The Russian player should not simply stack in belorussia, they need to be more flexible and do a planned retreat and strech out the germans and counter attack weak points. ALso in one game i actually performed a breakout in the South when they unbalanced their forced on a northern drive, it was awesome, i ate up their ipc’s and delayed their full assault. But Russia needs to keep units alive …. esp the tanks and artillary so they can threated the germans during their conquest, remeber in real life the germans got to the doorstep of Moscow, and that might be the best way to string them out. Just a thought.

specifically, what should the tranny be used for on T1 north of germany, i see it has a few possibilties: 1) Used as fodder to protect the valuable German fighters, 2) if the possibility exists to transport 2 inf for an attack on Karelia if that door is unlikely left open, 3) hold it back and then use it to transport inf. either to finland norway (bad idea in my opinion) from finland norway to the mainland area or to Africa. It can help to establish a stronger african front since finalnd norway will fall eventaully anyways.

i find it upsetting that it is virtually impossible to maintain a Northern fleet with Germany. The Tirpitz was deployed there and throughout the war that route was necessary to ensure that Germany recieved valuable ore from Sweden. Ah well … let me know what you guys do, I have a big game coming up against my friend and i beat him alot, hes gettting better so I want to figure out something new to throw at him.

thnx in advance,
Kevin

Soooo, i have a question, assuming you are playing RR, and they strack in karelia with everything (18inf, 3 tanks, 2fig), what should Germany do? They can take Karelia T1 is they go with everything, but that doesnt seem worth it cause the navies of the UK are left untouched. So, a turn one attack is out. So in terms of land battles in Europe how do you attack? Do you push out to the Causcases? or pull back to E Europe with everything you got? Or string them out along a line, no matter what you do your tanks seem vulnerable to a R2 attack… if you pull the tanks back to Germany then the Inf. in E Europe are toast. I already have agood grasp of how to get all the sea units around me, and how to get into Africa, but i just dont see the best way. I play Russia aggressively so I look for good counter attacking oppourtunites if they present themselves.

thanks in advance
kev

ahh thank you for the clarification, i also agree, im not a fan of the buying lots of bombers and taking your money away, cause when im germany i like to buy stuff an go on conquests. but i cant fault someone for bombing the crap out of a complex with no AA gun.

what about the russian move of withdrawing from karelia later in the game and taking the AA gun with it? that way if the UK or US has a good enough bomber wing in place they could shred the German economy with no losses, just a thought ……

this is a very interesting post: I have been reading it from the beginning and I want to add a few things, forst, this started with the word ‘test’ kidna funny that way.

no state has ever emerged morally unscathed from war, and WW2 was especually bad. So the idea of any country not doing ‘bad’ things to win is not realistic in the least.

as for the A-bomb, civilian bombing had become common place (sadly) during the war, germany and britain, the US too. If Japan had the ability to reach our borders they would have certainly bombed our civilians, actually they did! they sent thousands of ballon bombs over the pacific to try to hit American civilians, actually a person died, but there was a complete press blackout on the matter. I think you hVave to judge the past in terms of the contemporary time, the A-bomb was a military weapon, like asuper powerful incindiery bomb, the bombing of civilians had become an accepted form of warfare by ALL countries involved so how that realistically be questioned? the dropping is regretable for sure, but they were at war with Japan, a especually viscious opponent, (bataan death march, rape of nanking and many others) , Japan also swore she would never surrender, from a military point of view, you have this new weapon, could end the war, save your peoples lives, and end the bloodiest conflict in history. i think you do it, and i think nukes are deplorable.

and if the US didnt use the bomb that they spent a fortune building, could you explain that to the 200,00+ mothers, fathers, wives, brothers and sisters why the japanese civilians lives were more important than theirs? When Japan declared war on the US I believe it is correct for the US to place themselves first. and dont tell me that germany of japan wouldnt have used the A-bomb if they had it …… 100% sure they would have. more Chinese died at the rape of nanking than from both A-bombs put together, so gain some perspective, its not like 5 million japanese died.

all that said, i wish it hadnt been used, so regretable, but then again i wish WW2 hadnt happaned at all, but its not like the US was teh aggressor, we tried damn hard to stay out of it.

just some thoughts, im sure some are written incorrectly and will be torn apart but thats cool. im not saying im 100% right but try not to view things in the new post-modernism, truly analyze the WORLD AT WAR part of the game we all love to play.

thnx for your time

kevin

ps- only one person died at the japanese internment camps in the US, and that was from natural causes (old age).

i have seen the all-bomber method used against me before, both the US and UK did it and i was buying a grand total of 1 inf a turn, then they both bought one tech role each and both got HEAVY BOMBERS, i was bitter. despite this i had a great AA gun that almost single handedly won the game for me. I killed 4 bombers in one turn :)

my question is: I am under the impression that when you bomb a newly made IC you can only subtract the value of the property, for example, the India territory is worht 3 IPC’s, so when japan industrial bombs them they can lose a max of three dollars. if this is true, what happens when multiple bombers attack a territory like that? do they each take of a max of three? or am i just making that rule up completely.

thnx in advance
kevin

the anti-aircraft gun fires a one time kill shot at a 1 to kill all attacking planes. and battleships may bombard with an amphibious assault at an attack of 4

you can hold india T1 if you know what you are doing, there are many inf. you can bring there as well as a russian fighter if need be, also if the E meditaranean sub escapes some kind of attack on G1 you can use that to block the amphibious assault from the islands of japan. therefore india can be held, and if it is then that is a nice thorn in the side of japan

i feel like the UK has alot of options, they are all over so you could go atlantic navy, IC is australie, india or south africa, that is more options than germany or ussr, i feel like if germany and ussr are played equally and japan is aggressive than the uk can change the whole game by either hitting germany hard or if they can hold the IC in india making japan very ineffective. i dont likeplaying them much, but they can be huge.

i believe it is dangerous to attempt to assertain who is ‘more at fault’, if anyone has done a serious study of this material then the palestinians and Israelis have seroius gripes against one another, but if one side is more at fault will that help in the creation of a solution? the answer is no, The Israeli concept of ‘land for peace’ that they used in the 70’s has the only real promise of a true compromise, but once the Likud paryt came to power they began a massive colonization of the occupied territories to make that trade imposible, yes, this was actually their thinking. That colonization push continies to this day, and they continue despite condemnations from the UN, and their strongest ally the US. According to the UN any territories acquired through military conquest cannot be legally assimilated into your home country, you may however have provinciual control, but many Israelies hope to one day assimliate the West bank, Gaza, and the Sinia into ISrael. That will not bring a solution, or raise their security level. The typical Israeli response of disprportionate response has worked in the past, but it has also been a negative in that it escalates violence.

all that sais, Israel has a fundamental right to exist, and under no circumdstances should that right be in jeopardy.

another reason this conflict will not end is that the Palestinians will not quit until they have SOMETHING, they myst have the W. bank and gaza to call their own, how would you feel if driving through your country you had to stop at checkpoints where you were questioned for over 20 min about why you were going anywhere. The Palestinians have developed a new word, and it ‘sufferness’ it is meant to describe their place and that suffering is the chosen life for their people, the change is meant to demonstrate that they feel of their suffering as lasting a long time, they will not quit until some kind of fair deal is struck.

but what is fair? if you go by history their is enough ammo for each side to stall forever, but all that history must be pushed to the back, and they must approach with not only their point of view, but an open mind. Im not sure that wil happen anytime soon. and as an american i am sad to say that Bush is doing nothing to help the situation.