Posts made by morten200

Search for a strategy called “shuck-shuck”.
That´s the best bet for the US.

True, but woud it balance the game if there was a rule that said once the white and red markers are used up, you have to strafe units to be able to buy more? Massive build-ups would disappear and it will probably give players greater incentive to develop weapons.

Hmmmm, I think you´re probably right in that all units other than inf are the same for all the countries. I will count up my pieces and see what I get.

Still no responses to whether or not you should exceed the number of possible allowable units by creating more markers?

All good points! It´s weird that taking Spain isn´t discussed more often considering how many people think it´s a good strategy.

Having another front against G is great - especially when it isn´t coming from the seaway. G ends up having to defend against three contries at the same time early on. Bad news!

Having played my game in the oddest locations, I´m starting to wonder if I haven´t lost any of the units. Is there a site where I can see how many each force has? (i.e. 3 bombers, x inf etc.)

And on a side note: Once the white and red chips are spent, do you guys leave the possibility open to buy more units with homemade markers?
(Because then I also need to know how many red and white chips there are supposed to be.)

My brother and I played a couple of games before he had to go to UK to work, and he came up with what I think is an interesting strategy:

The US “buys” Spain (drops troops into it and pays 3 IPC) and uses Spain instead of Norway to drop off troops.

Has anyone else tried this? It seems a good strategy, since I can´t get G to build enough troops to take Karelia (where the US reinforcements aren´t) and G has to contend with a building force on the mainland not as easily refuted as an amphibian assault on WG.

Never heard of it, sorry.

It´s not rocket science - it´s illegal! That´s what it is!

I´ve heard the tactic used to get arm out of Fin-Nor (as CC describes), but I have never found it to be worth it. The amount of inf that you (Germany) lose compared to how many Russia loses cannot compensate an armor, which only costs two more IPCs than an inf.

HIJACK!!!

You HAVE to play with IPC victory! I can´t imagine a game where the Axis get a combined 84 IPC and still somehow manage to lose. As it is the game lasts 7 hours, why would you want it to last another 7? Or 70 for that matter if the Allies decided to build only inf to protect their capitals.

Why in the name of the Jolly Green Giant do you have two battleships??? Germany has probably wiped out the ones that you started with, so you must have spent money on those two. CARRIERS, my friend, loaded with fighters. Anything else is a waste of money (and time seeing as how you would have to wait to get more money to get the tr. that you WILL need).

Once again I have to point out that El Jefe has WAY too much time on his hands.

no matter what the Israeli’s do Palestinians, Arbs, Muslims and liberals will always see Israel and the Jews as the aggressors.

Yeah, I gathered as much. And I guess the funny thing is that the other people (Dan Rather et al) make the point that the Israelites are the aggressors. Ok, I see why it´s funny.

Germany will have its capital stacked with inf, because it will buy lots of inf and can only place them there or in S.eur. which isn´t as good. In other words, UK has to have a pretty large navy to send enough troops to the german capital and take it.

When the allies attack germany, they should do a 1-2 punch as you describe: UK then USA.

I dare anyone to guess where the next “hit” is going to be. Mostly because if you turn out to be right, there will be several armor-clad people knocking down your door a few minutes later asking you (with the aid of a large rubber hose) how you knew where the attack would come. Call me crazy, but THAT would make me laugh.

Jefe: How is this different from the rules you play with? No one is arguing against the defender choosing his own losses and the attacker choosing his own losses.

Yup. Not really “news” anymore :wink:

Terrorism may be worse now, but if the US had done nothing after 9/11, what would that say about the US? 9/11 was a major kick in the pants, and beefing up airport security or tightening immigration laws just would have given people a sense of justice.
But terrorism will never end. There will always be a handfull of fruits in every nation who think theirs is being exploited by other regimes. When their government can´t give these fruits what they want, they take matters into their own hands. It starts small: In Denmark, people who are dissatisfied with American policy, trash McDonalds and the American Embassy. It´s also terrorism but on a smaller scale.
UK has major problems with terrorism: All those bomb-threats from the IRA. Still, yet no disaster as great as 9/11.

Is it funny? I have no opinion on the Israeli/arab/muslim/jewish situation, so I´m guessing that it´s not prejudice that´s preventing me from getting the punchline.

So the Israelites are so tired of being accused of being the aggressors that they´ll take a kick in the a** before killing the cannibals (their enemies), who are obviously going to kill them …. Don´t get it … Sorry …