Ottosmops

Kuni, since your parents allow you to play SC2, it should be no problem for anyone older than 14 years. Ice Age 2 is far more brutal, and I play it with my 10 year old niece.

n0kn0k, well explained. Exel, I think that your argument, that the badly informed masses should leave the decisions to the experts is not valid. Firstly, to every interesting topic there are different experts with different opinions. Secondly, isn't it also more unreliable to first authorize a politician to authorize an expert to make a decision for me, than to make the decision myself in the first place? The experts should have the duty to explain the problems to the ordinary people, not to incapacitate them.

I think that one flaw of the democratic systems that we have in the western world is the fact, that we can only elect an 'all inclusive package', be it a party or a person. I like the system they have in Switzerland, where they have regular referendums on important topics. But to introduce such a system elsewhere will not be easy: The parties in power don't want to share their power.

Normal Dude, I certainly don't want to interfere in US domestic policies, but would you please enlighten an uninformed foreigner, what's wrong with the ladies on your list? Who is Rosie O'Donnell? I know the other four women, and despite their advanced age, it seems to me, they are still good in form. If they are the 'kin of the Anti-Christ', I wouldn't have an objection to be a devil thirty years ago.

Lars, The American Revolution is a valid example. Britain declaring war on other European nations: The big European nations fought on so many occasions against each other over the centuries and now they are all members of the European Union. Couldn't this be done with less bloodshed? I'm sure you also know some examples, where the damage done in a war surpassed the benefit. Anyway, 'give war a chance' sounds rather childish to me.

Rambo, Just in the case you are not yet on the way to join the army: What exactly do you mean with Every decade, there are dozens of wars on this planet. Therefore, we should have enough data to decide, whether or not a war is a proper means to solve a conflict. Can you please mention some examples, where starting a war improved the situation of the people there?

Several independent trials, each with the same probability, give a binomial distribution. If you have one chit with a 5% chance in each of three categories, the chances are: 85.7375% for no hit in the next turn 13.5375% for exactly one hit 0.7125% for two hits 0.0125% for three hits

Desert Dave, concerning misspellings, why do the English speaking people always write 'Neitzsche', when 'Nietzsche' is meant?

One could leave the Suez loop as it is, but reduce the strength of the incoming Allied Ships by a random number. This random loss would simulate the fighting that takes place south of the map, and the size of the loss could depend upon the number of the Axis naval units in the Red Sea and the number of Axis air units adjacent to the Red Sea. This could prevent the Allied Player to use extremely many units in this operation, because in this case he would lose a lot of MPP's. And the Axis player would have an incentive to station some air and naval units in Egypt.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, if the player had to nominate the starting location for his units at the moment, when he buys them? (Apart from the difficulties to implement this in the program. ) For large ships it is clear, that they shouldn't 'jump around' while they are in the production queue. What solution would be most realistic for land and air units?

Thank you, JerseyJohn, for the information about Hitlers doctor. Such details are always appreciated.

To answer (better: comment on) the question in the topic title in a provocative manner: Did they? Before one can answer 'why' the Allies won, one has do consider, what it means, 'to win a war'. Should we consider a war between nations as a kind of game, where the game designer has set some victory conditions and if they are met, one side has won and gets a 1 in the table and the other side has lost and gets a 0 in the table? What were the victory conditions in WW2? The governments of Germany and Japan have capitulated. Is this the only thing, that counts? If one counts the losses of lives, the Allies had to mourn more victims, so have they lost? The economical damage was worst in Russia, Germany and Japan, I'm not sure of the order. A few years after the war, the two main Axis nations were economically more successful than some of the winners. One can say, the Germans have lost morally because of the Holocaust. Is this verdict right? One can also say, that after the war they regretted more thoroughly their misconduct, while some of the Allies repressed theirs. One could abolish the war/game analogy altogether and see nations as organisms. Germany and Japan (and some other nations) fell ill to a malady named national socialism or fascism. They succeeded in overcoming this illness with the help of the Allies. Maybe they are now better protected against such an illness than those, who didn't had such troubles in the past? Before someone starts accusing me of revisionism, please note the many question marks in this post.

b.t.w. I think that most of the dissonances between the “America bashing” and the “America defending” people in this forum comes from imprecise language use. If I disagree with a certain decision of a politician, I should say: “This is wrong, because of ...”. I shouldn't say: “Mr. X is an idiot.” An I should by no means say: “Country Y sucks.” Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to oversimplify, to generalize and to use “strong words” instead of strong arguments. In this respect, Mr. Rambo is certainly the master of us all.

I didn't know this. Is it somehow documented? I can't imagine where Hitler could have been exposed to infection. I always thought he transfused his sexual energy in his politics.

That's one of the reasons, why I'm not happy that my country is a member of the EU.

Maybe they import apples in winter and in spring, when there are no apples in Canada? This shouldn't sound as cynical as it probably does. Theoretically, the so called free market economy should be the most efficient way to produce goods and distribute them to the customers. Practically, it leads sometimes to situations, where goods travel around the half globe to satisfy needs, that are artificially created before. And other services, where you can't make much profit, aren't offered at all, or at least not at a reasonable price. But a centrally planned economy is not that good either. Therefore, here in Europe we combine market economy and socialism, so that we have the drawbacks of both.

Paper doesn't blush.

HAHAHA!!! The citizens of Russia and eastern Europe have won. They are in a better situation now, than they were under the commies. HAHAHA!!! [ September 07, 2006, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Ottosmops ]

Take it, and pay the price. :eek:

It was indeed a major victory. They even renamed Hanoi to Richard Nixon City.

Isn't it somehow illogical, that the upgrade cost is based on the initial cost of the units, while the benefit is the same for corps and armies? One IW upgrade point costs 10 mpp's for a corps and 20 for an army. But their increase in firepower (i.e. the increase for the expected loss for their opponent in combat) is the same, according to the formulas in the manual. What is the reason behind this?

Has this any meaning? Quid est veritas?

:confused: If I understand the formulas in the manual correctly, then the defense value influences only the damage, the defender inflicts on the attacker. For the losses of the defender (the transport in this case), only the attack value of the attacker counts, besides readiness and experience.

Is this really so clearly to assess? --------------------------- Imagine the following scenario: A terrorist has taken ten hostages. You are a policeman and you have the terrorist in the cross hairs of your gun. What do you do? Case 1: You shoot. The terrorist dies. 90% Chance that the person near him is also killed. Case 2.1: You don't shoot. 50% Chance that the terrorist gives up. Nobody is hurt. Case 2.2: You don't shoot. 50% Chance that the terrorist detonates his bomb. All hostages are dead. What do you do? --------------------------- Now transform this scenario in the military environment: The policemen is an Israeli pilot, the terrorist is a Hamas activist, the person next to him is an innocent civilian, the other hostages are Israeli civilians. When the pilot fires his rocket at the Hamas activist and also kills the civilian, he is a war criminal, according to your opinion. If he doesn't fire, he may indirectly cause the death of other civilians, when the Hamas activist fires his rockets at an Israeli settlement the next day. What I am trying to say is, that life is often very complicated. (Especially when one tries to discuss in broken Denglisch)

Yes, who are the bad guys? Certainly not Hamas, Ahmadinejad or George W. They are all democratically elected. Or is there a fault in the system?