I live just north of Texarkana in Arkansas, about two hours or so from Tyler and Longview. Man, I’ve been struggling to find some AA players since moving to the region. I would certainly be down for the drive to get a game going! Definitely let me know if you guys wanna get some dice rolling one day!
Posts made by Zhukov_2011
RE: Looking for Texas Players
RE: Italy and Alpha2
Italy can become a powerhouse if left completely unchecked by the Allies, but its walls are still paper thin. Knocking down Italy’s NOs is fairly easy since most of those are located at the outer peripheries of the Med. Morocco will not hold long against the US, and a UK factory in Persia (along with the one in SA) should more than threaten Italian possessions in the east Med. The only way for Italy to reinforce its holdings, without spending any of its desperately needed money on a (extremely vulnerable) minor IC, is to use transports. If the Allies do not let Gib fall, they will always be in a position to hit Italy’s fleet anywhere in the Med. As the Allies I’ve always been able to amass a large fleet in the two SZs around Gib, forcing Italy to use blockers to protect its inferior fleet (which is useless once the Americans enter the war) or forcing them to give up Africa and the Middle East completely.
In general, I believe Italy is pushed into biting off far more than what it can chew. It can become an economic monster, but it will never have the resources to hold on to its far flung and fragile empire.
RE: Sealion defense
What is the consensus on stacking the UK fleet in SZ110 on UK2 to help defend Britain?
The UK fleet after G1 should comprise a BB, two CAs, two or three DDs, and 1 loaded CV. This is a strong force and stacking it in 110 prevents the German shore bombardments and forces them to devote some of the Luftwaffe towards the naval combat. I’ve done this in a couple of games and both times Germany was still able to successfully take Britain (both times with only one land unit, though they had to take hits on their air force to save that land unit).
But sacrificing the RN in SZ 110 means Italy gets to go wild in the Med and Africa. It also gives Germany some breathing room because the the Atlantic will be devoid of any Allied warships, and it will take two turns (more if the U.S. is going hard after Japan) for the U.S. to bring some pressure to bear on German-occupied England and the Continent.
What do others think? Would it be more efficient to husband the fleet (saving it for ops against the Italian fleet, or to provide escort for U.S. transports so the U.S.'s Atlantic builds can focus on transports and land units instead of warships) or stack it in SZ 110 if a G3 Sealion seems imminent? Save the fleet to fight a weak Italy now, or sacrifice the fleet to fight a weakened Luftwaffe later?
RE: Most influential person of 19th century
The problem with egg heads like Marx is that they really don’t know what the world most people live in is like.
That’s exactly it. Communism is based on the flawed belief that people are inherently selfless creatures when, in fact, everything that comprises human society - as well as human nature itself, including the genes that make up our genetic structure - is based on self-interest. Communism was a fallacy from the get-go because its proponents did not understand the true nature of humanity.
As far as most influential person of the 1800s is concerned, I’d like to see the Emperor Meiji included. He sent Japan down the road of “Western modernization” and in the process made a new world and way of life possible for the people of Asia - an action whose consequences still ripple through our time, and will continue for many years.
RE: Hockey fan anyone?
Any updates on the come back of the Winnipeg Jets? I’ve heard some rumors about it from my parents, but I haven’t been there much since graduating high school and I’m way out of the loop. The new MTS center is pretty wicked and just begs to host an NHL team (personally, I’m not a fan of any sport involving ice skates, but it’d be a nice boost for an otherwise pretty mediocre city).
RE: Germany's wartime food supply
Kurt Godel isn’t trying to make excuses for anyone, there are none. He’s trying to explain the strategic thinking and sentiment behind the decisions that were made, so people understand them - thus not to repeat them.
I would disagree with your statement when he argues that “Most or all of the illegal killing within Germany would likely have ended once the British food blockade had been lifted” and “That a proximate cause of the decision to exterminate the Jews was the desire to reduce pressure on the food supply.” Proximate cause does not mean it was one of many causes, it means it was a sufficient enough of a cause to be the primary one. Then he suggests Britain is partly responsible for the extermination of Europe’s Jews because the English wouldn’t let them all move in. Gar, have you even been keeping up with this discussion? I’m sorry if Kurt’s one source isn’t enough to convince me that the Nazi’s killed millions because of food shortages. You claim to be a skeptical individual, but you’ll accept these arguments just like that?
He may be explaining the strategic thinking and sentiment about those decisions, but it doesn’t mean he’s right. I’m sorry if I can’t believe that Germany only built concentration camps and gas chambers to reduce pressure on the food supply. The death of up to 17 million people goes much deeper and, if it’s even possible, is more sinister than that.
But what Kurt’s really trying to push, is that sometimes with the “grey” decisions we make, like blocking food, starving people out, etc, that we need to learn the lesson, that perhaps that makes a person unconciously a monster in disguise as well.
Interesting point, but you fail to mention that Nazi Germany was a monster long before the blockade. Everything Hitler lead Germany to do before and during WWII he more or less mentioned back in 1923 in Mein Kampf. He had a plan to do these things, he didn’t need the excuse of an Allied food blockade to wage war against millions of people and systematically exterminate millions of others.
Yes, the Western Allies had their share of depravities and no one’s going to argue that Stalin was a saint. But we’re talking about what Germany did and why it did it, and I’m having trouble buying some of those arguments.
RE: Bin Laden dead
The only evidence on record that Osama is dead, is the word of a single politician. Now I believe that to be true but… If as a general world public we are supposed to wholeheartedly accept that as a fact, aren’t we in trouble? Shouldn’t we ask for proof?
Are our heads in the sand if we don’t?
I don’t know where in America you live, Gar, but that process has already begun. Do you think this country would be in the position it’s in if people actually paid attention to the government and possessed even the slightest bit of skepticism? Complacency is the order of this day.
The only reason you even know what bin-Laden looks like is because you’ve seen pictures released by the government and media outlets who say the man in the picture is indeed Osama bin-Laden. So, if they showed you a picture of a dead bin-Laden, how would you even know it was him, let alone know he was the one behind dozens of terrorist attacks? Because they told you so, that’s why. So why do you need proof of his death when you have no proof, besides what the government has said, about his role in 9/11 and other attacks? Of course, I’m not arguing against bin-Laden’s involvement in those attacks. What I’m saying is, how do you know anything the government really says is true? Do you just pick and choose?
I’m fine without seeing the picture or having his head paraded down New York. If bin-Laden’s really dead, that’s great. If he’s still kicking, it doesn’t make much difference. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups aren’t corporate-style pyramid organizations. They are loose, cell-based webs of extremists and supporters. Cut the head off of one group, and another one will grow in its place. The only way to limit the appeal of terrorism is to undermine its arguments and prove the fallacy of its leaders.
RE: Any of you guys fisherman?
How do you like kayaking? The family has been thinking about getting into the sport.
Best catch was a 10 lb albino channel cat from our three acre family lake. Took my entire 5th grade summer break but I caught the fish!
Man, I love it. I’ve got a few different types, one for playboating on Class III+ rapids, an ocean kayak and the one I just bought for the river ($200 brand new at Academy, an unbelievable deal).
They’re all very stable and much harder to tip than a canoe or a flat bottom with your 275 pound friend up front. I love the freedom of the kayak, its speed and its ability to reach places others in their bass boats can’t reach. I would definitely suggest getting the family involved in kayaking. It’s great exercise, there are few costs to enjoy a kayak besides the initial investment, and it’s a great way to see wildlife. I love to spend a weekend kayaking to some far off place, camping that night, and kayaking back, even if it’s just me out there.
AB, I would totally suggest you and the family get into kayaking, and I promise I’m not getting paid to say that. By the way, that was a nice catch, I presume it was good eating too?
Three-prong hook in the eye, eh Gar? I imagine that could be a pretty traumatic experience. Did you try using it as bait afterwards?
I like shooting as well. I’m not into hunting but hurling buckets of lead down range sure is a great way to relieve stress. But damn, ammunition has gotten so expensive in the last few years that I just can’t afford to go shooting all the time anymore. I notice fewer and fewer people at the range every time I go.