Rumsfeld - another chilling throwaway comment

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by MagiK: The return of the taliban. Hmmm lets see they are in a couple of isolated villages far from the major capitals....hardly a "return to power". I suppose Grojlach you would prefer a complete slaughter to each and every person who professes to be taliban? The idea was to get the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, the Taliban happened to be in power and supporting them so was removed. Whats left to deal with? [/QB]

Magik, your comment above is inflammatory- you certainly don't really believe Groj or anyone here want's a 'slaughter' of any group of people. Let's remember that the other people posting deserve respect, no matter which side of our arguments they are on.

I don't want to see any more petty shots by anyone. We've managed this far without it and it would be a shame to start 'yellow carding' people as Memnoch would put it.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: We've managed this far without it and it would be a shame to start 'yellow carding' people as Memnoch would put it.

Wooo! Cloudy's learnt another football term. Now if only we could stop her saying 'Sarkar'!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: He told coalition troops at US Central Command in the Gulf state of Qatar that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that America had made a good start. A good start! So who's next in the firing line? Syria, Iran, North Korea, France?

I vote France. I mean, while we're on a roll, me might as well go for the best parcels of property out there. If not France, then Syria, which has a nice benefit of bordering Iraq, which we already own, and also placing us nearer to Israel, our beloved ally. Forget Iran, it'll consume itself or become fully assimilated all on its own soon enough.

But, I think we should have gone to Africa first before the Middle East. Africa is likely easier to take as a continent, and it's worth a good 3 armies per turn. If we take the middle east, we still have all of Asia to round up. And almost no one ever collects the 7 armies for Asia on even one turn, much less 2 turns. As the Princess Bride tells us, never fight a land war in Asia.

[ 04-29-2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Night Stalker]

LOL TL! Making Risk/Axis referances are we?

[ 04-29-2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I vote France. I mean, while we're on a roll, me might as well go for the best parcels of property out there. If not France, then Syria, which has a nice benefit of bordering Iraq, which we already own, and also placing us nearer to Israel, our beloved ally. Forget Iran, it'll consume itself or become fully assimilated all on its own soon enough. But, I think we should have gone to Africa first before the Middle East. Africa is likely easier to take as a continent, and it's worth a good 3 armies per turn. If we take the middle east, we still have all of Asia to round up. And almost no one ever collects the 7 armies for Asia on even one turn, much less 2 turns.

Absolute balderdash. You should invade Australia first and then build up your army in Siam. Alternatively invade Brazil, reinforce, then take the rest of S America.

Above all leave Kamchatka and Irkutsk alone. The worst error is to believe that Great Britain should be taken and held at all costs.

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I vote France. I mean, while we're on a roll, me might as well go for the best parcels of property out there. If not France, then Syria, which has a nice benefit of bordering Iraq, which we already own, and also placing us nearer to Israel, our beloved ally. Forget Iran, it'll consume itself or become fully assimilated all on its own soon enough. But, I think we should have gone to Africa first before the Middle East. Africa is likely easier to take as a continent, and it's worth a good 3 armies per turn. If we take the middle east, we still have all of Asia to round up. And almost no one ever collects the 7 armies for Asia on even one turn, much less 2 turns.

Absolute balderdash. You should invade Australia first and then build up your army in Siam. Alternatively invade Brazil, reinforce, then take the rest of S America.

Above all leave Kamchatka and Irkutsk alone. The worst error is to believe that Great Britain should be taken and held at all costs. [/QUOTE]LMAO... [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

donut and timber loftis obviously know their risk (teg its called in argentina and i also played my fair bit).

[Timber Loftis]

But, at the beginning of the game everyone fights over Australia. Only take it if you won't decimate your reserves doing so. And if you're playing the "ante 1 army or 3 armies at a time" bit as per the rules, you can get in over your head in Australia before you know what's happened. Which is why Africa is often a better bet.

But, in this case we already controlled North America, gaining 5 armies a turn, and had an agreement with Argentina and Brazil that gave us one of the South American armies every other turn, and Australia is tightly held. Europe was not gaining armies at the moment, but will as soon as the Ukraine is retaken next turn. Asia, as always, is a mess where the people desparately trying to hang on one or two more turns for a trade-in run circles trying to take one country a turn. It's also where the continent-holders usually get their one army a turn -- which is why Kamchatka is actually a good tit-for-tat trading piece.

Given this backdrop, Africa was the obvious choice. The middle east was simply a screw-up. Oh well, how close are we to trade-in??

[ 04-29-2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Night Stalker]

Changing gears slightly, Germany's opening move is always to claim N Africa and try to tie Britain up in skirmishes there before the prod center in S Afica comes into serious play. Germany can get it's production rating to 42 without any major battles in 2 turns and that puts them in line with American productions. They need to maintain this strategy long enough to either invade Moscow (very risky) or break out into the Middle East.

The ones that really have it bad are the Japanese. There aren't any major resource territories near by to conquer, and the American Fleet at Pearl Harbor, while not a major threat, is enough to tie up the Jap navy in skirmishes. Japan has two choices, press Russia - or press America. Either option is not very encouraging due to the resource starvation that Japan suffers.

The Americans have it the easiest. While not in a position to bear many troops at the onset, they have massive production capability and become a real bear after 8 turns.

Britain and Russia are the ones in most heavy (besides Germany) heavy combat. Russia needs to survive long enough for Britain to divert Germany's forces. They then need to press Japan. While Russia and Japan can't really sustain a two front effort, Russia also can't really build enough forces to invade Germany until they gather more resources.

Britain needs to keep Germany in heavy skirmishes until the Americans are ready to bear.

So, again, as Timber already pointed out - control of Africa is key.

[ 04-29-2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Donut]

Bizarrely, and reflecting the real world, we in Europe play to different rules than the US.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: Bizarrely, and reflecting the real world, we in Europe play to different rules than the US.

Right, you go after Australia first, because it's the continent you can reasonably build factories on and begin production in. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Or India, because it's worth 3 IPC's a turn. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-29-2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]