If you take Asia and Australia, then you can defend Ukraine, the mid-East, and Alaska, giving you 9 bonus armies and taking away the possibility of anyone controlling N. America or Europe.
Starting in south america is the best. because then you can keep that continent and let you troops stand in africa and north america. And it is pretty easy to get North america once you have south america. (the other way around is also a possibility, but i like starting in brazil
Once again, texxx doesn't have anything intelligent to say and bashes a source. Nothing to see here folks, just a poster with zero credibility.
But the best starting place is the Americas. Take and hold S. America (only needing to defend two territories) and it is easy to take N. America with the bonus armies from S. America. Then, you can protect two continents and take away the bonus armies from three other continents by holding E. Africa, Iceland, and Kamchakta. Seven bonus armies, three dead continents (continents with no bonus armies), and only three spaces to defend equal victory.
I don't have to. The source is fairly unimportant, the substance is what I am interested in. Of course, you are unable to debate the substance so you just bash the source. It is par for the course for you and I would not expect anything different given your historical inability to defend a position using facts and evidence rather than hyperbole, partisan rhetoric, and red herring distractions.
exactly. i don't know much about the substantive argument here. but people on both sides of these arguments bust the other all the time for the source they're citing from. happens all the time. and probably for good reason, on both sides.
I would debate the substance if it came from Faux news rather than bashing the source. I cannot remember ever bashing a source without responding to the substance of the article in question.
This is silly; does anyone not believe that bush has been pushing for bunker busting nuclear weapons? Pick a paper and you can find an article on it. It cracks me up that some homers here have never read some of the most respected news papers in America and yet they claim they are "liberal rags" because they weren't published in their tri-county area.
And if there was any substance being provided by an article from Faux News, I would debate said substance IN ADDITION to bashing an obviously biased source. My problem with you has to do with the fact that you ONLY bash the source and ignore the substance. Nobody can dispute that Fox news is easily as biased as moveon.org, but both organizations put out information that is factual and subject to debate. What is hilarious is your inability to see that.
True. Arno_ed said the same thing. Europe is a ***** to hang on to. Not only do you have to worry about assaults from Asia, but Africa and North America as well. I always liked to grab SA and Australia if I could, hold Australia, grab NA, and use SA to keep someone from holding Africa, and NA (Iceland) from letting someone hold Europe and attack Asia from Alaska while they were messin' with my Australia. With a little luck, it's not a bad strategy. Man, my friends and I used to play Risk all the time. Anyone remember this? "Dammit! No alliances... no alliances!!"
I really like how GWB has pushed nukes and at the same time not given the army in Iraq proper body armour or humvee armour. You go GWB. It shows your fu-ed priorities.
