I think he is smoking something. From what I know, third edition refers to the rules for the CD version of the game.

BB

If it was about oil then why not invade Kuwait or Saudia Arabia? Should the allies have NOT protected the oil fields to PROVE it’s not about oil? Had they NOT protected the oil fields and they were sabotaged then they get blamed for inaction.

It must be nice to use action against the US and inaction against the US vis-a-vis the protection of the oil fields. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. In computer science this is known as a tautology. In logic optimisation techniques (Karnaugh maps) tautologies are eliminated as being irrelevant, much like your line of thinking F_alk! Ah F_alk, master of the spurious argument. I thought we had made some progess on this after reading your other posts, but alas you have regressed!

You are quite correct however in regards to Germany not having their own WMD, do they still have US WMD on German soil? If so, it must be nice to enjoy their protection and yet rail against the US for having them. Balarus and Ukraine as well have returned their share of nukes to Russia, though I don’t trust the regime in the Ukraine at all.

BB

F_alk, an impressive survey of religion in Europe I must say. I’m not so sure I agree with you dezrtfish. Historically, religious institutes don’t allow people to showcase morality, they mold peoples morality. They indoctrinate, preach, brainwash, mold, form, impose, shape and direct attitudes.

Religion when properly used can help to overcome immoral tendencies, so can moral suasion of peers. Christianity at it’s foundation has the 10 commandments, you can’t get more basic and fundemantal then that. Yet the institution of christianity has commited genocide. The poster boy for christians is Jesus who was very religiously tolerent, and yet the crusades occured.

Christianity is probably one of the poorest examples of what good can come out of religion, though in recent times it has improved, Jerry Fallwell excluded.

BB

So F_alk, you and I both agree on the rule intrepretation yet, nobody else in the world does. Now what?

BB

I can remember being Japan, having all 20 INF, 10 ARM, 10 FTR, 6 BMR built and going into battle with enough money to completely replace the land units and all FTRs.

We also played unlimited builds on an IC, oh the strategies of England buying and IC on gibralter! Pre-Cambrian indeed!

I think blind faith in religion allows you to do rather immoral acts such as killing in the name of god. The crusades come to mind. If they are heathen it’s not as bad to kill them or even allowable perhaps.

Most of the killing and hatred in the middle east is religious based as to is the conflict between muslims and hindus. In Africa there is strife between animist, muslims and christians.

If there was no religion half of the reasons for waging war would be gone. The English civil war was over religion, many of the wars in europe in prior centuries were religious based.

Well, if you can load AND unload during non-combat then there is NO reason to load during the combat phase. However, if they force you to load during combat if you want to unload during non-combat because you can’t do both at this phase then it does alter the game. The German sub just screwed the brits out of an entire round of unloading.

This seems to make sense. If you start out during combat movement then perhaps the logic is that you have time to move 2, load and unload. Wheras if the transports sat around for awhile to determine the results of the battle then they might not have time to move 2, load and unload. They would have time to move and unload or move and load.

Moreover, if there was no movement then you can bridge during non-combat, ie, load and unload. This again makes sense. If there is no movement to be done, there is more time to load and unload, presumably you are just crossing a short distance. No wonder they make a big to-do about bridging. It is a big deal if you can’t move and load then unload!

BB

Yeah, that’s right. Only the eastern side of Malaya has the port so only the sea zone on that side would have that movement advanatage port to port.

BB

I agree, that is a legal move for combat. Here is an example of combat and non-combat that some won’t agree with, and I I’m not sure I do.

**Scenario:
The British have move their fleet 2 spaces south of the waters around england to drop off units in French West Africa. The germans have a sub in the waters off Italy. The Germans put their sub between the British Fleet and England. The Brits of course want to move their fleet up 2 spaces and move the units off Britain to Finland. It is the Brits turn.

**Combat Movement
If the German SUB is not there then the brits move their transports up 2 spaces and load preparing to unload during non-combat.

However, the SUB is in the way, so do combat movement, put your airforce on the SUB and sink it.

**Non-Combat Movement
Page 21: Empty transports or transports loaded with cargo can be moved to friendly coastal territories to either load or unload

Thus the Brits could only move their transports in to load.

This to me is the best reading of the rules. I don’t like it much but….

BB******

Why does Jesus have a holiday for his birthday and his death for what the crusaders did Yanny?

BB