Playable Nations in 1914

Another evasive answer. Of course if the Revolution happens too early to be balanced then it happened to early to be balanced, but that is NOT the same as saying that if the Revolution happens before turn X (IN A GAME YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN) then it cannot be balanced.

I’m not talking about or care about your ideas and stop talking about mine.

I will reprhase the question.

Is EVERY potential World War I game (not talking about the one you already made, talking about all possible games) automatically balance-doomed if the Russian Revolution and the US entry are allowed to happen before the turns that represent the start of those events in reality (whichever turns correspond to early-mid 1917)?

IN cases where this is possible, the economics and the setup are not historical. Ours is based on data regarding the economic capabilities on all belligerents. The CP are constantly facing increasing pressure to win, they can’t wait it out and they have limited strikes they can make to win. Other games that allow this will not be realistic or give the CP too many units to compensate for early entry.

Stop trying to force your game’s rules on everyone else by declaring anyone else idea’s impossible. It’s one thing to say yours are better (opinion), it quite another to do what you are doing by saying that everything that other people put out is impossible and could never work in a game for which we have hardly any specific detail (ignorant fallacy). The inability to consider ideas other than your own as even POSSIBLY viable is what is really childish.

Then stop responding to me. You started this. I have my opinion and experience and stop arguing against it. You can do whatever you want. Spend $80K and make your own game. ok?

What does the board look like for this game coming out? How many territories? What exactly are the victory conditions? What are the unit statistics? What is the income of each country? How are units produced? Are there convoy rules? If so, how do they work? What does each unit cost? How many territories are on the Western Front? Are there any special rules for Italy/Ottomans? How important is Serbia?

You will find out in due time, but i have reposted sections of the rules. If i told you anything you would start new arguments so why bother.

How can you say what can POSSIBLY work and not work if you don’t know all of these answers? I shudder to assess the quality of your “experience” with the other game where, if you acted during that one as you do now, you probably were trying to boss the other players into doing what you wanted during testing so your ideas of “balance” would be “proven.” In fact, the way you are acting now, I wouldn’t be surprised if this testing group was just you playing with yourself.

OH boy. Nice

You say that the revolution must not happen before turn 10. Prove how this game that is coming out will be busted if it is allowed to happen in turn 9. Or 8. Or 6. Otherwise, you have no ground to stand on in saying that only your dogmatic assertion will work.

When you buy it you can start off with the US forces already in Brittany on turn one. You can even buy a giant stuffed animal and knock down the pieces. Do whatever you like I dont care.

Different powers enter the war at different times from game to game of Global. The reason that that is not imbalanced is because the balancing took into account these variable entries. Yet somehow it is impossible for a WWI game to take into account variable entries, especially when we know that this game will be much smaller and therefore easier to comprehend what changes do to balance? Asinine.

Different powers enter the war at different times from game to game of Global. When they enter is entirely dependent on whether the axis feel it is too their advantage.  The reason that that is balanced is because the balancing took into account these fixed entries. Yet somehow it is impossible for a WWI game to take into account fixed entries, especially when we know that this game will be much smaller and therefore easier to comprehend what changes do to balance? Aspirin.

PS It’s hilariously ironic and hypocritical of you to tell me to “stop arguing and just contribute”:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game.  Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

So someone wants to contribute their idea of having Japan, China, and the Bolsheviks, but you say that that should not be in the game. Somehow you will come up with some lame excuse about how you saying that people’s ideas should not be in the game in NOT arrgumentative, but that my saying that ideas like the variable entry idea are possible and can be good for the game is argumentative.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 05:28:24 pm
Quote
Would Britain have gone to war if Germany had avoided Belgium? Not certain.

What if Germany had not even attacked France?

At the very least, offer a number of scenarios leaving the possibility of unhistorical results.

American entry was based on so many factors that it is ridiculous to make it mandatory on turn X.  Instead, each side should be able to influence it in various ways. It will always be likely, but if you make it and its date certain where’s the game?

The only way to make a balanced game is to allow Historical developments at specific times, not variable. American entry was assured after the Zimmerman note no need to figit with what happened. If it does not add to the game it does not need a place in the game. Axis and Allies is a broadstroke of History put in a game. It’s not supposed to account for every single incidental because these types of rules bog down an otherwise good game.

Before I even enter the thread, you are arguing with people that are trying to contribute their ideas. You attack me for “coming after you” when I have merely been providing rebuttals to posts you have made criticizing and declaring “bad for the game” others’ ideas (ideas which I happen to think can take the franchise to a new level of creativity). I like the idea of triggered entry, and I was supporting those who proposed some version of it. I will continue to do so as long as you say that is automatically bad for any WWI game and saying that your idea is the only good one. You should probably start your own axis and allies website where you can delete the ideas of anyone who doesn’t like your ideas better than their own. Then all the posts would be your ideas or people saying that they like them. You would be so happy, I’d imagine.

I am contributing by saying that your ideas are not the only possible ones, and that it’s unreasonable that you dismiss people’s ideas from a game  that we know little about as imposssible. You don’t know everything about Axis and Allies. No one does. Get over it and realize that other people can have good ideas too.

How do you know that they don’t already have a system that allows variable entry and works?

Regardless of whether the actual Revolution system in the game that comes out looks like yours, mine, anyone else’s or no one else’s, the fact that you continue to say that a variable entry system is impossible will continue to be absurd.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

@Imperious:

Is EVERY potential World War I game (not talking about the one you already made, talking about all possible games) automatically balance-doomed if the Russian Revolution and the US entry are allowed to happen before the turns that represent the start of those events in reality (whichever turns correspond to early-mid 1917)?

IN cases where this is possible, the economics and the setup are not historical. Ours is based on data regarding the economic capabilities on all belligerents. The CP are constantly facing increasing pressure to win, they can’t wait it out and they have limited strikes they can make to win. Other games that allow this will not be realistic or give the CP too many units to compensate for early entry.

Naturally your statement about how it couldn’t be historical is backed up with 0 actual evidence. If the CP does a lot better against the Russians in the game than they did in the war, it makes more sense that the revolution happen earlier in the game than it did in the war, since most anyone citing causes of the revolution would list Russia’s war problems as a major cause of the Revolution. What is ahistorical is to insist that had the war gone much worse than in did for Russia, that the revolution would still have happened as late as it did no matter what. Your ability to assess what is historical is completely skewed by your admission that you believe that things cannot have happened any way other than how they happened.

But the main point here is that it’s clear that you now admit (of course not outright, you ego can’t take that) that it is quite possible to have (regardless of how far out of your way you go to pretend that Global is not a game with variable entry that is possible to balance) a World War I game where we need not put on arbitrary restrictions of entrance that ignore historical cause and effect. Before you talked about tweaking entry to the advantage of the CP. If there is fixed entry, the exploits can be even worse. If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times, regardless of what is happening in the game (which is blatantly ahistorical since in the war the powers would have had no such knowledge), not only will it distort the historical situation, but players can exploit for example, simply waiting out the Revolution that, if the game were really historical, they would not be able to count on (or at least count on happening right on a schedule that began in 1914)

It’s not rocket science. The sooner the Russian Revolution is triggered by russian failure/CP success, the more the CP will have needed to commit to the East, which is less they will have committed to the West, which puts the French and British in a proportionally stronger position. This is not really at all fundamentally different from most any other A&A game. In Global if Germany commits 100% to Barbarossa, it can get to a point where the western allies are too strong on Germany’s western front.

Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).

@Imperious:

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Ah I see. It’s clear I pointed out your hypocrisy but instead of admitting it like an adult you try some sort of deflection by saying something about me talking too much or whatever, ignoring the actual (correct) points.

There was mention of other nations entering into the war and being controlled by the various major powers.  Do you think that will work like the Pro-Axis, Pro-Allied, and True Neutral rules from G40?  Larry stated it would be less complicated than 1942, so what would be a truly less complicated way of depicting that?

All this talk of what is historical and what is not is giving me an itching desire to actually play in the least historical way permissible by the rules.  I’m sure the issues will be ironed out– the game isn’t even released yet, so we can all adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  I am really wondering how Larry has decided to handle the balance, and it will be instructive to see it and play it.  Anyways, I was hesitant to even post here because I felt someone would automatically assume I was trying to get in on this whole heated debate (which I am not).

Naturally your statement about how it couldn’t be historical is backed up with 0 actual evidence. If the CP does a lot better against the Russians in the game than they did in the war, it makes more sense that the revolution happen earlier in the game than it did in the war, since most anyone citing causes of the revolution would list Russia’s war problems as a major cause of the Revolution. What is ahistorical is to insist that had the war gone much worse than in did for Russia, that the revolution would still have happened as late as it did no matter what. Your ability to assess what is historical is completely skewed by your admission that you believe that things cannot have happened any way other than how they happened.

You can argue to your hearts content. I am only explaining what our playtest group found that worked and didn’t work. If the CP do better, the game is over before the Russians collapse. You don’t need a system that hastens this because then the allies would suffer and have no chance to recover. The stop arguing with me, i don’t care.

But the main point here is that it’s clear that you now admit (of course not outright, you ego can’t take that) that it is quite possible to have (regardless of how far out of your way you go to pretend that Global is not a game with variable entry that is possible to balance) a World War I game where we need not put on arbitrary restrictions of entrance that ignore historical cause and effect. Before you talked about tweaking entry to the advantage of the CP. If there is fixed entry, the exploits can be even worse. If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times, regardless of what is happening in the game (which is blatantly ahistorical since in the war the powers would have had no such knowledge), not only will it distort the historical situation, but players can exploit for example, simply waiting out the Revolution that, if the game were really historical, they would not be able to count on (or at least count on happening right on a schedule that began in 1914)

You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order?  Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.

It’s not rocket science. The sooner the Russian Revolution is triggered by russian failure/CP success, the more the CP will have needed to commit to the East, which is less they will have committed to the West, which puts the French and British in a proportionally stronger position. This is not really at all fundamentally different from most any other A&A game. In Global if Germany commits 100% to Barbarossa, it can get to a point where the western allies are too strong on Germany’s western front.

In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)

Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).

But this is what you have done all along here. I think you are a spoiled child. You should not be so defensive and probably stay away from the internet would be your best bet. I wish you luck.

Ah I see. It’s clear I pointed out your hypocrisy but instead of admitting it like an adult you try some sort of deflection by saying something about me talking too much or whatever, ignoring the actual (correct) points.

What is clear is you have no clue what that means. It applies to you.

A brief outline of a system I would like to see in the game coming out that I think would be cool.

Russian Revolution.
Use the IPC chart and the unrest marker (a roundel included with the game) to track Russian unrest.

Start at 20 on the chart. If, at the start of any Russian turn, the total is equal to or greater than 100 (for example), the Russian Revolution occurs (see details later)

Add to the unrest:
2: Each time an originally Russian territory is conquered by a CP.
1: Each time an originally CP territory under the control of Russia is conquered by a CP
5: Each time an originally Russian IC is captured by a CP.
10: Each time Moscow is captured by a CP.
20: Each time Petrograd is captured by a CP
3: Each time Russia attacks a territory with a land unit but doesn’t capture the territory in that attack.
5: Each Russian TURN that ends with Petrograd under CP control.

Subtract from the unrest:
2: Each time an originally CP territory is conquered by Russia.
1: Each time an originally Russian territory under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia.
5: Each time Moscow under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
10: Each time Petrograd under the control of a CP is conquered by Russia
10: Each time a CP capital is conquered by Russia.

These can stack. (So losing Petrograd is a disaster, as it should be)

Most of these changes in unrest happen when there are changes in the income, so they can be done at the same time; it’s quite convenient.

Let’s say that the map is about the size of Europe 1940 (which I hear Larry said). It depends on the game, but as you can see, the Revolution could happen in  a few rounds if Russia is tanking the game on purpose, or after many, many rounds or not at all if Russia is doing well. This is a very historical approach because it ties the revolution to the success of the Russian military, which, reading most any history book on the subject will tell you was a huge factor.

As for what the Revolution results in, that can have a lot of cool possibilities. Flashman’s Red/Black idea on post 37 on page 3 seems pretty solid if there is to be some sort of civil war, but Russia being out of the war and the CP gettting some border territories seems good too.

@Imperious:

You can argue to your hearts content. I am only explaining what our playtest group found that worked and didn’t work. If the CP do better, the game is over before the Russians collapse. You don’t need a system that hastens this because then the allies would suffer and have no chance to recover.

*Note: What your playtest group found that worked and didn’t work for your playtest group’s game. Unless you want to insist that your group was able to determine the possibility of such a system for every possible WWI A&A-style game, that has next to no bearing on what is possible for this upcoming game.

If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?

You say they would have no chance to recover if it happened before turn 10. Perhaps that’s true in your game, but who cares? This game is not that game. It’s quite possible to have a game where things happen before a set turn has them happen. How do we know? Global 1940. But you can’t admit that for some psychotic reason.

@Imperious:

You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order?  Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.

Please. If the allies know that the Russian Revolution CANNOT happen before turn X, that is just as exploitable, if not more so, than anything I or anyone else has posted.

@Imperious:

In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)

<facepalm so=“” hard=“” my=“” teeth=“” rattle=“”>Cool, but who gives a darn? Stop imposing your game’s idiosyncracies on how this game that we are talking about MUST be. Your group did not definitively discover the best possible World War I game that could ever be made that could never have any workable alternative.

@Imperious:

Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).

But this is what you have done all along here…

No, not at all. I have given reasons why I believe my idea and the ideas similar to them are better for balance and historical reasons. You are making statements about what is POSSIBLE to have and IMPOSSIBLE to have, I am making statements about what I think is optimal. There is a major difference.

It’s one thing if you tell people that your ideas are better for X reasons and give evidence to support X. It’s another thing to tell us that our ideas can’t possibly be implemented and that they are automatically going to ruin any WWI game and that only your ideas are the ones that can possibly be safe for the balance and fun and historical feel of the game.</facepalm>

*Note: What your playtest group found that worked and didn’t work for your playtest group’s game. Unless you want to insist that your group was able to determine the possibility of such a system for every possible WWI A&A-style game, that has next to no bearing on what is possible for this upcoming game.

I never spoke about anything more than our experience. You really need to stop babbling.

If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?

I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

You say they would have no chance to recover if it happened before turn 10. Perhaps that’s true in your game, but who cares? This game is not that game. It’s quite possible to have a game where things happen before a set turn has them happen. How do we know? Global 1940. But you can’t admit that for some psychotic reason.

If you didn’t care your post count would not have gone from 12 to 84 in one thread ( wait that’s 96 now) But who cares? We do know thankfully that Global 40 is more like our game with one side not entering before turn 4 or 3, unless the other side attacks early.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
You are good at comedy. Perhaps a world tour might be in order? � Our system allows Russian collapse on an unknown turn, but not before turn 10…so this " If powers KNOW that certain events will happen at certain times" is nonsense. The core beauty of our game is preparing for and against technological developments as they appear in the game, entire strategies are carved out of using gas for example for the first time and making it’s effect known. It’s not much different from global when Germany has to prepare for Russia and clean up the board on turns 1-2.

Please. If the allies know that the Russian Revolution CANNOT happen before turn X, that is just as exploitable, if not more so, than anything I or anyone else has posted.

This “discussion” has entered turn 10, you may now start rolling for argument collapse.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
In our games, an early Russian collapse busts the game for the CP. WE wanted both sides to have equal chances, with the Entente victories coming in the latter turns, and the CP coming in the early turns ( for the most part)

<facepalm so=“” hard=“” my=“” teeth=“” rattle=“”>Cool, but who gives a darn? Stop imposing your game’s idiosyncracies on how this game that we are talking about MUST be. Your group did not definitively discover the best possible World War I game that could ever be made that could never have any workable alternative.</facepalm>

One sec another glop of white foam from your mouth just dropped on my persian rug. If the stain does not come out, you will be charged. Can you get any more worked up into a frenzy?

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 10:13:56 am
Quote
Just because it’s an idea that is different from yours doesn’t mean you should use any methods possible to shoot it down. It’s almost as if you feel that the community owes you everything and that you should get your way 100% because you had a signature saying you wanted WWI game and there is no way that a WWI game would have been made without your heroism (but that couldn’t be the case for such a wonderfully humble person as yourself. Of course not.).

But this is what you have done all along here…

No, not at all. I have given reasons why I believe my idea and the ideas similar to them are better for balance and historical reasons. You are making statements about what is POSSIBLE to have and IMPOSSIBLE to have, I am making statements about what I think is optimal. There is a major difference.

LOL. what is really going on is you are imposing these statements into neat little envelopes in your mind. You need to stop arguing with my points. I don’t argue about your points or care too.

It’s one thing if you tell people that your ideas are better for X reasons and give evidence to support X. It’s another thing to tell us that our ideas can’t possibly be implemented and that they are automatically going to ruin any WWI game and that only your ideas are the ones that can possibly be safe for the balance and fun and historical feel of the game.

Then i am calm in the world having proven that. I never told anybody that their ideas cant be implemented. What that is is you moving to new arguments ( that nobody ever brought up but you) after the others got shot down on turn 10. That would be a FIXED ARGUMENT.

If you don’t want a system that collapses russia before the capital falls, why have a revolution at all? How do you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE in this upcoming game that the CP be quite able to take Petrograd before your magical turn? If the CP can just bank on the Revolution happening without taking Petrograd, how does that not create a whole new set of balance issues?

I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

@Imperious:

Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)

Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all  you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)

You are quite honestly the most insane, rabid and hilarious dude on the internet:  Read this: should not be any part of this game is an opinion. How bout you respect the opinion of others? It’s not like you can convince even a flea anything so why bother?

Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all  you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.

You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense?  I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.

Political Situation - Soviet Union:
The Soviet Union begins the game at war
with no one. When not yet at war with
Japan, in addition to the normal restrictions
(see Powers Not at War with One Another
above), the Soviet Union may not move
units into or through China. The Soviet
Union may not declare war on any
European Axis power before turn four
unless first declared war upon by a
European Axis power or an Axis power
captures London.

looks fixed to me, turn four

Political Situation - United States:
In addition to the normal restrictions (see
Powers Not at War with One Another
above), while it’s not at war with Japan, the
United States may not move units into or
through China or end the movement of its
sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to
Japanese-controlled territories. While not
at war with Germany or Italy, the United
States may end the movement of its sea
units on the Europe map only in sea zones
that are adjacent to US territories, with one
exception - US warships (not transports)
may also conduct long-range patrols into
sea zone 102. If the United States has war
declared on it by an Axis power, an Axis
power captures London or any territory in
North America, or Japan makes an
unprovoked declaration of war on the UK or
ANZAC, the United States may declare war
on any or all Axis powers. However, if it’s
not yet at war by the Collect Income phase
of its third turn, the United States may
declare war on any or all Axis powers at the
beginning of that phase.

looks fixed here too buddy, unless the axis attack early.

If it was variable, US or Russia could enter the war on their own at any time. Now you understand.

@Imperious:

….

looks fixed here too buddy, unless the axis attack early.

If it was variable, US or Russia could enter the war on their own at any time…

How so?

What turn do they enter the war? It varies. It doesn’t matter if they can do it on their own or not. The turn they enter varies.
.
Why does it vary? Because it’s not the same every game.

If they do not enter the same turn every game, it VARIES. You know you are wrong. You only had to admit it pages ago and things would be a lot simpler for you, but the more you keep arguing against the fact that the entry is variable, the more ridiculous you will look once you actually admit that countries can enter the war in different turns each and every game.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. I don’t care if it “looks” fixed to you. Both of those entries have clauses dealing with situation where the counrty is at war on a turn before it would have automatically happened. They can be at war on different turns than a single fixed one.  You are wrong. Deal with it.

How so?

What turn do they enter the war? It varies. It doesn’t matter if they can do it on their own or not. The turn they enter varies.

When they enter they cannot effect. It is the decision of others at to when they enter. depending on which nation it is either 3 or 4. But a FIXED TURN is decided if the axis do not act first. One day you will understand.
.

Why does it vary? Because it’s not the same every game.

If they do not enter the same turn every game, it VARIES. You know you are wrong. You only had to admit it pages ago and things would be a lot simpler for you, but the more you keep arguing against the fact that the entry is variable, the more ridiculous you will look once you actually admit that countries can enter the war in different turns each and every game.

If the USA player can attack Germany on turn 1, then you are right. If Russia can attack Germany on turn 1, then you are right. They can’t so your wrong.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. I don’t care if it “looks” fixed to you. Both of those entries have clauses dealing with situation where the counrty is at war on a turn before it would have automatically happened. They can be at war on different turns than a single fixed one.  You are wrong. Deal with it.

These “clauses” are not of their doing. They can’t do a damn thing unless the axis decide to “allow” them to enter early. That makes it fixed. Now stop babbling. You’re almost at 100 posts, so keep arguing over garbage.

In our game, Russia cant fall before turn 10 unless the CP conquer them. Otherwise, they still have the revolution as early as turn 10.

USA cannot start helping France on turn 1, if they were allowed to do this the game would be broken and the CP would never win these games. That’s why they arrive on a fixed turn unless the axis attack them early…just like Global 40…gee what a coincidence!

How does the fact that USA and USSR can’t choose mean that Japan and Germany can’t choose? Your whole bogus “point” is that USA and USSR can’t choose. What about the powers who CAN choose? Can they not choose?  :roll:

Whether or not they can choose is completely IRRELEVANT to determining whether or not it is fixed, because regardless of who actually makes the choice, the entry is variable.

UK can choose to go to war with Japan on any of its turns.  That is a variable situation. Yet you still insist that Global does not have variable entry.

Russia choosing or not has nothing to with the FACT that Russia’s entry to the war is variable, but it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 1, it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 2, it doesn’t ALWAYS happen on turn 3, etc. etc.

@Imperious:

Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. � Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

Bold added. How does it feel to be caught in a lie? (not that you’ll admit it, we will probably get some lame excuse about how you “forgot” about several posts you made saying what can’t be in a WWI game)

You are quite honestly the most insane, rabid and hilarious dude on the internet:  Read this: should not be any part of this game is an opinion. How bout you respect the opinion of others? It’s not like you can convince even a flea anything so why bother?

How convenient that you leave out the appropriate context before my response. I was clearly responding to this statement by you (below), yet you leave it out to muddy things up and manipulate the truth.

@Imperious:

I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

:roll: Read the sequence.

@Imperious:

I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

I then posted this as a direct response to the above:
@vonLettowVorbeck1914:

:roll: :roll: :roll:
@Imperious:

Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. Â Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

I added the bolding to the script.

You say that you made no claims about any game other than yours. I show how you said the bolsheviks idea would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system.”

So you saying that a bolsheviks rule like that would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system” is somehow not a claim about a game other than your own? Seriously? For real?

@Imperious:

Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all  you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.

You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense?  I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.

Ah there it is. I haven’t been here as long as you so I am wrong and you are right.  :roll:

How does the fact that USA and USSR can’t choose mean that Japan and Germany can’t choose? Your whole bogus “point” is that USA and USSR can’t choose. What about the powers who CAN choose? Can they not choose?  rolleyes

If it says not before turn 3 or 4, UNLESS somebody else does something it is FIXED. One day you will understand, but who we kidding?

Whether or not they can choose is completely IRRELEVANT to determining whether or not it is fixed, because regardless of who actually makes the choice, the entry is variable.

UK can choose to go to war with Japan on any of its turns.  That is a variable situation. Yet you still insist that Global does not have variable entry.

If both sides can opt into war early without any restriction of a fixed turn like 3 or 4, then it is fixed. Otherwise the rules would not state the fixed entry. You make me laugh as to how stupid this argument can be.

How convenient that you leave out the appropriate context before my response. I was clearly responding to this statement by you (below), yet you leave it out to muddy things up and manipulate the truth.

ok yea sure. Now back in your cage feeding time soon.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

rolleyes Read the sequence.

Read the script for Groundhog Day.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 11:43:43 am
I made no claims about any other game but mine. You really need to stop babbling.

I then posted this as a direct response to the above:

Quote from: vonLettowVorbeck1914 on Today at 11:58:16 am
rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes
Quote from: Imperious Leader on December 11, 2012, 04:15:41 pm
Japan, China and these “Bolsheviks” should not be any part of this game. � Germany had just a few ships and very meager forces in China and some island groups. It is so marginal to combat on a strategic scale that it does not warrant any consideration. The Great War was mostly a European affair with some action in the middle east. To try to represent and model all these trifle little and meaningless struggles would be to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system. Honestly, if two guys fought with knifes in Brazil, somebody would want yet another set of freaking pieces to represent some game changing warfare…all they need is that Wikipedia entry to prove it.

I added the bolding to the script.

You say that you made no claims about any game other than yours. I show how you said the bolsheviks idea would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system.”

So you saying that a bolsheviks rule like that would be “to the detriment of any decent Axis and Allies system” is somehow not a claim about a game other than your own? Seriously? For real?

You really need to learn how to read the English language properly. Should not be part of the game is an opinion, we are allowed them here. IN North Korea perhaps not.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 12:38:10 pm
Quote
Don’t try to tell anyone that this entire time all you have been doing is posting about what you already did in another game and that you never once made any statement about what should or should not be in this game coming out. If all�  you want to talk about is your game you made, go to house rules.

You have been arguing gibberish since your 13th post on these forums, perhaps you might stop arguing about nonsense?�  I like other bring our ideas here. If you don’t like them leave. Where were you before Aug 2012? nowhere.

Ah there it is. I haven’t been here as long as you so I am wrong and you are right

And it will continue to be so. The Fuehrer will continue to deny you that responsibility. I alone have the mandate for this task. ( now what movie is that from?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxhuUdZzGYw