wars are not board games

[harmonica]

...wars are not board games .......wars are very complicated .....wars like Iraq and Afghanistan MORE than complicated ......lots of politics involved....you rub my back -- I rub yours.....even some people who hated saddam and the Taliban, and fought ''with'' the US, still did not like the US..
..if we help one group, the other groups are not ''happy''

.....it takes a lot of time to set up intelligence operations [ intel very important ] .....very complicated = ie: the Camp Chapman attack where the person the CIA thought was a good guy, was actually a bad guy [ CIA fkd that up by not keeping him on a need to know basis ] ...so even after setting up the intel, you never know what you will get ....
--then, after you do some operations based on the intel, then you change and adapt.....it's very dynamic

....there are multiple entities involved......such as in Beirut, you have muslims killing muslims....muslim killing christians/christians killing christians/christians killing muslims/etc etc ....?????!!!!!!!!! a big mess .....in WW2 France/Italy/Balkans/etc had many groups fighting for power...politically and/or physically

not a board game

 

[Votto]

I always hated trying to take Asia and Afghanistan in the board game Risk. Sure, you get a lot of bonus cards for taking Asia, but the continent is too damned big and troublesome to keep. Usually when you take and hold Asia, you have already conquered the rest of the board already anyway and victory has already been sealed.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I always hated trying to take Asia and Afghanistan in the board game Risk. Sure, you get a lot of bonus cards for taking Asia, but the continent is too damned big and troublesome to keep. Usually when you take and hold Asia, you have already conquered the rest of the board already anyway and victory has already been sealed.

Just my 2 cents.

I always enjoyed taking Australia then a good part of Asia and Alaska.

It always screwed with the other players plans.

The only place that can't be attacked once I hold that is South America.

It's almost impossible to hold the Middle East so fighting for Alaska and the Ukraine was the goal because Africa and South America will usually be attacking North America and Europe too.

To get to my continent you had to get through India or China then Siam.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Votto]

Most don't know this but after Germany was vanquished there were insurgencies after Germany surrendered for about 10 years. Keep in mind, this was without surrounding countries supporting such insurgencies, yet it took them 10 years to fight them all off? Knowing that alone should check anyone's resolve as to whether you are willing to pay the price needed of winning a war.

But that was a world war.

Political wars, that is, wars fought in just one country and not surrounding countries, started in Korea for the US. Next think you know, in comes China. The US was not willing to fight China, therefore, the war was not winnable. As a result, the US still has troops there.

Vietnam was another. The North Vietnamese would go in and out of bordering countries as those countries helped them, including the USSR. Therefore, that war was also not winnable. The US simply refused to leave soldiers there like they did in Korea.

And the list goes on. The lesson learned is that wars a messy and will not be won UNLESS you are willing to attack anything and everything helping your adversary, which means surrounding countries. And even then, you will probably have to stay around 10 years to fight off insurgencies.

Now in the minds of these "brilliant" politicians I think the goal is not to win a country but to accomplish some other goal which is never spelled out. But who knows, maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can get in and out quickly and place a puppet government that won't fall quickly.

But let's say you can install a puppet country like the US did in Iran, without fighting a war. Eventually that puppet government, which will be corrupt, will be hated for decades fostering a burning desire for revolution and revenge.

That's always fun to do as well.

 

[whitehall]

First Gulf was the closest thing to a real war with shock and awe and taking real estate by force. The conflicts run by crooked politicians since than are not wars. They are more like board games with moves determined by clerks and analysis who sit behind desks mostly in the CIA. Afghanistan was a board game that nobody wanted to win and played with real lives.

 

[harmonica]

Votto fun game

 

[harmonica]

whitehall PG1 not a mountain war but ''flat'' desert--easy for the US to use their advantage ...yes, a conventional war ....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Most don't know this but after Germany was vanquished there were insurgencies after Germany surrendered for about 10 years. Keep in mind, this was without surrounding countries supporting such insurgencies, yet it took them 10 years to fight them all off? Knowing that alone should check anyone's resolve as to whether you are willing to pay the price needed of winning a war.

But that was a world war.

Political wars, that is, wars fought in just one country and not surrounding countries, started in Korea for the US. Next think you know, in comes China. The US was not willing to fight China, therefore, the war was not winnable. As a result, the US still has troops there.

Vietnam was another. The North Vietnamese would go in and out of bordering countries as those countries helped them, including the USSR. Therefore, that war was also not winnable. The US simply refused to leave soldiers there like they did in Korea.

And the list goes on. The lesson learned is that wars a messy and will not be won UNLESS you are willing to attack anything and everything helping your adversary, which means surrounding countries. And even then, you will probably have to stay around 10 years to fight off insurgencies.

Now in the minds of these "brilliant" politicians I think the goal is not to win a country but to accomplish some other goal which is never spelled out. But who knows, maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can get in and out quickly and place a puppet government that won't fall quickly.

But let's say you can install a puppet country like the US did in Iran, without fighting a war. Eventually that puppet government, which will be corrupt, will be hated for decades fostering a burning desire for revolution and revenge.

That's always fun to do as well.

The easiest way to win is to incorporate the country under a banner willingly.

We should offer Taiwan, Philippines, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, & Virgin Islands, statehood.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Esdraelon]

The Taliban know that they "won" because they never admitted defeat. They knew from the beginning that the day would come when we would leave the country back to their control. What they should be told today, is that if they refuse to allow our citizens free passage to the airport for evacuation, they WILL cause the reintroduction of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of troops to retake Bagram and a very large perimeter around Kabul. If they are given that warning while we are amassing the troops for transport from nearby countries, their friends in China and Russia will tell them we seem to not be bluffing and are getting the forces ready to move.

This catastrophe was caused by either stupid political decisions or it was an intentional move designed to further humiliate America on the world stage. Either way, there is only ONE political party that will have the blame and unless they move quickly to get our people out and home it will cost them everything in 2022 and 2024.

 

[Manonthestreet]

If you’re always on defense, you’re losing.

Afghanistan proves our failed generals no longer care about winning

The real villains here are the throne-sniffing Pentagon brass who failed in the one mission every commanding general has: to win the damn war.

nypost.com

 

[Yarddog]

View attachment 529077

I always enjoyed taking Australia then a good part of Asia and Alaska.

It always screwed with the other players plans.

The only place that can't be attacked once I hold that is South America.

It's almost impossible to hold the Middle East so fighting for Alaska and the Ukraine was the goal because Africa and South America will usually be attacking North America and Europe too.

To get to my continent you had to get through India or China then Siam.

*****CHUCKLE*****

How on earth did you come up with a copy of Biden's classified battle strategies???

I always suspected his national security advisers were really Hasbro and Milton Bradly...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

How on earth did you come up with a copy of Biden's classified battle strategies???

I always suspected his national security advisers were really Hasbro and Milton Bradly...

Actually I prefer this board game to Risk

*****SMILE*****

 

[Natural Citizen]

They pretty much are board games, though.

I can't say where, but I once walked into a big building that was basically a sandbox setup of an invasion.

It was actually pretty cool.

Anyway. All wars these days are banker wars. It's a big old game of Monopoly, really.

 

[whitehall]

whitehall PG1 not a mountain war but ''flat'' desert--easy for the US to use their advantage ...yes, a conventional war ....

Why do Americans keep making excuses for the U.S. victory in the Gulf War? A desert war would have been the ideal environment for what was touted as the 4th best fighting force in the world at the time. The willingness of a republican president to take real estate by force together with U.S. technology and Troops and air superiority kicked their ass in a freaking week. That's the way to win a war. Democrat administrations don't seem to have the stomach for victory. Harry Truman decided that he didn't want to win in Korea after MacArthur's great blunder at the Yalu river. JFK let the CIA plan an illegal invasion of Cuba and left the army stranded at the Bay of Pigs. LBJ set the rules so that we could win every battle in Vietnam and still lose the war. Jimmie Carter authorized a rescue mission in the desert that was doomed to failure. Bill Clinton cut and ran from Somolia and then bombed a defenseless country in Europe when he was caught with his pants down. Obama invited the parents of a traitor who abandoned his post and went over the the enemy, to the White House. The point is that democrats never trust the generals. They are more comfortable with paper pushers with fancy names to give advice about using the Military as "peace keepers" while individual Soldiers come back missing limbs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why do Americans keep making excuses for the U.S. victory in the Gulf War? A desert war would have been the ideal environment for what was touted as the 4th best fighting force in the world at the time. The willingness of a republican president to take real estate by force together with U.S. technology and Troops and air superiority kicked their ass in a freaking week. That's the way to win a war. Democrat administrations don't seem to have the stomach for victory. Harry Truman decided that he didn't want to win in Korea after MacArthur's great blunder at the Yalu river. JFK let the CIA plan an illegal invasion of Cuba and left the army stranded at the Bay of Pigs. LBJ set the rules so that we could win every battle in Vietnam and still lose the war. Jimmie Carter authorized a rescue mission in the desert that was doomed to failure. Bill Clinton cut and ran from Somolia and then bombed a defenseless country in Europe when he was caught with his pants down. Obama invited the parents of a traitor who abandoned his post and went over the the enemy, to the White House. The point is that democrats never trust the generals. They are more comfortable with paper pushers with fancy names to give advice about using the Military as "peace keepers" while individual Soldiers come back missing limbs.

Your Generals of today leave a lot to be desired.....wokeness is now their mission....

 

[Likkmee]

Never trusted Intel. Been an AMD guy for years

 

[harmonica]

whitehall
1. we did win Korea--mission accomplished
'''''approved a U.S. resolution calling for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel''''' = war objective accomplished
blunder at the Yalu??---you think we could've went in to China???!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now way we could beat China
2. Bay of Pigs was a disaster and Castro had already killed or gotten rid of most of those against him ..there is no proof at all that would've succeeded with US help
3. the US accomplishment in PG1 was fantastic/awesome/etc .....but we had air supremacy--a SUPER advantage.....a corporal could've been in charge and we still we still would've won
4. Vietnam was unwinnable, like Afghanistan

President Truman orders U.S. forces to Korea | June 27, 1950 | HISTORY

President Harry S. Truman announces that he is ordering U.S. air and naval forces to South Korea to aid the democratic nation in repulsing an invasion by communist North Korea.

www.history.com

 

[MisterBeale]

...wars are not board games .......wars are very complicated .....wars like Iraq and Afghanistan MORE than complicated ......lots of politics involved....you rub my back -- I rub yours.....even some people who hated saddam and the Taliban, and fought ''with'' the US, still did not like the US..
..if we help one group, the other groups are not ''happy''

.....it takes a lot of time to set up intelligence operations [ intel very important ] .....very complicated = ie: the Camp Chapman attack where the person the CIA thought was a good guy, was actually a bad guy [ CIA fkd that up by not keeping him on a need to know basis ] ...so even after setting up the intel, you never know what you will get ....
--then, after you do some operations based on the intel, then you change and adapt.....it's very dynamic

....there are multiple entities involved......such as in Beirut, you have muslims killing muslims....muslim killing christians/christians killing christians/christians killing muslims/etc etc ....?????!!!!!!!!! a big mess .....in WW2 France/Italy/Balkans/etc had many groups fighting for power...politically and/or physically

not a board game

This is very true.

. . . but, if you search, there are some board games that at least attempt to simulate this aspect.

 

[Stryder50]

At first it looks like Risk, but it's far more complex, and instructive.
...
History of the World works under the assumptions that all empires eventually fade and that the only things differentiating great empires from lesser ones is how much territory they conquer and how long it takes for their civilizations to disappear. The game is played out over 7 epochs or rounds, from the ancient 3000 B.C. Sumerians to the pre-WW1 Germany, with every player controlling a new rising empire from history. Some empires are stronger than others (like the Romans), but the game's clever mechanisms can help balance that out. At the end of each epoch, players score points for all units of their color (from both the current and any previous empires) remaining on the board.

Gameplay: Each player selects a color and takes all pieces of that color, as there are different miniatures for each of the 7 Epochs, these should be sorted by Epoch. The game board is a stylized version of the globe. The Event cards should be separated into Greater and Lesser Events. Each player is dealt 3 Greater Events. These are either Minor Empires, Leaders, Weaponry or Reallocation. Each player is also dealt 7 Lesser Events. There are 22 different types of Lesser Events (Disasters, Diseases, and Special abilities, to name a few). Players roll 2 dice and determine first player and begin drawing their first Epoch empires. One unique mechanism is that the drawing player can examine their drawn empire and decide whether to keep it for themselves or give it to another player who hasn't gotten one yet. If it is given to another player, the receiving player has no choice but to keep it for himself to play that Epoch. Then the next player draws and makes his decision. The player who gives their drawn Empire has to wait until given an empire by another player or until the last player draws. Each Empire card contains the Empire name, how many troops the Empire has for expansion, the Empire's starting land space, if it has a Capitol or not (barbarian or nomadic nations frequently do not) and if it has any Navigation (Seas and Oceans to travel by). One player reads out the Epochs Empires in order and turns are taken, in this roughly historical order, when a player's Empire is called.

Before the start of their turn a player may play up to two Event cards from their hand. The Events played are resolved before the player starts his Empire's actions. If the player's active Empire has navigation a ship token is placed in each sea or ocean listed (if an ocean is listed all adjacent seas to the ocean have ship markers put into them). A Reallocation Greater Event allows an Empire with Navigation to exchange Fleets in seas and oceans for Coins that can be used to buy back defeated troops (1 coin per troop). If the active Empire has a capitol it is taken and placed in the Empire's starting land with one unit of the Empire's available troops.

Since each land space may only contain one troop the player begins expanding from their starting land by placing troops in any adjacent land space that they wish to occupy or conquer. To conquer a land the attacker moves one unit into the land space either from adjacent land or through a sea with a ship in it. Then dice are rolled, the attacker gets 2 dice and the defender only one, unless the attacker traveled across a strait or the defender's land has either a forest, the great wall of China, or mountains on the border of the land that the attacker came from. In this case the defender receives 2 dice as well. If the attack comes from the sea the defender gets 3 dice for defense. Highest score wins with ties killing off both the defender and attacker. In this case the attacker can merely place the next troop, if he has any left, in the now-empty land space.

At any time the active Empire player may exchange an unplaced troop for a fort. On later turns, a fort gives the player a +1 to defensive rolls in that land. Also, if the defender in a fort loses or ties with an attacker only the fort is removed and the battle continues. Whenever an army conquers a land with a capitol the capitol mini is flipped reducing it to a city (if it was a city to begin with it is removed from board when conquered). After the active player's Empire is finished with it's actions check to see if it conquered to land spaces with resource symbols, if so it can build a monument.

Then scoring takes place. Each area (Middle-East, Northern Europe, Eurasia, etc...) has a tile with 3 values for the current Epoch. One value is for having a presence in the area (at least one land). Another value is for having Dominance in the area (at least 2 lands and more than any other player in area). The last value is for having Control of an area (at least 3 lands and no other player has any in area). These values vary from Epoch to Epoch and Area to Area (Middle-East is more valuable in early Epochs and fades in later Epochs, for example). Total the scores from each area for all pieces of the player's color from all Empires controlled that remain on board. Then add 2 points for each capitol controlled, 1 point per city and one point for each monument controlled. After all areas are scored the next Empire called takes its turn.

After all players have taken their turns and scored, for the first Epoch, the player with the highest score gets to take a pre-eminence marker and places it in front of him. These are secret bonus points (worth somewhere from 3 to 6) for the end of the game and may not be examined till then. This bonus to leader helps balance the Empire-draw mechanic and makes it valuable to score maximal points even early in the game, rather than tanking to get a better draw later. Then drawing begins for the next Epoch with the player having the lowest score drawing first on up to the person with the highest score drawing last (and likely being given a less than optimal Empire by another player).

Victory: After the last player has scored for Epoch 7 and the leader has drawn a pre-eminence marker, all players reveal their pre-eminence markers and add them to their scores. The player with the highest score wins.
...
I have the 1993 edition, which is my preference;

History of the World

Build History by expanding 6 Civilizations: who will Dominate the World ?

boardgamegeek.com

More history and detailes here:

History of the World (board game) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stryder50]

History of the World - computer game

History of The World Download (1997 Strategy Game)​

...
History of the World is an entertaining board game that just begged for a computer translation. Like most Avalon Hill games, it uses tiny cardboard tiles to designate things like number of troops, ships, capitals, cities and monuments. The tiles are one of the most important elements of the game because they show which territories are occupied by specific empires.

As you can imagine, it's extremely easy to lose track of who has what if someone accidentally drags an arm across the board (or if an inquisitive cat is nearby). Thus, a computer version would automatically do away with this nuisance and also free players from keeping score. This is a relief since points have to be tallied after each of the seven phases of the game, and there are a lot of different ways an empire can earn them.
...
The computer game handles the scoring perfectly and provides challenging computer opponents to satisfy even the most hardened veteran of strategy games. An added benefit is that it's much faster to play without worrying about counting each tile over and over again. There's only one small problem: hardly anything was enhanced from the game! It's like having the board game slapped directly onto your monitor -- complete with those tiny tiles covering the different territories. A 3D mode would have gone a long way in improving the cluttered look of the screen.
...

History of The World Download (1997 Strategy Game)

www.old-games.com