In addition, lucky countries have a greater chance of getting spy ops against countries with better spy networks and a greater chance of successfully attacking when oversending.

I may be beating a dead horse here... but you'd think luck would come into play when you don't oversend. I dunno, call me crazy but i'm pretty sure if russia wanted to invade the us, they'd stand a better chance sending all 20+ million of their avaiable military in against our... 3 million

Not really, you're forgetting about the 100 million armed citizens here. They may not be in the military, but the population ain't just gonna roll over either.

"The U.S. is the most Armed Country with 90 Guns per 100 People.*... U.S. Citizens own 270 million of the Worlds 875 Million known Firearms.*... About 4.5 million of the 8 Million Guns manufactured Worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.*... There is Roughly one (1*) Firearm for every seven (7*) People Worldwide.* India has the second - largest civilian gun arsenal. China ranks third with Three (3*) Firearms per 100 People.* Germany, France, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia were next in the ranking of Country's overall civilian gun arsenals.* There are 650 Million civilian firearms worldwide, and 225 Million held by Law Enforcement and Military Forces.* Only about 12% of Civilian Firearms are thought to be registered with Authorities.* This was published by Laura MacInnis Tuesday August 28, 2007 at 1:28 Eastern Time.* REUTERS.*"


Try 270 million, not 100 million... If anyone wants to step into America, they will have a fight on there hands :)

i always invest all my bonus points into luck until war breaks out. then it is straight turns



as for the guns, i personally own 7, i used to have 9 but my wife made me sell 2 of the more offensive oriented ones.

DS: Most of those guns, like ford demonstrated, are probably focused in the hands of a smaller portion of the population. I would guess even the original 100 million number is way too high as far as actual gun owners, especially considering most of the people I know who own guns have a number pretty similar to or greater than what fordy has.

Back to the original point though: I agree Despy. Seems like the luck ought to help when you should have sent 5% more troops rather than 40% fewer.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

without swayze, i fear russia could win.

twain, if i had a hundred guns and fifty people wanting to start a militia with me, I might share :P

but how is russia crossing either ocean, because the usn wins?

(i also use bonus for luck, but for the increased explore bonus, for rep it works quite nicely)

how does anyone know how many guns china has? because we all know what an open book they are, especially with info like that lol

but the original point is a good one. should have a chance at sending less and breaking, not more. if u over send u should basically always break

But if you owned 10 guns, would you share 9 of them (with 9 people)? Or hook up 2-3 people you're close to with a few guns each?

Also, on China: I'm guessing with a lot of the protests that have happened in China, we would've seen more of an armed resistance at some point if they were a heavily armed populace like the U.S. is. Just a thought.

Besides, thanks to Cerberus, we've really taken this discussion in a totally different direction than it was originally intended. :P

you raise good points, i would still share, yes (somebody with a gun to protect my back is only a good thing), but we would certainly have far less of a sting with our little militia :P

i would have thought the communist government of china would want to restrict the level of gun ownership amongst their citizenry, and for obvious reasons, too?

So, back to the luck thing.

Anyone think it makes sense that it helps you more when you oversend than when you undersend?

does it help you with attacking as it is now?
\again, i use it for the explore bonus and don't really attack..

yea, so while playing primary just now i answered my own question, i went to the information on bonuses page, and read "greater chance of successfully attacking when oversending"

so the "subtlest" of all permanent bonuses is found in pretty much any turn i play? i don't think it needs to help at all when undersending.. and who undersends, anyways? buy weapons tech if you don't want to hold the military.

yeah and even when oversending by 5% you still have a chance at being 'mehuled', luck decreases the mehul factor.

hey, this isn't e2025, havoc. it's "panged" now.

Well, I don't think anyone purposefully undersends, but if it's a big break and I mess up a tech calculation or I'm just taking wild guesses at their allies instead of doing ally ops, I oversend by a lot to make sure I don't fail. If I knew luck would help me, I might not do that.

And also, for wartime, if I send 50k troops and the person just bought up while I was hitting to 55k, that'd be a time when I'd undersend, just because until I see the DH, I didn't know I WAS undersending.

+1

that's capitalism for ya :P

I think you've got a pretty cynical view of the American populace. But thanks for taking this thread back to arguing the silly hypothetical that was brought up instead of the actual point. :P

if we keep it conventional, russia would send their troop transports across the pacific and try to invade on the west coast?

Go ask Japan how that worked for them, with the whole pacific war thing. Or maybe they'll try coming across the atlantic? Germany could barely even control the shipping lanes.

so how are they invading, because right now I have a few million russian troops drowning in salt water before they touch american soil :P

trusty soviet weaponry?

(I"m sorry twain, but I have so many problems with Red Dawn :P)

why the heck would russia WANT to cross the pacific/atlantic to invade the US of all places, they already have the largest country on earth, with more mineral resources and water than the US has.

perhaps its to steal the mountain dew factories ? ;)

you raise good point, as well :P

you can call it massive wastage and over spending, but you'll think differently when they drop thousands of pounds of bombs on you from planes you couldn't see or hear.

but i think akula summed it up nicely altogether

To answer your question about which ocean they would cross, it's simple. Neither, they would either go by way or crossing the north pole and enter through canada, storming down through quebec on their way to D.C, or they would invade by way of entering through alaska, coming down the cascade range and overrunning the west coast.


OR... they could do both at teh same time and just completely ass fluff us

To answer you braden, The Arctic Ocean going over the North Pole like Despy said, the perfect scenario I have done on this war simulation game I have called SuperPower 2.

You hit Alaska, NW Territories, Ontario and Quebec from the North. California, Texas and Florida from the South. Have your amphibious assault on the Pacific coast, and pull a 'World In Conflict' and surprise the East coast with civilian tankers with thousands of troops inside.

Once that is done, keep a fraction of your forces near the coast, set up your Theatre Of Operations, your Assembly Areas, Areas of Operation and from there you launch your assault.

Good luck taking Texas.

if they come across alaska and go down the west coast, bc wash st oregon they get destroyed by american air force, and the navy goes up to the straight and cuts off any possible reinforcements or supply chain, so now you're cut off from your only chance at survival, alone, in terribly thick, soaking wet conditions and you have absolutely no air support whatsoever. You are surrounded, and you are going to die, your invasion fails.

The same goes for what I assume you meant Manitoba, across or underneath Hudsons bay, across the top of ontario down the middle of ontario and quebec (take our parliament, while you're there) and go into upstate new york, vermont, nh, maine, where? repeat everything that happened on the west coast, except I forgot to mention you have no control of any waterways or coast line so the naval shelling is ripping you apart. Good job, you're dead and your invasion fails.

I'm sorry twain I tried to stop, I promise you I did :P

Walding: America did :)

40 days of 100+ heat. nobody wants texas :P

Russians trying to invade the south (texas mostly) would be like europeans trying to invade russia. Lots of foreign landscape, strange creatures, starvation, and stubborn locals who own small arsenals.

That being said, I could honestly see Russia crossing the Bering Strait and totally fluffing alaska and canada up.

And about that luck bonus.. it should help with spy ops when you have less spies. As far as undersending, that doesn't really happen .. an nobody's gonna say "fluff it man I have 9% luck bonus, I'm gonna try sending half of his fluff"

there is a lot of dispute/debate atm about the artic. clearly it has a LOT of water, which soon will be the most valuable resource on the planet lol
russia and canada own it for the most part. but lately china has basically said that because they have such a high % of the world population they are entitled to a % of the artic.

but whats really scary, is that over the last decade, russia has poured trillions into there military, and in the last 3 years have flown bombers very very close, and on at least 1 instance OVER Canadian boarders. seems like they are flexing there muscles over all that ice.

You people would suck at being Generals...

You don't need to invade the US, it would actually be the worse you can do.


1. Let them fluff themselves, push other NATO countries around and force the US to supply Military aid to them, the effect is MUCH greater if you can make the NATO members you are messing with be seen as the aggressors, with their battle lines thinner, you NUKE their assembling forces to oblivion in a surprise attack.

2. Destroy the world market, you think movies like battle los angeles makes any sense?, you don't go after the best defended positions, you go after the supply line, in this case all Oil producing countries and force an oil shortage in american soil, that will cause great instability.

Watch as the country falls apart.

I dunno if generals would be involved in that kind of front .. but no I've never aspired to be one either way.

No matter what happens I can't see another conflict breaking out and not ending in nuclear annihilation. Everyone's stacked and emotions run high when fluff hits the fan

why would u bother with all the nato fluff if u just going to nuke them? :P

It's inevitable ;) Weapons like that aren't created and never used.

Seriously though, the luck bonus should never be used. You war, you use turns. You net, you use building costs or decay. You know you're gonna war, you use turns to prep.

1. Let them fluff themselves, push other NATO countries around and force the US to supply Military aid to them, the effect is MUCH greater if you can make the NATO members you are messing with be seen as the aggressors, with their battle lines thinner, you NUKE their assembling forces to oblivion in a surprise attack. <-- Would be a pointless waste of time, as well as more difficult to do since one of the nifty things about the us military is rapid deployment via military bases on foriegn soil. It would also be rather silly to nuke the opposing forces, when 30 seconds after russia launches one nuke, the united states launches 100 at moscow, st petersburg, and other large russian cities.

2. Destroy the world market, you think movies like battle los angeles makes any sense?, you don't go after the best defended positions, you go after the supply line, in this case all Oil producing countries and force an oil shortage in american soil, that will cause great instability. <--- that wouldn't work, vast number of reasons.

Watch as the country falls apart.



The best thing to do would be to disrupt the power grid. Four keystone places in the unites states powergrid can knock out the east and west coast, putting probably 2/3 of the country in the dark. in the confusion you bomb several key air force bases, followed by d.c, la, and nyc.

Capture those three areas and the united states is pretty well boned

But the U.S. has a huge oil reserve and the largest provider of our oil is our neighbors to the north, Canada. Unless the countries that intended to attack us was in fact an oil producing country, then they'd be screwing themselves more than they screwed us. Now the first point might be solid, but I'm not buying the 2nd point. Messing with the world market would only work if you were already in an advantageous position over the United States, because we already have a huge oil reserve. At least that's how it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong, I acknowledged today in conversation that I apparently don't get economics, because everything that seems common sense to me is either wrong or never brought up. Guess that's why it's a good thing I majored in English.

If you do 1 point, then you are already at an advantage.

USA has oil reserves, but they can't just decide to take it all out right away, if the market block is sudden enough, there won't be enough time to react and start to extract it before it turns into a mayor problem, and again, when I said the supply line, I did mean it.

but we are talking crap, why would anyone waste their resources to attack USA, is like using part of your stock to hit that annoying Huge Networth country that keeps talking fluff, you just let them talk and watch as their economy implodes, that or a ton of missiles.

Russia is getting more military to regain its muscle during negotiations and to remind Euro/Asian countries, that they aren't to be fluffed with, because big daddy USA can't do fluff around there, and you have to respect Russia or they will roll stomp you... ahem Georgia...

canada doesn't need US oil. we have more then enough. we chose to buy from the US cause we sell most of ours :P

Take out a few strategically placed hydroelectric power plants, and that's pretty much doable, Despy.

Also... the United States and Russia still practice Mutually Assured Destruction. While Russia is scaling back their nuclear forces, they're producing newer ballistic missiles that more than make up for the loss of the missiles 20-30 years old that are being dismantled.

Around 1991 it would have been for every missile the U.S. threw at Russia, they could throw three back.

Here's some stats to consider. :P

Russia's peak nuclear stockpile: 30,000 warheads (1985)
Russia's curr. nuclear stockpile: 12,000 total (2010 est.)

U.S. peak nuclear stockpile: 32,225 warheads (1967)
U.S. curr. nuclear stockpile: 5,113 total

1. I never said Russia would launch a nuke, I said Nuke the military forces as they gather for pace keeping, there are several organizations that could do just that, if they had the "nukes" to pull it out, no one needs to launch a missile, when it can be shipped placed and detonated.

However, I agree taking out the power grip is the best approach to cause internal instability, I can't believe I forgot that simple thing, that was the end goal of my suggestion, but I forgot USA has Coal/Nuclear/Hydroelectric power plants so the best way to cripple it is to mess the grip big time,,,


zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

nukes are way way way overkill for troops. there would be no peacekeeping effort big enough in one central place that would warrant a nuke.
better off to nuke a civilian population and let the economy implode.
as it stands, if there is rumors of a fart in Siberia, markets dive. so that would deff do it.

Chaoswind: Like The Sum Of All Fears?

Watertowers: HELL YES! XD

russia has poured trillions into there military,
=================================================
Trillions equate to a small drop, in a big ole bucket!...

seems like they are flexing there muscles over all that ice.
============================================================
Maybe they are merely avoiding devastating plane crashes in densely populated areas.
As the two-fold problem could be... This ice, is a good place for nOOb pilots to navigate their flying machines, straight into the frozen iced over tundra!
And perhaps... an.. Amazement that their aircraft flies completely across the 'ice' and MAY return, without crashing?


I think, although there are extremes... Basically, most of this planet's human population have evolved to a point, that the fragility of life alone, has become the common goal, a concerted worldwide effort, to find answers to prolong human life. I'm kinda glad about that...

War games are GREAT fun!
I'd always wanna remain alive.
After EVERY WAR! LoL

They might as well bring those Russian women while invading, they aren't very feminine, to look at. They may even be as ugly as the Russian men! Don't you think?

Anyway..

Very funny thread.. Thank you..

OK, you guys aren't thinking things through.

While you're hiding your million troop army outside of four key power stations in america to disrupt the power grid?

What are you using to hit key cities like nyc, dc or la, and the military bases?

your aircraft got shot down, your troops on the ground h ave been killed, and you have no navy whatsoever. So how exactly are you waging war on america or canada?

You come across the straight, the us navy cuts off your supply lines. You come across land, the air force will cut off your supply lines. You have no resources, and you are in hostile land.

The best chance anybody has is waging war on americas allies, as somebody suggested america will aid them and fall deeper into debt.

And if all the "liveable" russian cities got nuked, they'd have thousands of acres left to live on, you can't nuke every square foot so they'll win@! maybe so, but you overestimate the living conditions of siberia, but you "won" mad, so good for you. still you won't be able to land invade north america, and we're all dead over here.

On the first part: If nuclear holocaust broke out between the U.S. and Russia, I doubt we'd be terrible concerned with nuking Siberia. I'm sure the United States has more than enough nukes and other weapons left to devastate the heavily populated parts of Russia.

On the second part: I'm not going to pretend I know anything about weapons, so pass.

Third part: Two words: Common enemy. Saying things like our political system would hold us back in a way against Russia or that women would worry more about political correctness is just silly.

Wait, this was a Russia vs America Thread? Last night I was sure this was a how to fluff America Over...

You don't need an army of troops to mess with the Grid, you need to know with places to sabotage and with places to destroy, you really don't need more than a few docents of people, a great plan and well coordinated incapable of getting cold feet or being stupid enough to cause a leak of the plan.

remember that power outage in about 7 years ago in the us? here's the part where i point and laugh at NS and Braden...

"The Northeast Blackout of 2003 was a widespread power outage that occurred throughout parts of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States and Ontario, Canada on Thursday, August 14, 2003."

affected 10 million canadians and 45 million americans.

12:15 p.m. Incorrect telemetry data renders inoperative the state estimator, a power flow monitoring tool operated by the Indiana-based Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO). An operator corrects the telemetry problem but forgets to restart the monitoring tool.
1:31 p.m. The Eastlake, Ohio generating plant shuts down. The plant is owned by FirstEnergy, an Akron, Ohio-based company that had experienced extensive recent maintenance problems.

by 4:15 that day...

4:13 p.m. End of cascading failure. 256 power plants are off-line, 85% of which went offline after the grid separations occurred, most due to the action of automatic protective controls.


disrupted cellular service, water in some area(cleveland for example) and a whole lot of stuff.


and that eastlake power plant is coal, to hell with hydro electric lol.



and chaos... I thought this thread was about luck in oversending in the game? lol

My point... is that while some of the power plants aren't coal, wind, nuclear or otherwise powered.

I could name off at least half a dozen hydroelectric power plants that if destroyed, would not only set this country back a few hundred billion dollars (if not more than a trillion, considering clean-up costs, environmental damage, re-building costs, going with a more modern design to avoid a repeat...) but also wipe out the electricity for at least most of the Western United States, a chunk of the Gulf States, and parts of New England.