Topics created by BigBlocky

I seem to have a hard time reading emotions and intents into those little faces. So that’s a twinkle in my eye smilee face and that means a bit of truth and presumably the balance that wasn’t a bit of truth was mostly lies then? Damn boolean logic makes things rather black and white for me often. So, I’ve made my notes.

Perhaps nothing is a waste of time, but I’d prefer to concentrate on non-spurious arguments. I mean why waste your time with spurious ‘debates’ when the topic at hand is actually much more interesting. It is my experience when people concentrate on spurious debate rather than the topic at hand it is often do to a weak or indefensible position. I suppose something might be gotten from a debate on the merits of ritual child murder say, but I have better things to do. :-? :o :wink: :roll: :P

BB

My take is that “Yes” the ship can still move through the Suez canal. The fact is that the naval battle HAD to happen first in order to allow for the landing of troops.

I have tons of webspace available. Would you be willing to let me run that script on my website?

However, I’ll probably have to modify it to work with user logins for this site. I’ll probably also read through the code to see how it works.

A few questions for those talkign about Hitler’s book being overlooeked: Was Mein Kampf widely printed in 1934? What languages had it been translated to by that time? Is it the responsibility of the intelligence agencies (which were mainloy military intelligence at the time – for example, the CIA didn’t exist in the US at the time) that the danger wasn’t pointed out to the leaders of the nations or the fault of the leaders of the nations for not having the information? OR did they really have the info and just not pay attention?

I’m asking seriously.

@Mr:

I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.

It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.

If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.

I’d love to play. (A slightly longer post is in your “2nd Ed” thread in the games forum.)

Be seeing you.

Mr. Ghoul, I think the Japanese started in China as far back as 1933. You are right as to why the US cut off her fuel supplies. You’re right that didn’t give the Japanese the right to attack in the minds of the US and according to their law. And that is probably the right position legally. However, how would the US react if her oil supply was threatened. Ahhhhh yes, if radical Islam swept across all the oil in the middle east and the world decided to shut of the oil to the US. How would the US react.

The only difference is the degree to which their arguments are valid. Both Japan in 1940 and the US in the last 5 years of done some bad stuff, broken internation law etc. Of course the rape of Nanking is orders of magnitude worse then anything the US has done since perhaps the Indian wars, even then it was spread out over centuries not weeks.

I believe the US had and has laws on her books not to sell weapons to countries at war that don’t involve the US. The US was not at war during WWII until Dec 8, 1941. Therefore it was illegal for the US to supply ANY weapons or war materials to any country at war during the period preceding Dec, 8 1941. The US doesn’t like syria selling weapons to Iraq now, why should they expect war time Germany to like the US selling weapons to England.

In fact, Germany had a legal right to stop and sink any ships entering the british home waters found to be carring war materials. But I digress on this law and history lesson.

BB

I like that baltic transport to Algeria with troops from Norway during non-combat, never thought of that. :-)

I hate not using the German BB, a 4 on the first round is most useful. I think if I could do the Baltic transport move, get 2 infantry extra in Libya I’d still attack the Brt sub. Yes it does suck to miss with the BB and have it sunk, but it’s only a 1/9 chance that occurs and if it does, the transport retreats and the units end up in Libya. Even if you then lose both remaining transports it’s not the end of the world, you nurse Africa for what it’s worth and hang tough till the Japs come.

BB

I can’t get it to run behind my proxy-server. I can see one computer talking to the other on my router by neither copy of the program seems to notice the other.

BB

there is one for europe that i use:
http://www.aaeuropemc.com/Mappy/AACalc.zip

haven’t seen a pacific one, only difference i can see is marines and first round attack. otherwise the europe one would work.

Tanks, BB! Appreciate the explanation(ramble, too.)

Just a thought,

I am a bit worried from reading all these strategy posts from experienced players that if I learn, early on, from pros, I will lose out on the kind of ‘trial by fire’ learning that might be more fun. I could likely rustle up a player or two on my own who, like me, have never played. Perhaps this is my best bet at this stage. I am just worried that if I start off by learning all the ‘common wisdom’ and ‘no-brainer’ openings that I will take some of the fun out of it. If I learn from experienced players now, I might not be able to entice my (new player) friends to ever play me?

Your advice?

Seems like it to me too.

We play w/ 2nd Edition rules w/ the exceptions of RR & Submerging Subs. A bid is getting closer…

Ozone27

I hear ya. The best way to play is have the host play Japan, set the board up, line up his turn then show up after he has all the battles laid out. That first round is a killer!

BB