Posts made by Zero

Assumptions:
1. Allies have provided minimal material support to Russia in defending Karelia in the form of INF. Planes are okay, but INF can block this.

Basic plan.

• Germany build nearly all inf and every turn pushes its INF stacks 1 country to the right toward the Caucaus using planes to back up the inf advance.
• A German Med fleet can be used to ship INF from the factory in S.Eur to the front line thus replacing units lost as the front column advances.
• When germany takes the Caucaus on turn 4 or 5 it moves all armor to the Ukr or the Caucaus. The Japanese Airforce will land in the same territory to bolster defense of the German armor from a possible counter strike.
  -Germany now will have roughly 9 INF, 10 Arm poised to strike Moscow or 30 INF, 10 Arm to strike Karelia. If Russia attacks Germany wins in the end because you have cut the effectiveness of the Russian investment in INF in half while doubling the value of your own INF investment.

Alternately, Russia will fall back to Moscow, in which case Germany takes Karelia easily with 20+ INF remaining after the battle. With Japan advancing from the East Russia should be reduced to just Moscow and for the most part be removed from the game.

Based on Moscow’s defenses and the position of the other allies, the axis can go into containment or conquer mode to proceed to victory.

Notes:

• If the allies begin dumping large amounts of INF into Finland/Karelia, the axis should switch to trying for an economic victory. Since most of the Allied resources are being placed at the North end of the map, Africa and Asia will be weak.
• Leaving WEurope lightly defended on G3 or G4 can be a good way to lure UK or US forces away from the Karelia defense. The loss of WEur is annoying, but not critical since the capture of Karelia and the Causaus and possibly Moscow make up for the lost income.

If you like “The Hot Zone”, then make sure you read Invisible Invaders by Peter Radetsky (i think the subtitle is “the scientists who persue them”).

Sounds interesting. I’ll look for it, thanks! I find catagious disease to be a very interesting topic.

I am going to name 2 books because I can’t pick between them:

“The Hot Zone” - True to life horror about ebola and its ilk.

“The Art of War” - 'nough said.

@Deviant:Scripter:

What’s your point? It’s not big news that the U.S. has allied itself with people or countries that later turn into our enemies. Such occurences happened during WW2 with Russia. These alliances, however, HAVE BEEN NECESSARY to defeat a bigger evil. It’s all part of the game.

I still maintain my opinion that the hatred that most people feel towards America is born out of their jealously for what we have. :-?

Points:
1. What do we have in America that other people might be jealous of?
2. There are two major camps of thought on governing. The first (dominant in America) camp says: “The ends justifies the means”, the second camp says it does not. I am a member of the second camp. I believe America should treat all people with the same respect and diginity for basic human rights that it grants its own citizens. That means, not supporting dictators ever (:cough: Pakistan. :cough:) It means not saying its okay to drop Chemical weapons on our enemies (Iran), but not our friends (Kurds). etc

@city:

Geze,

In response to your claims:

A.) The largest military in the world, if unarmed, can be mowed down by machine guns.
B) We wouldn’t be invading China, merely keeping them out of a North Korean conflict.
C) The Himilayas and the desert contain about 4 FREAKIN PERCENT OF CHINA’S POPULATION!!!
D) Third largest country still loses to #1 military…
E) We sold them the nukes that they do have, so who do YOU think has MORE nukes?
F) (just a side note…) The reason that WW3 wasn’t started during the Cold War was this… if they launch nukes against US, they WILL BE DEAD IN 15 MINUTES!!! (If they are lucky)

If the U.S. attacked North Korea, then China would help to defend them. We were winning the Korean war until China helped them the last time. Our technology edge didn’t help much them. When you’re outnumbered 20 to 1 its hard to win any battle.

Points to consider:

• China shares a border with North Korea so getting material into N Korea is not an issue for China.
• The US. would have to ship everything by sea or air to south korea. That is a major disadvantage.
• China has the largest army in the world. I believe their army is bigger than the entire population of the United states. Using conventional weapons, how long do you think it would take for the US. military to kill half of all Americans. American citizens are even less trained and poorly armed than Chinese soldiers, but to kill millions is just an impossible task. The only way Saddam Hussien was able to stop the Human Wave attacks by Iran was to use chemical weapons targeted using U.S. intelligence information about Iranain troop deployments. If the U.S. resorted to weapons of mass destruction in an attack on North Korea, you can kiss Tokyo goodbye.

Isn’t is ironic that we condemn Saddam Hussien for using chemical weapons against the Kurds, but not against the Iranians? Probably because we would have to admit publicly that we told Hussien where to drop them. Keep scrubbing noble America, those darn blood stains will come off your hands eventually. :oops:

@Deviant:Scripter:

well, 'cept for in America where they do not even know what goes on in the world

A’hem… :evil: I hardly doubt that anyone else in the world really understands us either. Most of the world’s opinion about us is formed out of jealously. :-?

Actually, that’s not true. Most of the hatred toward America in the rest of the world is because we treat non-americans so poorly. How many dictatorships exist soley because of U.S. backing of that dictator? Saddam Hussien used to be one of our best allies because he fought against Iran. Now he’s refusing to be our puppet so we want him out.

Iran was our enemy because when the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah to install a democracy, we helped the Shah overthrow the fledgling democracy and remain a tyrant. Ironic that America would overthrow a democracy, but I guess cheap oil for U.S. citizens comes before freedom for non-Americans. Of course as a consequence of our actions to maintian the Shah, militant Islam rose to power in Iran and overthrew the Shah. Remember the Iranian hostages? Didn’t you ever wonder why they targeted the U.S embassy. Its because we backed that bastard the Shah. We were getting what we deserved. Oh, but in America the media was all “Why is this happening to us.” “poor us” “Muslims are bad” … Puh-lease

Consider the following possible scenario…

• Russia, China, or France veto the Iraq resolution.
• Bush decides to attack Iraq and begins collecting forces in the gulf
• Iran begins moving forces to its border with Iraq to “secure the border” for the upcoming US invasion.
• The US attacks Iraq. Initial bombing is messy, the bulk of Iraqi forces are in urban centers. Ground forces are needed.
• US commits ground forces to Iraq.
• China invades Taiwan claiming the US military hardware sold to Taiwan is a serious threat to Mainland China. A preventive/defensive strike is warranted by China for the same reasons the U.S. is invading Iraq.
• Iranian forces cross the Iraqi border. Iran claims it is crossing the border to provide humanitarian relief to innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict. The Iranian troops are there simply to provide security for Iranian humanitarian relief workers and Iraqi citizens who might otherwise be terrorized by elements of Saddams military. It is noted however that Iranian military forces seem to be focused on diffing in around eastern Iraqi oil fields.

I think if it escalated to that proportion, then we’d have to make some serious alliances. That above scenario would be grounds for a world-class war, not simply an American war.

Alliances with whom? We already declared Iran to be part of the “Axis of Evil”. Do you really think they are just going to sit there while we kick Iraqs ass, and we keep hinting “You’re next!”. The U.S. forced would be screwed if Iran attacked us in Iraq. But as I suggested above, they would more likely take control of Iraq oil fields under a pretext of humanitarian relief. If the U.S. killed any Iranains you can be sure it would be a catalyst for mobilising the Arab world against the U.S. If America launches an attack on Iraq without U.N. support, then it is a U.S. only war. The NATO treaty does not allow our allies to help us invade other countries.

2 Germ Bombers are in WE

How is this possible after G1? There is no IC in WEur.

I don’t think Japan is being aggressive enough on the mainland. I also have doubts about Germany building a fleet of 3 Aircraft carriers. ACs are for defense and air mobility. Does Germany really need either of those abilities to maximize its performance for this strategy?

Consider the following possible scenario…

• Russia, China, or France veto the Iraq resolution.
• Bush decides to attack Iraq and begins collecting forces in the gulf
• Iran begins moving forces to its border with Iraq to “secure the border” for the upcoming US invasion.
• The US attacks Iraq. Initial bombing is messy, the bulk of Iraqi forces are in urban centers. Ground forces are needed.
• US commits ground forces to Iraq.
• China invades Taiwan claiming the US military hardware sold to Taiwan is a serious threat to Mainland China. A preventive/defensive strike is warranted by China for the same reasons the U.S. is invading Iraq.
• Iranian forces cross the Iraqi border. Iran claims it is crossing the border to provide humanitarian relief to innocent Iraqi civilians caught in the conflict. The Iranian troops are there simply to provide security for Iranian humanitarian relief workers and Iraqi citizens who might otherwise be terrorized by elements of Saddams military. It is noted however that Iranian military forces seem to be focused on diffing in around eastern Iraqi oil fields.

?? What does the U.S. do now ??

The answer depends on the U.K. strategy and the overall Allied strategy for the game.

If the U.K plans to fight for control of Africa, then you can move the Syria Iraq INF into Egypt, and transport the troops and plane from India to Egypt. If you sink the German fleet turn 1 you will have enough to take back and hold Africa. The U.S. has to pick up the slack in Asia though.

Alternately, you can concede Egypt to Germany, and use the India transport to haul the Egypt and Syria INF to India, the Egypt tank can blitz to Persia and reach india UK2. This strategy assumes that either UK or US will invade Africa from the West to oust the Germans.

Personally, I think Microsoft is a monopoly, and that is against the law. I don’t agree with the law, I don’t see how being one is illegal, it IS a law and Microsoft IS breaking the law.

Actually, its not illegal to be a monopoly. There are many monopolies in existence today. e.g., Just try to buy, in America at least, fabric dye not made by RIT. American Anti-trust law says that a company with a monopoly may not use that monopoly to gain marketshare in other markets. You don’t see RIT using its monopoly on fabric dyes to gain market share in Textile/clothing markets.

Microsoft used its monopoly in Operating Systems to extend its monopoly to web browsers and Office Suites. That’s why Microsoft is in trouble.

Seems to me, the statement:

“Do <blank>Have a Right to Representation? Some Think Not.”

It has always been true, and always will be true. Put anything you like in place of <blank>. The key here being the word “Some”. No matter who you are someone, somewhere, hates you and wishes you ill. I’m sure someone even hated Mother Theresa. :cry:</blank></blank>

Earthquakes are not evil

---

Death is not evil. Death happens, we can’t live forever. Something uncontrollable is not evil, it just is not a great thing to have around.

These things are not evil only if they do not have a creator/agent. God as the creator of the universe is responsible for all deaths caused by natural disasters. He is guilty of mass murder or at the very least manslaughter.

Why would this Omnipotent God allow the Devil to exist?

He wouldn’t.

Hi,

Sorry, I’ve been MIA. Thanks for the responses. FinsterniS is correct in intepreting what I was trying to say. To summarize and beat the dead horse one more time:

There is evil in the universe not created by man (i.e., earthquakes, etc.)
There is evidence that such evils are not a necessary requirments for the existence of earth. (i.e., its possible to concieve of an earth free of earthquakes.)
If God exists, and he is all powerful and good, then why would he create an earth with evil traits?
God is either not all powerful, or not good.

Sorry, if my argument is clumsy its been a long time since I studied formal reasoning, and I haven’t been practicing it as much I probably should in day to day life :oops:

Hi, sorry for jumping in so late on this one, but I have been reading the thread as its grown. I just want to toss out a question:

If God exists and it created the Earth, us and everything else, then why do we have earthquakes? There is no tectonic activity on either the Moon or Mars. So God must be able to create planets that do not have quakes. Earthquakes have killed countless people over the centuries and caused tremendous physical damage to cities, etc.

If God is good, then we would not have earthquakes. We have earthquakes. Planets exist that do not have earthquakes. Therefore God is either evil, not omnipotent, or does not exist at all.

Thanks,

For Japan First:

• Russia moves all armor to Nov. and stacks infantry on Karelia and Yakut.

• Having the Armor in Nov allows counter strikes in all directions on R2.

• Russia lands 1 ftr in india, and 1 ftr in Sinkaing.

• UK build a IC in India and leaves Eqypt/syria using the tranport to bring infantry to India.

• Assuming Japan fails to take Sinkaing, the US will build an IC there turn 1.

The US will buy 2 tanks per turn for the Japan effort, and put all other effort into liberating Africa.

The U.K puts all effort into Asia, buying 3 tanks and plane every round. Send the planes to India via Karelia to help the Russian on defense.

Russian holds out against Germany and Launches an attack in coordination with the other Allies to 1 - 2 - 3 punch Japan off the mainland before Japan can respond. Usually turn 3 or 4. Produce allied aircraft to sink any Japanese boats, and Japan is effectively defeated/contained. Now turn all available resources to killing Germany and taking berlin.

I think there is one time when building an IC on turn 1 is a good move for Japan.

If the allies are going all out on Germany and ignoring Japan completely. By this I mean that the U.K. withdraws from India to Egypt, then I think that Japan should buy an IC and a transport, and place the IC in Kwangtung. There is are enough infantry on the surrounding islands to max out 3 transports for turn 2. The Japanese airforce is sent to Europe to bolster the German defenses, and is replaced offensively with tanks from Kwangtung.

Greaaaattt… I hate questions without any right “answers,” but I wasn’t that off with “Mr. Zero.”

Did somebody say my name? 8)

Of course if you want an answer, I like to call upon a little friend I like to call, “Mr. Zero.” Case closed!

I’m glad someone believes in my abilities. :oops:

Sorry, couldn’t resist the play on my name.

Planes need to fly round trip starting and ending in a friendly land territory or landing on an air craft carrier.

Planes can not land on territories just captured.

A plane has 4 movement points, so it can attack a zone up to 2 spaces away and land back where it started.

Alternately. The plane could attack a zone 1 or 3 spaces away, and then move 3 or 1 spaces respectiviely to a different location. A plane does not need to use all of its movement points you could attack an area 1 space away and return 1 space moving only 2.

Bombers are like fighters except they have 6 movement points so they can go farther.

To attack with a plane move it to the area to attack during combat movement. Remember where the plane came from so you know how many movement points it has left. If the plane survives the battle, then during the non-combat movement phase you must use the remaining movement points of the plane to land in a friendly territory that was not just captured in the combat phase.

If you don’t wish to fight with a plane, then just move it in the non-combat movement phase only.

If a plane passes over or into an area with an AA gun during combat movement, then the AA gun gets a single shot at 1 to try and hit the plane. AA guns do not get to fire at planes during non-combat movement.

I agree with Zero on all his comments except on the above regarding battleships.

Battleships are allowed their special one shot only if they were not involved in a naval battle. If the battleship is present in the same SZ as a naval battle, it has to participate (just like any attacking transports present). After the naval battle, the battleship’s turn is done and it cannot fire its special one shot onto the land battle.

Wild2000 is right. Silly me. That’s a house rule we have that Battleships can participate in both battles. Silly me.