Posts made by BigBlocky

NK could inflict a few 100, 000 deaths in the first few hours by just using their conventional artillery. It would take 2-3 months before the ‘allies’ had enough forces to mount a full scale invasion of the north.

F_alk, you equate the US propaganda of the 50, 60s and some comments from regean when he thought was off mike with what is going on in NK? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such stupid comparisons? Anybody who has a clue as to what is going on in NK would snear at that comparison.

BB

Why don’t you try PBEM? It’s not as fast as real time but it does open up the door to a different set of challengers. You might only get 1 set of contires played per day if you are lucky but, with extra time you face very well thought out attacks and a deep game by the opponent.

The computer AI is brutal as are most AIs. The only reason a computer can now beat a chess player is that the computer can look at about 100 million moves per second so can play out all move combinations 8 moves ahead. Since there are way less legal chess moves then legal Axis and Allies moves a computer can’t ‘think’ deeply.

An invasion of England requires some deep thought. I built 4 FTRs, am I further ahead? Nope, move 1 over. Move 2 build 2 CVs, am I further ahead, hell no, bad branch don’t think ahead but even if I do…. Move 4, build 5 transports, am I further ahead, hell heck no. Move 5invade england and win. Obviously it is far harder, by move 2 or 3 ahead of the current one the computer tries building a navy and sees no immediate benefit and thus doesn’t investigate this branch further.

BB

I think CC might be onto something here. It’s been 17 years since I played the original Axis and Allies game by Nova, but I could have sworn we had to have twice as many transports as we do now because we couldn’t ‘bridge’. Mind you, we also played that you needed a transport to get from Egypt to Syria.

Everything under page 16 ‘transport movement’ is under the umbrella of combat movement. So, you can (load, move, move unload) as easily as (move, move, load, unload) as easily as (load, unload). You can even (load, move, move) or (move, move) but if you do either then the transport is finished and cannot then do any loading or unload just as surly as if it had unload 1 of 2 INF for combat, ie, it could then NOT unload the other INF during non-combat movement.

You could load a transport during combat, as long as it does not move it has not moved, it seems a tautology but it bears repeating. Loading is not moving and if it has not moved it has not moved.

So, if it ain’t combat movement then obviously you turn to page 21, Section 6 for Naval units. For any transports that have not moved the following applies: Anything that falls into this category {Empty transports, transports loaded with cargo} can be moved to friendly coastal territories to either load or unload.

This allows 4 potentially legal combinations:

A) Empty transport can load
B) Empty transport can unload (Can be safely ruled out)
C) transports loaded with cargo can load (Well, if it has 1 INF sure, 1 more INF)
D) transports loaded with cargo can unload. (Sounds good to me.)

Nowhere does it say you can load AND unload during combat movement except under combat movement when bridging is described. Since they give an example of bridging while NOT moving during non-combat it must be legal.

BB

This is from the AAMC faq:

http://www.aamc.net/faq.shtml

1.31
Q: Can I load units onto a transport in the combat movement phase even though these units will not be involved in combat?
A: Yes, you may load units onto a transport during the combat movement phase regardless if they are to be used in combat or not. These units can enter the transport, be used in an amphibious assault, remain on board, or leave during the non combat movement phase. If any of these units are to be used in combat, you must specifically declare which units will be used and where. Units going aboard a transport must do so prior to any naval battle taking place in the sea zone. (AAMC FAQ)

Well, not related, but on the avalonhill website under AA Europe:

http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axiseurope

Can two units in a single transport unload in two different territories during Non-combat Movement if both are adjacent to the same sea zone?
No. A transport can unload into only one territory.

http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=faq/axis
Can a transport unload two infantry into two different territories?
Yes, but only during noncombat movement. Both territories need to be adjacent to the same sea zone.

Laststrike, the examples you give are of load, move/load, then unload. We are talking, move, move, load, unload, a subtle, perhaps irrelevant detail.

I’m curious, if you can move 2 then load/unload, why do they waste so much effort on the concept of ‘bridging’? If you can move 2 territories and load/unload as no big deal, then why is it a big deal if you don’t move at all and load/unload?

So, you have to discount the special reference to bridging, you have to treat the meaning of ‘or’ differently, you have to disregard the meaning of either and there are no examples to support moving 2 spaces and bridging during non-combat, and yet I am the one ‘interpreting’ the rules? Really?

I’ll admit that is the way I play. But I for one will never claim everything I do is right.

BB

I wonder just who is interpreting rules here? I’m not the one changing the meaning of ‘or’. Besides, the usage of either is also used.

If I were to say either you are right or wrong it is the same as saying you can either load or unload. So, you are right AND you are wrong because you want to load AND unload.

Indeed. Either I am right or you are wrong. smirk Couldn’t help it.

Hey, if a million lemmings want to march off a cliff then I am all for it, march on lemmings, I’m with you.

If the Jag is right that we treat ‘or’ not as a boolean but as a union then why does the rule book use the word either if they really meant both when they used or in the algebraic sense rather than the literal usage?

BB

Yeah, I can buy that. But…… For the Jap player to really shine they have to go into Africa with fleet almost always. That is the tricky part. When you do this it interferes with the normal push of infantry via transports. Do you purchase more transports or an IC?

The problem is a newbie might make an error early, with german this is generally more fatal. Mind you, I doubt anybody would let a newbie do something catastrophic.

BB

I’m in the middle of a PBEM game right now so after I post my moves I check for new posts and I usually just stay logged in until it kicks me out. Gotta love cable modems!

BB

laststrike, I to did research on the topic, and there really is no conversation on it one way or the other. The rule book states either, the meaning of the word is clear. I’ll accept that nobody has brought it up in AAMC, but to say AAMC has ruled on this I don’t think is accurate. I do play that way as AAMC seems to, it doesn’t imply we are both right.

Suprise, suprise I still don’t agree. I’d say of the 2 axis nations Japan is the harder. Yeah the german initial move is tough, so lay that out for the newbie, perhap suggest round 2 moves, but within a few rounds Germany is more straight forward then Russia, granted, the game can unfold many ways depending on play style.

Usually, Germany starts off complicated but gets simple, once a newbie grasps what can hit western europe, germany and eastern europe all he has to do is build infantry and cover those 3 territories say by round 3-4.

By the latter rounds the Japs are huge and might be a bit daunting for a newbie. For the Axis, the game often hinges on the Germans holding tight while the Japs do something to break the game open.

In my games the Brits often do more attacking than anyone else, I use them to attrit the Japs. I try to preserve the US and russians so they have a potent 1-2 punch against the Germans. In this sense, both the US and Brits are equally tough to play for a newbie.

I guess it boils down to how the game will develop with the newbie.

BB

Those I’d image are pretty standard chips. I’ve been playing with blue chips as 10 for oh geez, 15 years. I actually have like 6-7 colours. I have no idea where we got them from. I’m sure a hobby store might have some.

BB

Well, playing the allies solo in a game that went 26 rounds with Darth is good for almost 100 posts! That and I have a big mouth :wink:

BB

You could argue quality over quantity!

BB

I agree, time for an update. Our ranking has fallen from #5 to #14. We need more gaming and less forum I think! Or, way more gaming and the same forum at least.

BB

Why was Ghandi illogical? Fight the brits and be killed or do it another way and live. You say the latter is illogical and the former is logical? Oh this must be one of those moments when you introduce a spurious argument. Got ya. Ignore point as it is spurious.

I am not sure what you are saying on the mission statement and overkill. I guess you are equating on one side the US position of “If russia nukes us, we nuke them back and utterly destroy them”, the MAD doctrine. On the other side is the policy of NK to lie to their people about history and have as their mission statement the reunification of SK with NK by military force with of course NK as the ultimate ruler. This is the same ruler who has stared millions of people. Yep, I can see how the two are the same pret’near. Oh this is one of your spurious arguments AGAIN isn’t it? You stinker you! Right, Ignore your point again.

Tell me F_alk, I’m a bit new at this game, what parts of your post were actually serious?

OK, KIM wants to stay in power, I can agree with that. He is insance, we both agree to that. He knows a war would be lost with the US? Are you sure he beleives he couldn’t fight and win a war, by say inflicting a few 100 thousand casualties and force some sort of armistance at the end of his nuclear missles? Do you think when NK says they are willing to sell nukes they are kidding? NK just got busted for selling heroine in Australia, a state sponsored act! Oh this is one of your silly moments YET AGAIN, you TRICKSTER F_alk!!! You are so sneaky when introducing your spurious arguments. :lol:

BB

I seem to have a hard time reading emotions and intents into those little faces. So that’s a twinkle in my eye smilee face and that means a bit of truth and presumably the balance that wasn’t a bit of truth was mostly lies then? Damn boolean logic makes things rather black and white for me often. So, I’ve made my notes.

Perhaps nothing is a waste of time, but I’d prefer to concentrate on non-spurious arguments. I mean why waste your time with spurious ‘debates’ when the topic at hand is actually much more interesting. It is my experience when people concentrate on spurious debate rather than the topic at hand it is often do to a weak or indefensible position. I suppose something might be gotten from a debate on the merits of ritual child murder say, but I have better things to do. :-? :o :wink: :roll: :P

BB

I totally agree with haxorboy. Besides, why does Japan have to get bogged down with India again? Sure, they don’t get the income from India for sure, perisia and syria aren’t easily taken by japan either. Hmm, 5 IPC in income prevention is what the IC in India gets you.

The Japs flow forces to Burma via transport than the brits so they can create a safe island and take/re-take the 2 US territories each round. With lots of air power the japs win the attrition war. They will continue to get bigger and stronger, then when Germany is ready they can both move up against Russia. The japs can leave a few INF behind, go nuts brits, scoop up all the territories you want because once Russia falls all those territories will easily be retaken.

For 5 IPC of income prevention you accomplish you trade the ability to have an offensive punch in Karelia. Now you must defend India, Moscow and Karelia. Frankly, Don should be ashamed of himself for the IC in India ploy.

BB

DS, during the gulf war, if Iraq had thousands of artillery pieces that could rain down 500,000 shells per hour and were dug into the sides of mountains and if all those shells could rain down on a city of 10 million don’t you think the predictions of 100 of thousands of casualties would have been true in say the first hour?

The US war plans DO call for 3/4 of a million troops. Who else could send any troops that would matter? The French, Germans, Canadians? Would the UN step in? If you put troops in that didn’t have the right communication equipment to integrate with the US forces they might as well not be there.

As for the first wave…. there would be about a million in the first wave against 35 thousand US soldiers.

They don’t need to use a nuke to start the war, they have about 17, 000 artillery pieces that can rain 1/2 a million shells per hour into the south.

As for their untested ballistic missles, yeah, the ones that can hit continental US are untested. The missles that can hit Japan are called Scuds, NK makes them and sells them and they work pretty good for nukes or bio/chem weapons.

Why would NK attack first you ask F_alk? Why did they attack first before? Because their leader is insane. Why do their leaders teach their citizens that S. Korea is controlled by the imperial US forces? Did you know that the mission statement of the north is to conqour the south by armed conflict?

So, you have an insane leader who starves millions of his own people, convinces them that the US is trying to conqour the other half of Korea, runs a regime that has invaded the south before, has nukes, threatens not only to use them but to sell them on the open market.

With all this you try to apply logic and reason? North Korea is not Denmark and the leader is not Ghandi. This is a sad but good example of how wars end up being fought because of 1 crazy person. Sad.

BB

I have no doubt all news media have some angle, they are all owned by somebody. But to compare favourably the journalistic integrity of Al-Jazeera to Fox or CNN is to err. I don’t think the only difference between fox and Al-Jazeera is who pays whom. This statement of your F_alk is one of the reasons why I generaly don’t want to read your posts. You state some things I can agree with then you follow it up with, quite frankly, one of the most stupid comments you could make. Do you really think that is the only difference? If so, I have no choice but to conclude you are an idiot. I don’t think you do believe this however and I know you are not an idiot. So I wonder out loud why you would say such a thing? Do you make wild alligations often so people have to waste their time deflecting them? Just curious.

BB

I still don’t see how the Japs can get 40 IPC after turn #1. I love it when people say “such and such a country should do this” and yet never show how it is done. Well I think the US should just invade Japan and then they win, but then again the Japs should just invade India and Australia and then they win, except the brits will build subs and crush the Japs so really they win. Makes best attempt to keep a serious look on his face

BB