Get the Brit Inf back in Egypt and a Russian Bomber for 2nd Edition

[Gargantua]

I don’t see any links to your claims IL?

Unlike my CLEARLY posted information.  Until then your claim is a bold lie, and aninsult to everyone here who contributed to the Alpha 3 Project.

I’m also not your DOG, so I will encourage you to refrain from barking orders at me about “do this” - “don’t do that”.  I’m not going to do what you request one way or the other, and it only serves to derail threads and make you look like a bafoon. It’s pre-adolescent behavior on your part.

All that said, thank you for giving me credit where credit is due, per the creation of phrases and words I have invented. I really appreciate it.

[Young Grasshopper]

“Get your paws off me you filthy ape”

-Charlton Heston, planet of the apes

[Young Grasshopper]

@Young:

“Get your paws off me you filthy ape”

-Charlton Heston, planet of the apes

Sorry, wrong forum.

[Imperious Leader]

All that said, thank you for giving me credit where credit is due, per the creation of phrases and words I have invented. I really appreciate it.

You know it is somewhat entertaining to read the junk you post. Now it’s just boring because a 2nd grade education can only have limited creative retorts. I have decided to respond in a new fashion. But before that let me clear up the spelling for you…

I don’t see any links to your claims IL?

Unlike my CLEARLY posted information.  Until then your claim is a bold lie, and aninsult to everyone here who contributed to the Alpha 3 Project.

I’m also not your DOG, so I will encourage you to refrain from barking orders at me about “do this” - “don’t do that”.  I’m not going to do what you request one way or the other, and it only serves to derail threads and make you look like a bafoon. It’s pre-adolescent behavior on your part.

All that said, thank you for giving me credit where credit is due, per the creation of phrases and words I have invented. I really appreciate it.

Here is the correct spelling:
buffoon not bafoon
aninsult= and an insult

Also, If i produce the link you can’t ever reply to any post i ever made in any form direct or indirect…ok?

If you are man enough to agree to that term, I’m prepared to provide the link. Now here is that reply.

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. Some background is in order: I find that some of The troll Gargantua’s choices of words in its doctrines would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted “merciless” for “anatomicophysiologic” and “irresponsible” for “syncategorematically.” The troll Gargantua says that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they’re not caused by The troll Gargantua itself). The inference is that the worst types of callow malingerers there are have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. I’m happy to report that I can’t follow that logic. I’ll now end this letter by reminding you that only by striving to scrap the entire constellation of tyrannical ideas that brought us to our present point can I create a world in which privatism, totalitarianism, and Pyrrhonism are all but forgotten. That may not be the profoundest of insights to take away from such a long letter, but The troll Gargantua’s uninformed, loopy rejoinders create alleged excuses for all forms of wrongdoing.

[Young Grasshopper]

Any chance you guys could work this out in the private message forum?

[Gargantua]

Don’t you know?

Being the party that always takes the higher road, I’ve tried that before, and it’s ‘expressly forbidden’.

[Imperious Leader]

Don’t you know?

Being the party that always takes the higher road, I’ve tried that before, and it’s ‘expressly forbidden’.

He is forbidden from doing that and he does it anyways, so much for integrity. Notice who started the problem yet again ( who replied to whom and how first). He is a true bottom feeder :roll:

Notice that he dropped the 'link" issue because he lost there too.

[Young Grasshopper]

IMO, it only matters who’s idea it was if Larry acually listened, and put a Russian bomber in the new set up. Instead, he ignored the suggestion that you two are arguing over.

[gliven]

Quit your B itch in and get back on topic. Do i have to put you two in a corner until class is over? Every topic you two happen to grace us with words there is a dumb, VERY dumb argument that does not even matter. Do it privately, or not at all. No one cares. I don’t want to have to read through your childish rants to each other every time someone starts a new topic. We get it, IL is a pompous pseudo intellectual, and Garg is a wiseass. No more rants!

[Noll]

Hey Garg, ask Djensen if you can put “wiseass” as your forum title lol

But yeah, you two really like eachother.

[Zhukov44]

The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers.  The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea.  Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.

That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.

[Imperious Leader]

I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London

They should have a rule for no Soviet pieces in her allies territories and vice versa. Stalin would never allow either to happen and didnt.

[cond1024]

I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?

[oztea]

IL is correct on that issue.

Any major house rule package for 1940 has to have rules that treat the USSR as an independent faction.

The only cooperation would be lend/lease, and the western allies would be able to turn of the faucet if the USSR doesn’t play along with their agenda.
On that note….the rules must also allow for the USSR to have the option to annex neutrals, or other allied territories, if it goes rouge, and collect IPCs that way, instead of through lend lease National Objectives.

[Imperious Leader]

Righto my comrade.

The tradeoff is lend lease, which for whatever reason the game made it into one of the Soviet NO’s

Id rather have them get something better than 5 IPC a turn ( perhaps about 10 IPC) and total prohibition of Soviet mix with UK/USA land and air units.

Soviets should have separate victory conditions from UK/ USA along with THE AXIS. Germany and Italy were bound fates, Japan had their own goals not related to what Europe was doing.

Thats the only major flaw in the game at this point. I support those changes along with Russian Bomber and UK Infantry

[Gargantua]

I’ve always advocated that Global 1940 should have been called Axis, Allies, and Comintern.  With 3 distinct parties vying for victory [2 parties not in open conflict obviously, but always watching the balance;)]

[lozmoid]

Axis, Allies, and Comintern

I quite like that idea.

[oztea]

Well, someone whip up some house rules then….

[questioneer]

@Zhukov44:

The only thing I don’t like about a Russian bomber is if it ends up in London, it becomes increasingly problematic for Germany to use naval blockers.  The intended effect of strengthening Russia on land might end up weakening Germany at sea.  Maybe adding 2 armor to Russia would be a better solution.

That said, the changes suggested would lead to a more balanced game.

True, but remember, that bomber can’t get to London before turn 3 or 4 or whenever Germany attacks them first which isn’t until round 3-4.  2 tanks makes little impact in respect to the dozens of land stacks between Germany and Russia that are built in the Eastern front.  Thats 2 tanks out of scores of land units versus one bomber that can make more of a dent which is what is needed for the Allies to gain some equality over the long run.

[questioneer]

@cond1024:

I agree that no more changes should be made, but I am curious as to why adding a Russian bomber magically balances the game?

Not saying it does but it bring you a lot closer than the 6-10 IPC bids we are seeing consistently now.  Out of several little tweeks to help try to reach equality the Russian bomber makes the most sense.  It can balance and it is a unit people orginally wanted to see included.  All major powers have one except Russia.

It is also the most intriguing option b/c of what you can do with it.  In a Barbarossa, it can pick off key targets help Russian ground units in several ways.  In a Sealion, watch out!!!, Russia can build a second one!!!  A good tradeoff along with the Africa $$$ from the NO for losing a vital partner in the Allies (UK- London).

When this idea came up briefly near the end of the Alpha+3 project people were salivating at the idea.  Unfortunately and regretfully, I shot it down b/c I thought it would give Allies too much strength.  Now after playing and watching other games, it is clear that the Russian bomber would help and satisfy many players who not only want to see the piece entered in the game but also regain the best balance possible.  It piece’s placement on Moscow at the beginning of the game is also very intriguing- oops, I think I already mentioned that. :-D