Comrade Trapp Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Posted by xediel: profit does not exclusively mean money ! look it up in the dictionary ! I didn't say it only meant money, your putting words into my mouth. I ask again: In what way did we profit from being involved in Korea or Vietnam? Comrade Trapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavrok Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Come on all , lets get back on topic. None of this old Europe/ New world stuff please. The French are great, but their leader just put them into a corner with some bad diplomacy. The Americans are OK too, but again have some dodgy leaders currently (Paul W. whatever!). Us Brits aren't too bad either you know, but unlike other leaders ours was actually stupid enough to believe in what he was doing, and is now in a fine mess We sek him here, we seek hime there, where is the scarlet WMD? PS The following web site is great http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ or go to google uk and type weapons of mass destruction then say I'm feeling lucky. Particuliarly like where the 'bomb' icon takes you. Now lets get back to games.....politics suck these days G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Posted by Gavrok: Come on all , lets get back on topic. None of this old Europe/ New world stuff please. The French are great, but their leader just put them into a corner with some bad diplomacy. The Americans are OK too, but again have some dodgy leaders currently (Paul W. whatever!). Us Brits aren't too bad either you know, but unlike other leaders ours was actually stupid enough to believe in what he was doing, and is now in a fine mess We sek him here, we seek hime there, where is the scarlet WMD? PS The following web site is great http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ or go to google uk and type weapons of mass destruction then say I'm feeling lucky. Particuliarly like where the 'bomb' icon takes you. Now lets get back to games.....politics suck these days G You tell us to get back on topic but then go on to post your own off-topic response? Comrade Trapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavrok Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I know...fell into the same trap as everyone else...but couldn't resist that web page! However back on trap think it's great with the random nature re Poland. Would prefer unit placement on war declaration however this goes some ways to throwing in an unplanned element, Wish France 40 had the same sort of random feature whereby it didn't surrender immediately upon loss of Paris but carried on the fight with the (high) chance of surrendering each turn. This would reenact history whereby France DID continue to fight ferociously in the south of France, after all looked lost. The French units earned great respect from their German counterparts here. This would also stop the current gamey French dash across the channel as it is just when Paris falls that often German units are weak, overstretched and susceptivle to counterattack. The French would have a choice to flee or have a last gasp attack. Would remove a comfort zone from the Germans Hope thats back on track G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xediel Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Comrade Trapp why just vietnam and korea you could add many more but i don't wan't to argue about wars, profit.. it's clear that i won't change my views you won't change yours and let's end it now cause this really doesn't belong here.. [ July 16, 2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: xediel ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Gavrok I agree, I also like the random nature of Poland's surrender and second your proposal for France having a chance to delay surrender for a turn or two, if there are at least 4 French units in France and/or two cities remain unconquered. In war, nothing should be predictable. [ July 16, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The Poland luck thing is exactly that. In a current game with HombrePlin, I hacked Poland, took Warsaw, killed a unit/turn. They surrendered on turn #6. Cost me 8% readiness. What can be done? Germans don't get the much needed plunder slows the West offensive. You must send units West & don't have time to search for those last 2-Poles. It happenened against Zapp too, that's bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Unbelievable !!! I start a new game with ComradeTrapp. I killed the Army in the NW, & the corp in Warsaw. Then Poland surrenders turn #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Fenton Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Could it be that by design or by accident, that the ratio of Axis to Polish units in Poland is a factor in Poland's surrender? The reason why I speculate this is that Poland always has surrendered to me when I take Warsaw, usually on turn 2, against the AI. I commit almost all of my German forces to Poland until Poland surrenders. I have never tried to operate out or move the majority of my Axis units to attack other countries at the same time as Poland like some other people do. Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narayan Sengupta Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 "the French didn't give a crap 60 years ago..." Huh? Narayan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narayan Sengupta Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Rambo, In WWI, France (and the British Empire and Russia) bled white saving America from conflict. Granted, we came in for some pinch hitting in the 9th inning, and that helped line up the winning play - which was fantastic. We used French weapons, by the way, including tanks, aircraft and artillery. In the American Revolution, the French had half of the troops at Yorktown in addition to the French fleet that allowed Yorktown to happen. The French had troops on the ground much of the rest of the time too, and helped to finance our fleding revolution. And while Louis XVIII was hardly altruistic in his support of the 13 Colonies in their quest for independence, he ironically paid the ultimate price for that sacrifice. Those 13 Colonies became the United States of America because of French financial and military and naval aid. And the United States of America was officially born in... France. For Louisiana, Napoleon did want the money. We still benefited. For Libya, overflying France may have been the most direct route for a few of our F-111s working with the carrier borne aircraft, but if that wasn't available, why not take one that was 5% longer over Spain or one of the other countries instead of whining about it? Do you remember what terrorism was like in France in the 80s? Luckily, our first real exposure to the terrorism that other countries have faced for years was two years ago. But that's the kind of environment other countries have faced for years. We're into fighting terrorism now, all of a sudden. Why didn't we ever do anything about terrorism when France had car-bombs going off almost every day for 10-15 years? From what I know, former members of the Reagan administration finally came forth and said that much of our premise of declaring war on Gaddafi was made up (kind of like what we are contemplating against Iraq?). There is nothing that compares to 9/11. But I do believe that France had hundreds of car bombings over the years. That adds up. France has 1/5th the population that we have. So 600 deaths would (to totally oversimplify) be emotionally equivalent to our 3000 deaths. France didn't do anything because they already felt defenseless. They felt they couldn't retaliate without backing from others, and even then, they wondered what would happen. You have to remember that the fear that we have now lived with for the past few months is what France had for many years. This is what the rest of the world frequently lives like. If we were that concerned with losing F-111s (which must have a fuel guage), why didn't we use carrier-based tactical bombers instead? Also why not rant against England for consistency sake? The U.S. wanted to provide strategic recon for Israel during the Six Day War (or whichever war was going on during '73). England wouldn't let the SR-71s use their British bases, so we had to fly them straight from the continental U.S. to the battle-area and back. Of course, we have come to the aid of the French many times. They asked for our help in Vietnam, and we got there eight years later. They asked for our help in WWII, and we got there five years later. They asked for our help in WWI, and we got there three years later. They asked for our help in '56, and we said "no". But when we asked for their help for GWII and did not get it instantly, we pitched a fit. Foreign policy is all about consistency. Why does everyone have to do what we want all of the time? Does the US ever tow the French line? Do you still follow your parents orders or do you just boss them around all of the time? We did help rebuild France. We also bombed the s*** out of it. Of course, that was justifiable, if unfortunate. But French cities (Caen, etc.) were bombed as hard as German ones. France feels that we are the spoiled child. After all, it was France that helped birth us. And now we have grown up, and we tell them what to do. We tell pretty much everyone what to do. Only the British seem to listen. But we do tell everyone to be either with us or against us. I can't imagine doing that to my parents. The French have an exaggerated sense of worth? True. So do we, don't we? We think that we are 90% of the world's importance, though we are 5% of its population. We dump our pollution, etc., on the world and wonder we people get concerned. On my many trips to France, in talking with people, etc., I can tell you that they DID want us to help them out regarding the Middle East and terrorism. But there is a sense in Europe, etc., that we only use them when we need them and abandon them when we don't. And the gold reserves was during the Nixon era. I am just trying to explain the French perspective a bit. I don't think that it's as one-sided as we think. There is also a larger issue here. Does everyone that we have ever helped have to kowtow to us in 100% of our disagreements with the rest of the world? I don't know that we have to slice the world into black and white. That really makes no sense and smacks of extreme jingoism and self-righteousness. Are we sure that we are 100% right in all of the decisions that we make. Why shouldn't we have to ally ourselves with other countries' decisions instead of the other way around? Your turn! Cheers, Narayan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Narayan Couldn't have said it better myself. But according to xediel, its all about profit......I know....I don't get it either. Comrade Trapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Well, I don't believe France went out of their way to help the 13 colonies, for any other reason then to repay England for the French Indian War. I also think that France's best days were the Nappy era when they were at peak of their Power and they miss their old domination of the European Continent. When the Prussians came along and bested them in th Franco-Prussian War it was all down hill from there. They'd already lost their colonies in the previous wars. Germany would come to be the big continental threat until after WW2. We helped them enough, and they have helped us enough. Relations are strained because she is a minor and still wants a say so. UK is also a minor... Really their opinion independantly means nothing, and the UN doesn't do their job. It's been proven consistently... Although America goes to places that suites it's interest, it's better off for many of the people it cleans up their corrupt and broken nations. Just if we could get the UN to take care of their own mess for a change! Like Yugoslavia!<that is a pitiful sign of their lack of organization> They need to become more active... The Arabs need to organize their own police force as well! With the inforcement of all major nations. Asia is a timebomb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts