’t fully geared upped for war. Plus if you compare stats, the Americans trounced the N. Vietnamese. We lost 58,000 w/ South Vietnamese military deaths exceeded
    200,000. The North Vietnamese, our enemies, lost 1.2 million troops. However, I do believe that America went to war over all the wrong reasons (spreading of Communism). In reality, all the Vietnamese wanted was their independence from French rule.

  • How many Russain died on the eastern front compared to Germans? Who won the battle on the eastern front? Casualties are not the way to measure victories. They (the US) fought for how many years?….and your saying they werent “geared up for war”?!

  • Ever heard of the old saying that it doesn’t matter who wins or losses, just whoever takes the most of a beating. I think that principle can be applied here. As for gearing up for the war, American industry just wasn’t fully mobilized. If you compare production rates of military arms of WWII vs. the Vietnam War (and the Vietnam War lasted how many heres), you’ll see the real story.

Suggested Topics

  • 70
  • 6
  • 11
  • 3
  • 14
  • 6
  • 14
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys