Why was my ANZAC thread deleted?

I hate to break this to you but the term ANZAC actually doesn’t apply to WWII era Australia and New Zealand. It goes for the term in WWI, however to somewhat contradict this statement; there was an ANZAC corp giving by the UK to a combine unit in Greece. So it did exist in small numbers but as far as the strategic use of it, Australia and New Zealand never combined their arms into one military in WWII. With that said, I don’t think you can find an ANZAC roundel for WWII as I am guessing each nation would use whatever their roundel would be.

Thanks for explanations IL.

@Red:

@Young:

How about the fact that new conscripts will come to this thread and see many members arguing about the problems of this site? Leaving this thread up only makes A&A.org look bad to new members. Besides, if anything it should be moved… it has nothing to do with G40.

You’ve been pretty eager to fling insults my way in it (you might call it slinging “feces”) rather than contributing to identifying the problem.  You know what, I’m happy to leave it as it is.  Your second post in this thread suggested you feel the same way, leave 'em be, work things out, rather than deleting the thread.

And yes, it does have to do with G40 as that was what the improperly deleted thread was about.

Hint: The thread will sink on its own soon enough since the problem that created it has been rectified.

This thread was created at the occasion of an issue on a thread of the G40 forum.
To reach the people reading this G40 thread it was sound, to put it in this forum.
However, now the issue has been resolved (clearly not to the satisfaction of everyone), this thread should go in his real category:
it is a thread about an issue on the G40 forum, not about G40 A&A game.

I think it should go in this forum:
Website/Forum Discussion

Should it be erase? For transparency, I don’t think.
This thread reflect the reality as it is, that’s all.
There is an issue of real interest,
a more or less civil debate,
but nonetheless a 2 sides debate rising arguments,
and mod and admin have to decide, on this specific matter.

The only problem is about the title of the thread, which I find on a too individual level.
I see no reason to keep a thread as an explicit grudge against another member.

However, there is still an on going personal matter as the lasts posts showed, more or less directly.
So, it is up to you people.

(And all the forum politics the Mod had to apply in this case.)

3 boats a turn on the Atlantic side or the pacific side?

Pacific.  He was speaking of the type of Navy that could get built up between Anzac and US with a late DOW.  Without pulling guys from the Atlantic, US can’t put a ton of guys on the Pacific in those first 3 turns.  Just to match the Japan Navy the US needs 2 more carriers, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.  That’s  60 ipcs.  In my opinion, US needs more navy since they need to be the attackers.  That would require neglecting the atlantic almost entirely (which isn’t an awful idea depending on how good the German player is).  That also doesn’t take into account that Japan buys a Carrier and can load it without spending the 20-21 ipcs for fighters.  The Naval bases also allow for 3 more fighters to defend if used correctly.

Sorry, my bad.  :-D

I will get a mod to change the name of the thread.

I know my brother didn’t after I took the solomans killed his navy and left some subs to convoy his ass.

Yes that is my bad, i forgot we were play testing a house rule at the time.