I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.

I think we would then need to make sure that players couldn’t challenge so high above them that there is no point in the othe person playing. Because if a 100 challenged a 1000 then there would be no point for the 1000 playing because they can’t get any points. I believe that if we use the system suggested by Granda we should make a 500 challenge limit rule. I.E. you can only challenge 500 points above you but you can challenge as far down as you like

actually you can only gain points if you have rating 80 or lower from losing to a 40 rated player

Real Life

My game has stopped at the moment to busy with RL

Each person starts with a 100 rating

When they win they get their opponents rating - 50 + 100n (N=1 for a win, .5 for a draw and 0 for a lose) then we divide this by 10 and add it to their rating

i.e.

My rating = 100
Zhuk (My opponent) rating = 125
I win

My rating change

125-50 = 75 + (100*1) = 175
175/10 = 17.5
100+17.5=117.5

Zhuk’s rating change

100-50 = 50 + (100*0) = 50
50/10 = 5
125-5=120

If there is a gap greater than 40 points it is just 40 points higher or lower than your rating

I.E.
Me=100
Opp=150
I lose

My rating
140-50=90+0=90
90/10=9
100-9=91

Opp rating
110-50=60+100=160
160/10=16
150+16=166

This is to stop lower rated players losing lots of points when play higher rated players

I believe strategy is the key to winning but having tech and dice symbolizes the brilliant generals, clever scientists and the difference between recruits and veterans. So I would say If I had to choose a camp I would choose Gamer 90/100 times because of the changes in the game one battle or one round can make. However The reasons I have stated also makes me want to choose to be a strategist because of the annoying results which throw a perfect shuck or an invincible strategy to get defeated because of 0 hits on attack in an Amphib or the 50/100 hits I faced as Germany in a recent face to face revised game when Russia had turled from round 1 and built a 100 strong Infantry. I went on to lose that game. (My first lose for over a year in Face to face revised)

But what does this mean to you fellow AAA gamer??? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is just my opinion. To some it could be the buildings of a gaming ideology and to others I could be worth as much as toilet paper. But when deciding which road to go down that of a strategist or a gamer you must recognize peoples opinion because inside each person’s opinion there will be a grain of truth.

And now back to the topic of unlimited bids. I believe that if we accept Bomber bids eventually things will even themselves out. I.E. for all the times you face the Bry bomber you will have it or it will fail on it’s quest and the bid is down the drain. So I believe that bids should be unlimited (although this may be the gamer in me and tomorrow when I begin to think like a strategist I will think what I have written is rubbish) because limiting bids of bmrs could lead us to banning bids in other places liking banning a soviet AC because it could be seen as a wasted bid and could ruin the game. As I said before this is just my popinion take from it what you will.

All games need to start moving quicker so they get finished before the end of May

Also Zhuk over DF

That q from mighty pol raised a few q’s of my own

1. If 3 US CC moves into z6 bordering Japan can Japanese ftrs scramble to defend the Zone?
2. (From Pol’s Q) if Japan defends the zone and US decides to Retreat can they stay in the same zone because there was no Jap units in it to start with?
3.If US CV’s have to retreat back a zone do they Uk ftrs get a chance to move to the CV’s or do they get sunk???

On a more serious topic

Yes the war did make me remember the North African campaign.