text:
Hi, I am looking for some suggestions on my final decision.
I have received my PhD offers in Astronomy/Astrophysics at SIfA, the University of Sydney and at IfA, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
The stipend amount is not a concern, Hawaii gives 30+k(TA/RA dependent) while Sydney gives 26k(RTP scholarship as personal funding, no TA required). Hawaii is more expensive in living though.
I have visited both schools in the past and I am fine with living in both places. Of course, I have certain pro-life reasons to prefer Sydney: I am Australian, my partner will be doing her PhD in Astronomical instrumentation at Sydney, we can complete our PhD in 3-4 years(no classes or qualifiers) etc. I am astronomy majored and I have seriously no interest in taking more classes, Hawaii can provide quite the same which it has its MS very focused in doing research projects and simple classes.
My partner she would love to have me come to Sydney but she is okay with Hawaii if it is important for my career.
So cutting out all non-academic reasons, which school would be relatively better in academic development? Hawaii has all the best optical telescopes and a very strong faculty in exoplanets and galaxies(Brent Tully, if you know the Tully-Fisher relation), while the PhD project I have submitted for Sydney focuses on using radio astronomy instruments which is very strong in Australia. Will choosing Sydney be a terrible choice for my career?
If you don't know Sydney, could anyone point out just how Hawaii PhD education really ranks in the US, apart from all the telescopes advantage.
I think you have described the main (research) advantages of the two schools very well. I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii. However, they are hiring *two* new faculty members right now, probably at least one exoplanets person, so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again.
I think the stipend would be a concern at Hawaii though. People there say that 30k isn't really enough. I have heard that some of the reasons the *faculty* members are leaving is because they aren't paid enough to be able to afford a home etc. (But this is just what I've heard). Travelling from Hawaii to other places is also very expensive and requires long journeys.
But since you are asking about academic reasons here, I think the biggest question you would have to answer (don't have to say it here if you don't want to) is what you want to study and where you want to work in the future.
If you are interested in a North American postdoc/future academic position, then I think you are better off in Hawaii, where you will be better connected to the North American astronomical community. In addition, the short PhD program in Australia (and other places) will put you at a major disadvantage for North American academic jobs compared to US graduates. Not having classes in your PhD program will put you at a disadvantage as well, unless you have a Masters in Australia. The US has a weird (to me, since I'm Canadian) system! However, if Australia is like Canada where you get a MSc before a PhD, then you would probably be okay. The point is that you need to have some solid background beyond the undergraduate level in Astronomy and having breadth would be really important for long term job success in North America.
In addition, if you are interested in exoplanets, optical/IR observational astronomy, or a career in something like a telescope operator, support astronomer, etc. then you would be much better off at Hawaii.
On the other hand, if you're not interested in leaving Australia in the long term, then I am not sure there is much advantage to choosing Hawaii. I would check out the departments you might want to work at in Australia and see where those people got their PhDs or did postdocs. When I think of Australia, I think of radio astronomy and I know tons of North American radio astronomers move to Australia to have the best possible postdoc for their career. So, if you are heading in this direction for your astronomical career, then I think Sydney is a great choice.
You asked about how Hawaii ranks in the US but without the telescopes? I don't think that's a fair question to ask because the resources available to students at a school is probably one of the most important factors in determining how strong/good the school is for the student. In my opinion, the main (academic) reason for an astronomer to choose to go to Hawaii for a PhD is to have the amazing telescope access. I'm not at Hawaii but at another US school with amazing telescope access and it has really helped my career. It has allowed me to do interesting projects because we are the only people with the ability to do what we are doing.
Anyways, my opinion is that you have two good options and I think you would have to think about what your long term goals are in order to make the best decision for yourself. I think both these schools could be the right choice, but they will lead you towards different career paths, so choose wisely!
TakeruK wrote: I think you have described the main (research) advantages of the two schools very well. I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii. However, they are hiring *two* new faculty members right now, probably at least one exoplanets person, so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again.
Thanks! I suppose you mean 'exoplanet-everyone' as in Andrew Howard? Yeah talking about Hawaii without the telescopes is a little bit unfair.
I don't know how much will classes mean in my resume, because most of my undergrad deparment's junior and senior year classes are taught with the first year and second year masters. So our curriculum pretty much covers most of the graduate class education and its in China so I am pretty much done with all the maths and physics (don't ask me why I ended up taking the whole Chinese college entrance exam, I thought Chinese education was good), and research is pretty much a DIY learning process, my professors suggest that I will probably do fine.
I suppose it is a matter of interest in research then. It sometimes makes me feel narrowing myself up after knowing all those different fields of research, I've done X-ray astronomy and asteroseismology with Kepler (with a mix of exoplanets) in the past few years, and I have no idea what the outcome will be when I graduate. X-ray is kinda in the mess right now and I haven't got a school to do that any more, but my focus was on large catalogue transients so that pretty much fits with Sydney's work except it is in radio.
PS. Sydney's department is great, the Sydney Institute for Astronomy has quite a lot of famous professors such as Joss Bland-Hawthorn, Elain Sadler and Tim Bedding. The detailed program I proposed was to complete a large transient Survey using radio telescopes and novel data mining.

tokenized:
Hi , I am looking for some suggestions on my final decision .
 I have received my PhD offers in Astronomy / Astrophysics at SIfA , the University of Sydney and at IfA , University of Hawai'i at Manoa .
 The stipend amount is not a concern , Hawaii gives 30+k(TA / RA dependent ) while Sydney gives 26k(RTP scholarship as personal funding , no TA required ) . Hawaii is more expensive in living though .
 I have visited both schools in the past and I am fine with living in both places . Of course , I have certain pro - life reasons to prefer Sydney : I am Australian , my partner will be doing her PhD in Astronomical instrumentation at Sydney , we can complete our PhD in 3 - 4 years(no classes or qualifiers ) etc . I am astronomy majored and I have seriously no interest in taking more classes , Hawaii can provide quite the same which it has its MS very focused in doing research projects and simple classes .
 My partner she would love to have me come to Sydney but she is okay with Hawaii if it is important for my career .
 So cutting out all non - academic reasons , which school would be relatively better in academic development ? Hawaii has all the best optical telescopes and a very strong faculty in exoplanets and galaxies(Brent Tully , if you know the Tully - Fisher relation ) , while the PhD project I have submitted for Sydney focuses on using radio astronomy instruments which is very strong in Australia . Will choosing Sydney be a terrible choice for my career ?
 If you do n't know Sydney , could anyone point out just how Hawaii PhD education really ranks in the US , apart from all the telescopes advantage .
 I think you have described the main ( research ) advantages of the two schools very well . I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii . However , they are hiring * two * new faculty members right now , probably at least one exoplanets person , so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again .
 I think the stipend would be a concern at Hawaii though . People there say that 30k is n't really enough . I have heard that some of the reasons the * faculty * members are leaving is because they are n't paid enough to be able to afford a home etc . ( But this is just what I 've heard ) . Travelling from Hawaii to other places is also very expensive and requires long journeys .
 But since you are asking about academic reasons here , I think the biggest question you would have to answer ( do n't have to say it here if you do n't want to ) is what you want to study and where you want to work in the future .
 If you are interested in a North American postdoc / future academic position , then I think you are better off in Hawaii , where you will be better connected to the North American astronomical community . In addition , the short PhD program in Australia ( and other places ) will put you at a major disadvantage for North American academic jobs compared to US graduates . Not having classes in your PhD program will put you at a disadvantage as well , unless you have a Masters in Australia . The US has a weird ( to me , since I 'm Canadian ) system ! However , if Australia is like Canada where you get a MSc before a PhD , then you would probably be okay . The point is that you need to have some solid background beyond the undergraduate level in Astronomy and having breadth would be really important for long term job success in North America .
 In addition , if you are interested in exoplanets , optical / IR observational astronomy , or a career in something like a telescope operator , support astronomer , etc . then you would be much better off at Hawaii .
 On the other hand , if you 're not interested in leaving Australia in the long term , then I am not sure there is much advantage to choosing Hawaii . I would check out the departments you might want to work at in Australia and see where those people got their PhDs or did postdocs . When I think of Australia , I think of radio astronomy and I know tons of North American radio astronomers move to Australia to have the best possible postdoc for their career . So , if you are heading in this direction for your astronomical career , then I think Sydney is a great choice .
 You asked about how Hawaii ranks in the US but without the telescopes ? I do n't think that 's a fair question to ask because the resources available to students at a school is probably one of the most important factors in determining how strong / good the school is for the student . In my opinion , the main ( academic ) reason for an astronomer to choose to go to Hawaii for a PhD is to have the amazing telescope access . I 'm not at Hawaii but at another US school with amazing telescope access and it has really helped my career . It has allowed me to do interesting projects because we are the only people with the ability to do what we are doing .
 Anyways , my opinion is that you have two good options and I think you would have to think about what your long term goals are in order to make the best decision for yourself . I think both these schools could be the right choice , but they will lead you towards different career paths , so choose wisely !
 TakeruK wrote : I think you have described the main ( research ) advantages of the two schools very well . I am studying exoplanets and I was originally going to consider the IfA at Hawaii for a postdoc but then everyone I would have wanted to work with left Hawaii . However , they are hiring * two * new faculty members right now , probably at least one exoplanets person , so I think it will be a lively place for those interested in exoplanets once again .
 Thanks ! I suppose you mean ' exoplanet - everyone ' as in Andrew Howard ? Yeah talking about Hawaii without the telescopes is a little bit unfair .
 I do n't know how much will classes mean in my resume , because most of my undergrad deparment 's junior and senior year classes are taught with the first year and second year masters . So our curriculum pretty much covers most of the graduate class education and its in China so I am pretty much done with all the maths and physics ( do n't ask me why I ended up taking the whole Chinese college entrance exam , I thought Chinese education was good ) , and research is pretty much a DIY learning process , my professors suggest that I will probably do fine .
 I suppose it is a matter of interest in research then . It sometimes makes me feel narrowing myself up after knowing all those different fields of research , I 've done X - ray astronomy and asteroseismology with Kepler ( with a mix of exoplanets ) in the past few years , and I have no idea what the outcome will be when I graduate . X - ray is kinda in the mess right now and I have n't got a school to do that any more , but my focus was on large catalogue transients so that pretty much fits with Sydney 's work except it is in radio .
 PS . Sydney 's department is great , the Sydney Institute for Astronomy has quite a lot of famous professors such as Joss Bland - Hawthorn , Elain Sadler and Tim Bedding . The detailed program I proposed was to complete a large transient Survey using radio telescopes and novel data mining .


text: Here is the list of best Neuro Surgeons for Spinal Cord Injuries in Multan Multan. Find complete details, timings, patient reviews and contact information. Book appointment or take video consultation with the listed doctors. Call at Marham helpline: 042-32591427 to schedule your appointment.

tokenized: Here is the list of best Neuro Surgeons for Spinal Cord Injuries in Multan Multan . Find complete details , timings , patient reviews and contact information . Book appointment or take video consultation with the listed doctors . Call at Marham helpline : 042 - 32591427 to schedule your appointment .


text:
I’m trying to get back into Revised to get ready for an upcoming tournament but I’m pretty rusty. What’s the meta on German Openings looking like these days?
I haven’t played Revised in a while (moved on to G40 like most people), but when I did everyone seemed to love dropping a Carrier in the Baltic G1 (to delay the UK Fleet for a bit).
Is this still the norm, or have their been major developments in the last 6 or so years?
hi! noone has answerd, so I would reccomend reading MarineIguanas posts in the thread. I have played a lot of games on BGO and can with confidence say that it is a very good answer.
Hi. Thanks for the reply!
Anyway, I’m going to quote MarineIguana here and ask a few questions with the hopes that either he or you can answer.
This is almost certainly more advice than you are looking for. I’m going to give you the secret for playing near perfectly as Germany. This is tried and tested against the best Revised Axis and Allies players in the world across more than 500 games.
Well that’s different right off the bat. From what I’m read in terms of tournament reports for this other tournament they’ve been giving the Allies a +3 bid for the last two or so years. I think the difference is that online Revised games are played under LHTR, while this tournament is on a stricter time limit (4 hours, 30 minutes which roughly translates to about 5-6 turns depending on how fast people are playing).
That being said if the meta at this tournament is just outright flawed I can probably take advantage of that.
The opening is what I’ve used as my standard for years now, so I’m assuming that any intelligent opponent I face will be using it (it’s the only way to not end up with Germany stacking Ukr. and winning with relative ease iirc).
One rough thing about all of this is that the tournament I’m prepping for is 100% luck (So someone can play perfectly and still lose because RNG). No tech though so that part is fine.
I’m assuming your goal is to maximize your probability of winning against an opponent.
More like holding on to at some group of Egypt/W. Europe/E. Europe/Ukr/Norway for 5 turns while Japan captures an equal or greater amount of Sink/India/Novo/Australia/Hawaii but same difference really.
The most common mistake I see with Germany players is that they think they’re on the offensive. In reality, Germany is a very defensive country that receives allied pressure, while Japan pressures Russia.
I remember when I was a noob and bought 8 tanks/turn as Germany. 2004 was a simpler time for sure.
1. buy almost all infantry. I usually spend 90+% of my germany IPC buying only infantry for the first 15-30 rounds. Eventually, Germany gets to a point where it can stack 3 territories with over 80 units each. This makes it difficult for UK to land and support Russia past round 30.
2. Prefer to attack and stack territories. This means moving a large force of units in an attack, so that the opponent can’t counter. Axis and Allies is inherently a zero-sum game, so you win by accumulating profit through income or battles. Generally, the most profitable battles are: attacking & stacking > trading efficiently > attack & retreat > doing nothing > trading inefficiently.
3. Try to keep Germany strong. It’s okay to make large trades against Russia, but avoid large trades with UK or USA unless it’s for a large profit. The most common way I win against top allies is to accumulate stacks of 100+ infantry as Germany. Japan accumulates as well around Persia. By round 30-40, Japan has 300+ units and eventually forces Allies off Russia.
While all of these points are valid that all aspiring A&A players should memorize, the rules of this tournament don’t give enough time to play out 100+ round slugfests, although the idea sounds pretty fun/masochistic. Reminds me of the Classic games I’d spend weeks playing after I read those papers on Inf stacking back in the day.
Standard buy for germany is 10 inf, 2 tanks.
This was already my build so that makes me happy.
Can you pull this off reliably with just 1 SUB, 2 FTR in a 100% luck scenario?
EDIT: I JUST MADE A HUUUUUGE MISTAKE!!!
The other fighter (from Balkans, as the Ukr one usually dies in the R1 Ukr attack) that can reach is needed for sz15. If you attack sz15, there’s a 15% chance the battle goes badly where the battleship transport needs to retreat or battleship gets traded against uk destroyer. If either scenario happens, the game is effectively over against a top player. I prefer not to auto-lose 15% of my games as axis.
Am I to assume everything else is being sent to Karelia? How much am I leaving in E. Europe to Deadzone Ukr? What’s the practical advantage of stacking Karelia over trying to hold Ukr reliably? Is it the potential to deadzone Norway (slowing Allied progress in a KGF)?
All fine, aside from my gripes over Karelia. What do you do if the USSR stacks Ukr R2? Germany can’t really attack W. Rus. (Since the stack in Ukr and the spawned units in Caucasus and Moscow can all dive on it.), and if you try to charge Archangel Russia has enough time to shift enough forces to Moscow to force the Germans back to Karelia. So at that point you’re just handing the Soviets Ukr for free, unless I’m missing something.
I’m not trying to come off as an elitist of A&A pro by any means, I’m just rusty and don’t know how to dynamic of the Eastern front as evolved over time.
By the way, what is BGO? I’ve only ever played A&A using TripleA.
I’ll give it a shot then! Maybe this tournament will be super easy after all!!
I agree with you in not stacking Karelia with Germany. It seems absurd to me. Was I reading MarineIguana’s advice wrong? He seemed to be advocating stacking Karelia on G1.
hi! Yeah, I think Marine is right.
There are two russian openers.
1. Only do W russia and stack it. Buy 3 inf and 3 Tanks.
2. Do W Russia and Ukraine.
If USSR does 1, you can’t stack Kareila, if he does 2, then you can stack karelia.
I think 2 is better for russia, but 1 is not uncommon, because it prevents stacking karelia.
I have my doubt about taking Ukrain in R1. So far I’ve not been lucky with this move! It cost me much more than i get for it! I wonder whether it is worth the risk! Why trading 2 tanks for this tank and fighter? The value of a russian tank seem much highter to me than a german one or even a fighter early game. I seem to be much better with Russia if i take WR and Belo Russia! Russia in my game is very well able to hold off Germany and Japan in the early game, until the Allies arrive!
I usually buy 2 INF/2 ART/2 TANK to make up for the tanks I’m losing by going into Ukr.
I switch to more INF-focused builds after R1, of course.
To me, any German FTR that I can take out is one less FTR that can go after UK’s navy. The less Germany has to throw at the UK Navy, the faster the UK can start landing (or threatening to land) troops in Norway/E Europe/Karelia/W Europe. And once UK starts forcing Germany to pull troops to guard those territories, the USSR will see a good chunk of weight lifted from its shoulders (meaning it can afford to send troops to India/Sink/kill Germany/whatever).
R1 I get 3 inf 3 tank.
That 3rd ftr is needed to schirmish on a 3 area front. USSR should in general have more tanks and less inf. The tanks are good because they can stand in w russia, and threathen any japanese stack apporaching. that will buy you a couple of extra turns at least.
The thing is: i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i don’t do Ukrain R1. For a couple of rounds Russia can keep agressive. I would buy 2 tanks R1. 1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds. With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force. In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia. I don’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there. The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn. I use it as a base for my future fleet. Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet. If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence, or i combine with the US first! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point. After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most.
In the mid game Germany is focused mainly on landings from the Allies. Then Russia is starting to fight off the Japanese with his tanks. Russia has an income of around 26 IPC with which it can survive the mid game easily. End game he will be under great pressure from Japan! But if the Allies have normal luck and do nothing stupid, Germany is dead or close to it!
So my conclusion so far is that you sacrifice russian tanks for a chance on a german fighter, that would harm the UK a little bit. But the UK can counter this with a buy of an extra ship. In my philosophy that trade off is not so optimal.
The thing is: i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i don’t do Ukrain R1.
How do you keep the initiative if you’re letting the Germans escape Ukr G1? On G1 Germany can just withdraw the bulk of its forces to a E. Europe stack and start trading Ukr. while easily overwhelming the Allies in North Africa and ferrying a decent stream of units through the Middle East to ensure that India is securely in Japanese hands by J3. If you’re just sitting in Caucasus/W. Rus trading Ukr you’re giving Germany a free hand to do whatever they want elsewhere.
For a couple of rounds Russia can keep aggressive. I would buy 2 tanks R1.
1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds.
I agree with the 1 TANK/turn philosophy (to keep a mobile and offensive-capable army on the board at all times), but I don’t agree with the FTR on R2. I understand that you can feasibly snipe the Mediterranean Fleet with 3 FTR (or at least sink the transport) but if a competent Germany scouts a lack of land units what’s stopping them from pouncing on Ukr, Arch or W. Rus with everything (which in turn forces Russia to bring everything to the German front, giving the Japanese a free hand to take Sink/India/Persia).
With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force. In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia. I don’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there.
Germany can either subsist without Norway or simply deadzone it by stacking Ukr. It’s going to take a decently large stack of Transports to pull together a large enough force to actively hold Norway.
The point of the FTR cloud isn’t to actually kill the UK Fleet (It can’t do that cost-efficiently), but to force the Fleet to remain in one place at a time (if any transports split off from the main fleet to land in far away places the FTRs and Bomber can easily wipe them out with a pretty minimal chance of a loss).
UK amphibs into Norway, taking 2 INF/2 ART. They kill a lone INF defender without losses.
Germany sends 3 INF + 6 FTR + 1 Bomber to attack Norway (a bit of a reach, but it’s for the sake of the example so bear with me here).
Under low luck, UK gets 1 hit and a 1/3 chance at a second (INF and ART defend on a 2, 24=8, 8/6 = 1 + 1/3). Germany will get 4 hits under low luck (31 + 63 + 14 = 25, 25/6 = 4 + 1/6).
So Germany will one-shot 14 IPCs worth of material while losing 9 overall (I’m assuming that the 1-2 INF that survive will die on the following British turn when they commit another landing party). That’s pretty good value if you ask me, especially if UK is committing 100% to Europe (and losing 7+ IPCs between India/Persia/Trans-Jordan/Egypt).
The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn. I use it as a base for my future fleet. Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet. If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence, or i combine with the US first! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point.
What’s your timetable for killing the Baltic, out of curiosity?
I usually try to have it dead by B2 (you can do it with a B1 FTR+Destroyer+Trans build).
Sometimes you have to delay until B3 if Germany goes with a naval opening, but in those kinds of games an aggressive USSR can usually win on its own.
After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most.
I agree, but remember the whole point of the pressure is to force the UK player to spend turns investing in a navy. This buys Germany much needed time to stack aggressively in the USSR’s direction, forcing them to keep their men focused on the Germans and giving Japan time to get its IPC levels up to snuff with the Allies/put a drain on the Soviet and British Economies.
But you’ve never inflicted a serious loss on German hardware in this scenario. All Germany has to do is build heavy INF stacks all day (with the occasional Tank thrown in to harass the Soviets), and the Allies are going to take an awfully long time to start hurting Germany.
Additionally, if Russia is sending 5-10 IPCs of Tanks East every turn what’s stopping Germany from moving the E Europe stack into Ukr and putting the Russians in a desperate situation (guarding Caucasus and W. Rus simultaneously).
TripleA gives the Soviets an 85% chance to win with, on average, both FTRs and a lone tank surviving.
So value-wise USSR loses 23 IPC (everything but the FTR) while the Germans lose 28. A USSR win no matter how you split it.
It seems like a narrow advantage but remember the USSR gets 3 of those IPCs back by virtue of taking Ukr.
I think you might be too defensive as the allies. I have quite a few games as the allies and rarely lose.
The reason for doing ukraine is simple. You save british fleet and can lock down the med fast. That German fighter is very important in the med and africa on G1.
Depending on the result of G1, should should have some very good options on UK1. I will assume germany did place 2 units in libya, sent the med fleet with 1 ftr to 15, while sending 1 inf + 1 art from italy and 1 bomber to egypt.
Germany will most likely have taken egypt and have about 4 landunits left. he will have 5 ftrs and 1 bomber (instead of 6 fighters and 1 bomber). Where germany has placed these 5 fighters is very important. Usually, germany will not be able to place all of the fighters in france/Libya.
I reccomend uk build in this situation of 1 ftr, 5 inf and 1 tank.
You can hit egypt with 2 inf from india, 1 from TJ, 1 ftr from india and 1 bomber from uk. This attack will usually kill every german unit there, and you will quite often have an inf left to take the terr. You can at the same time send your entire UK fleet to morocco. If US sends its fleet to help you, you will have a situation where germany only have 1 inf and 1 art in africa. while you will have 2 UK inf and 2 tank in morocco and 2 us inf, 1 us art and 1 us tank. Your fleet of morocco will be: 1 UK BB, 2 UK TT, 1 US DD, 2 US TT and 1 ussr sub. At this point The german fighterposition is vitally important. If he can reach with 4 ftrs and 1 bomber, you are safe, if he has 5 ftrs and 1 bomber, this move does not work.
At this point, the german position in africa is misrable. he has 2 landunits, you have 8, you will continue to shufle landunits down there until you have enough UK fleet to switch to the north. Those landunits will run as fast as they can to caucasuss, (you can ususally get between 10 and 30 landunits through before japan holds persia).
So, If you kill that ukrainian fitr, you will get one more round of reinforcements to caucasus and lock down africa on UK1. I have done this soo many times, and this is standard play among top players. The one wrench here is the german baltic fleet. A lot of germans will send it out on G1 to prevent this move. You have to be aware of it and calculate your fleet.
I think you have me backwards. I’m an advocate of striking Ukr. on R1. I do not like Russian Openings where you let Ukr. go.
I agree with you for the exact reasons you’ve stated.
Germany can easily place 4 FTRs in France and 1 FTR/1 BOMBER in Libya.
I’m more for a Navy build (1 DD/1 TT/1 FTR) on B1. I don’t build land units because I ferry the tank from Canada to UK and simply land 1 INF in Norway, supported by the air units UK starts with (1 INF/1 ART if the Germans left more than 1 INF there to defend). That way I have the spawn units to fill my transport fleet next turn for a harder landing somewhere.
time send your entire UK fleet to morocco. If US sends its fleet to help you, you will have a situation where germany only have 1 inf and 1 art in africa. while you will have 2 UK inf and 2 tank in morocco and 2 us inf, 1 us art and 1 us tank. Your fleet of morocco will be: 1 UK BB, 2 UK TT, 1 US DD, 2 US TT and 1 ussr sub. At this point The german fighterposition is vitally important. If he can reach with 4 ftrs and 1 bomber, you are safe, if he has 5 ftrs and 1 bomber, this move does not work.
You don’t even have to do that if you buy the fleet I suggest and move the Russian Sub to SZ6 (the one right next to the Baltic) on R2.
UK would lose the fleet to that attack but Germany only comes out with an average of 2 FTR. This means that Germany is effectively losing a large share of its air force to kill a fleet that the UK will happily rebuild on the very next turn.
In most games I’ve played Germany just uses the Medi fleet to snipe Ukr.
Are you sure the shuttle of troops from UK -> N. Africa -> Caucasus is the best option? Every turn you’re not threatening Europe is another turn Germany has to setup giant stacks and/or stack Ukraine.
I agree with these yes. Although if Germany sails its fleet out you can easily intercept and destroy it with the SZ2 Fleet (The BB and the TT) + the 2 FTRs.
Yes this delays your fleet uniting with the Americans but if you build navy B1 and move the Soviet sub to link up with the British R2 the combined fleet can easily repulse the 4 FTR/ 1 BOMBER Germany can send your way.
Wait, you’re really happy to trade Britain’s 1 BB / 1 DD / 3 TT for Germany’s 2 SS / 2 FTR?
Aside from the fact that you are trading 60 British TUV for 36 German TUV, if Germany positions the rest of its air force properly, then it can hit Britain’s next fleet with a minimum of 3 FTR / 1 BMR, or more if Germany built a new plane (not unreasonable when you know you’re ordering an immediate attack on the Royal Navy). What can Britain put in the water with one round of income that can stand up to that kind of follow-up attack?
Very rarely will I see a good player build a destroyer.
Hi all. Sorry for not replying in a while I’ve been busy with work and University.
On second thought that’s a horrible idea! Should probably have thought that through a little more before posting.
What would you say the optimal B1 buy/fleet move is, then? I know it’s a bit off-topic but I’ve only just started playing Revised again and haven’t had the most time to practice.
What do you propose UK buy instead of turn 1, then? A CV (landing the spawn FTRs on it for a decently rock-solid defense)?
I only ask because, while I understand that transport balls are the best option for naval combat, the initial UK Fleet is pretty lacking in terms of punching power (1 BB + 2 TT).
Even if you buy 3 TT (for a total of 1 BB + 5 TT), it’s still going to take another turn or two before that fleet will be able to get anywhere near the European coast.
no, Germany has 5 ftr and 1 bomber after you hit Ukraine. He has a good chance of loosing at least 1 ftr either against the UK BB, or the or against the uk DD in the med.
You are wasting an entire turn of the allies by not attacking on UK1.
I misremembered. The sub should block the german fleet if there is anything left of it after UK1, however, if germany have put their entire fleet outside france on G1, you will not be able to stop germany from adding the vital subs as fodder for the Gibraltar attack. This is why you need to look at the german position before you decide if you want to put your fleet at gibraltar.
Buying DDs is always bad. TTs are amazing combatunits in this game. Try running a combatsim with fighters against 1 BB and TTs, find out how many you need. It is alot. The DDs are really not worth the extra factor.
Yes :), but not through the entire game.
Round 1-5ish is when you ship to africa. Then, at some point, you swich uk to Norway. You will have saved up some cash and might buy the needed carrier when you do. At some point, you will no longer have a landrout to cauc. At this point, you should have at least 80 americans between morocco and cauc, and about 10 TTs. Then you move all of your TTs to the med, and start landing 20 units/ round in the weakest spot you can find on the mainland. At the same time, uk will round 10 units per round, germany will collapse like a house of cards. I have done this countless times against good players (this is what happens when you win against them).
This is why you look at the map. most germans are not set up for it. To be set up for it, they need to not land in egypt on G1, or they need to move their baltic fleet out on G1, and have it survive against your UK airforce. Otherwise, you can block the baltic fleet with a uk subbuild, and the medfleet will be out of range. On, US2, you will send in the DD and the 3 extra TTs you built (if germany build navy on G1, you might build an american carrier on US1 to seal the deal), and after that, the game is up. Germany will never be strong enough to kill your fleet.
If you bring 3 FTR + 1 SUB (the one from SZ8) against the 1 UK BB, the chances of you getting hit twice in that battle are absurdly low. The BB would need to hit you twice in a row (4/9 chance), while you would have to fail to get two hits in the first round of combat. The chances are better for this.
-There a 6^4 (1296) possible combos of dice you can roll for 4 attackers.
-Of those, there are 18 * 36 = 648 combos where you get two hits.
648/1296 = 1/2 chance to get two hits.
4/9 * 1/2 = a 2/9 (~22%) chance of losing two units to the battleship.
(< 5%) chance of losing the FTR.
So there’s a believable chance you’ll lose one FTR in all of that, and wind up with a 3 FTR stack in W. Europe instead of a 4 FTR stack, but the odds of losing 2 FTRs in the opening sorties are laughable.
I figured the attack on Egypt was implied. Not retaking Egypt turn 1 is tantamount to suicide.
I fail to see the point in dumping an entire army in Europe, which would leave the fleet vulnerable to a counterattack and force the allies to waste 2-3 turns rebuilding both a fleet AND a land army. A good Germany will use those breather turns to win the game.
That’s two of you know that have pointed out that DDs are a bad buy. I’ve looked into it a bit and I’m starting to think that a CV buy B1 might be the best bet for not dying to the German Fleet (it helps to be able to land two FTRs on it to basically give yourself 36 IPCs worth of defense for a 16 IPC investment). Thanks for the advice. Correct me if I’m wrong on the CV though.
Ahh, I see. I think my problem here is that this is a face-to-face tournament played under time controls (that’s how I’ve been practicing, too), so I won’t be able to employ the safer strategies in the strict (5 hour) time limit I’ll have to get into a good position. That would probably explain why I haven’t considered the slower strategies that both you and MarineIguana suggested.
I played a practice game with this strategy earlier today (and had the Soviets focus on turtling) and the Allies won handily, although it took an exceedingly long time to do so.
As always, thanks for the advice.
I usually land in africa until my pacific fleet makes it to the atlantic. then I split and send uk into norway and start landing in the americans in europe the round after that.
I understand that TTs are the best ship economy-wise, but I believe that a CV may be an extremely cost-efficient buy for the first turn only (because you have the two FTRs in UK that can land on the carrier no problem). Later in the game the CV would become extremely cost-inefficient, of course (you’re paying 16 for a 1 HP 3 DEF when you could be spending that same 16 IPC for 2 HP of 1 DEF that can also transport units).
Do you advocate sending the Indian Fleet south? What do you do about the TT in SZ59? When I used to play Revised/42/42SE I always remember going out of my way to eliminate it (as forcing Japan to buy more TTs is a good way to buy the allies precious time).
Uh! And why not equip them with a pre-emptive shot and the capabilities to carry a fighter? I like Transports also!!! TRN is the more important unit after the infantry (that is the more important unit overall in the game) because they are able to transport the more important unit of the game, the infantry! But… my TRN do not difend as Jen TRN do, they insist in scoring between 2 and 4!
I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory. It does require skill pulling off the india IC. But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game. If each of you are gonna do your own thing, the game will certainly be over quicker than usual. Thats the key…… Teamwork and persistance. Control the game by limiting the enemy of options. Do this and you’ll win no matter who you are.
Under item #2 allied fighters cannot be allocated as a hit allocation because they are not rolling on the attack so they are ignored. Also, Under item #1 if your carrier is defending and has fighters from allied players they can be allocated as hits on defence and roll out as well. of course some of this is totally bogus and is totally unrealistic.but oh well.
If i build an IC in a captured territory, and I lose that territory, and another ally takes it over, its now their IC. Thats not even a question, I just feel its the answer to one of the next ones to be asked.

tokenized:
I ’m trying to get back into Revised to get ready for an upcoming tournament but I ’m pretty rusty . What ’s the meta on German Openings looking like these days ?
 I have n’t played Revised in a while ( moved on to G40 like most people ) , but when I did everyone seemed to love dropping a Carrier in the Baltic G1 ( to delay the UK Fleet for a bit ) .
 Is this still the norm , or have their been major developments in the last 6 or so years ?
 hi ! noone has answerd , so I would reccomend reading MarineIguanas posts in the thread . I have played a lot of games on BGO and can with confidence say that it is a very good answer .
 Hi . Thanks for the reply !
 Anyway , I ’m going to quote MarineIguana here and ask a few questions with the hopes that either he or you can answer .
 This is almost certainly more advice than you are looking for . I ’m going to give you the secret for playing near perfectly as Germany . This is tried and tested against the best Revised Axis and Allies players in the world across more than 500 games .
 Well that ’s different right off the bat . From what I ’m read in terms of tournament reports for this other tournament they ’ve been giving the Allies a +3 bid for the last two or so years . I think the difference is that online Revised games are played under LHTR , while this tournament is on a stricter time limit ( 4 hours , 30 minutes which roughly translates to about 5 - 6 turns depending on how fast people are playing ) .
 That being said if the meta at this tournament is just outright flawed I can probably take advantage of that .
 The opening is what I ’ve used as my standard for years now , so I ’m assuming that any intelligent opponent I face will be using it ( it ’s the only way to not end up with Germany stacking Ukr . and winning with relative ease iirc ) .
 One rough thing about all of this is that the tournament I ’m prepping for is 100 % luck ( So someone can play perfectly and still lose because RNG ) . No tech though so that part is fine .
 I ’m assuming your goal is to maximize your probability of winning against an opponent .
 More like holding on to at some group of Egypt / W. Europe / E. Europe / Ukr / Norway for 5 turns while Japan captures an equal or greater amount of Sink / India / Novo / Australia / Hawaii but same difference really .
 The most common mistake I see with Germany players is that they think they ’re on the offensive . In reality , Germany is a very defensive country that receives allied pressure , while Japan pressures Russia .
 I remember when I was a noob and bought 8 tanks / turn as Germany . 2004 was a simpler time for sure .
 1 . buy almost all infantry . I usually spend 90+% of my germany IPC buying only infantry for the first 15 - 30 rounds . Eventually , Germany gets to a point where it can stack 3 territories with over 80 units each . This makes it difficult for UK to land and support Russia past round 30 .
 2 . Prefer to attack and stack territories . This means moving a large force of units in an attack , so that the opponent ca n’t counter . Axis and Allies is inherently a zero - sum game , so you win by accumulating profit through income or battles . Generally , the most profitable battles are : attacking & stacking > trading efficiently > attack & retreat > doing nothing > trading inefficiently .
 3 . Try to keep Germany strong . It ’s okay to make large trades against Russia , but avoid large trades with UK or USA unless it ’s for a large profit . The most common way I win against top allies is to accumulate stacks of 100 + infantry as Germany . Japan accumulates as well around Persia . By round 30 - 40 , Japan has 300 + units and eventually forces Allies off Russia .
 While all of these points are valid that all aspiring A&A players should memorize , the rules of this tournament do n’t give enough time to play out 100 + round slugfests , although the idea sounds pretty fun / masochistic . Reminds me of the Classic games I ’d spend weeks playing after I read those papers on Inf stacking back in the day .
 Standard buy for germany is 10 inf , 2 tanks .
 This was already my build so that makes me happy .
 Can you pull this off reliably with just 1 SUB , 2 FTR in a 100 % luck scenario ?
 EDIT : I JUST MADE A HUUUUUGE MISTAKE ! ! !
 The other fighter ( from Balkans , as the Ukr one usually dies in the R1 Ukr attack ) that can reach is needed for sz15 . If you attack sz15 , there ’s a 15 % chance the battle goes badly where the battleship transport needs to retreat or battleship gets traded against uk destroyer . If either scenario happens , the game is effectively over against a top player . I prefer not to auto - lose 15 % of my games as axis .
 Am I to assume everything else is being sent to Karelia ? How much am I leaving in E. Europe to Deadzone Ukr ? What ’s the practical advantage of stacking Karelia over trying to hold Ukr reliably ? Is it the potential to deadzone Norway ( slowing Allied progress in a KGF ) ?
 All fine , aside from my gripes over Karelia . What do you do if the USSR stacks Ukr R2 ? Germany ca n’t really attack W. Rus . ( Since the stack in Ukr and the spawned units in Caucasus and Moscow can all dive on it . ) , and if you try to charge Archangel Russia has enough time to shift enough forces to Moscow to force the Germans back to Karelia . So at that point you ’re just handing the Soviets Ukr for free , unless I ’m missing something .
 I ’m not trying to come off as an elitist of A&A pro by any means , I ’m just rusty and do n’t know how to dynamic of the Eastern front as evolved over time .
 By the way , what is BGO ? I ’ve only ever played A&A using TripleA.
 I ’ll give it a shot then ! Maybe this tournament will be super easy after all ! !
 I agree with you in not stacking Karelia with Germany . It seems absurd to me . Was I reading MarineIguana ’s advice wrong ? He seemed to be advocating stacking Karelia on G1 .
 hi ! Yeah , I think Marine is right .
 There are two russian openers .
 1 . Only do W russia and stack it . Buy 3 inf and 3 Tanks .
 2 . Do W Russia and Ukraine .
 If USSR does 1 , you ca n’t stack Kareila , if he does 2 , then you can stack karelia .
 I think 2 is better for russia , but 1 is not uncommon , because it prevents stacking karelia .
 I have my doubt about taking Ukrain in R1 . So far I ’ve not been lucky with this move ! It cost me much more than i get for it ! I wonder whether it is worth the risk ! Why trading 2 tanks for this tank and fighter ? The value of a russian tank seem much highter to me than a german one or even a fighter early game . I seem to be much better with Russia if i take WR and Belo Russia ! Russia in my game is very well able to hold off Germany and Japan in the early game , until the Allies arrive !
 I usually buy 2 INF/2 ART/2 TANK to make up for the tanks I ’m losing by going into Ukr .
 I switch to more INF - focused builds after R1 , of course .
 To me , any German FTR that I can take out is one less FTR that can go after UK ’s navy . The less Germany has to throw at the UK Navy , the faster the UK can start landing ( or threatening to land ) troops in Norway / E Europe / Karelia / W Europe . And once UK starts forcing Germany to pull troops to guard those territories , the USSR will see a good chunk of weight lifted from its shoulders ( meaning it can afford to send troops to India / Sink / kill Germany / whatever ) .
 R1 I get 3 inf 3 tank .
 That 3rd ftr is needed to schirmish on a 3 area front . USSR should in general have more tanks and less inf . The tanks are good because they can stand in w russia , and threathen any japanese stack apporaching . that will buy you a couple of extra turns at least .
 The thing is : i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i do n’t do Ukrain R1 . For a couple of rounds Russia can keep agressive . I would buy 2 tanks R1 . 1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds . With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force . In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia . I do n’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there . The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me ! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn . I use it as a base for my future fleet . Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet . If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence , or i combine with the US first ! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point . After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most .
 In the mid game Germany is focused mainly on landings from the Allies . Then Russia is starting to fight off the Japanese with his tanks . Russia has an income of around 26 IPC with which it can survive the mid game easily . End game he will be under great pressure from Japan ! But if the Allies have normal luck and do nothing stupid , Germany is dead or close to it !
 So my conclusion so far is that you sacrifice russian tanks for a chance on a german fighter , that would harm the UK a little bit . But the UK can counter this with a buy of an extra ship . In my philosophy that trade off is not so optimal .
 The thing is : i have no problem putting any pressure on Germany when i do n’t do Ukrain R1 .
 How do you keep the initiative if you ’re letting the Germans escape Ukr G1 ? On G1 Germany can just withdraw the bulk of its forces to a E. Europe stack and start trading Ukr . while easily overwhelming the Allies in North Africa and ferrying a decent stream of units through the Middle East to ensure that India is securely in Japanese hands by J3 . If you ’re just sitting in Caucasus / W. Rus trading Ukr you ’re giving Germany a free hand to do whatever they want elsewhere .
 For a couple of rounds Russia can keep aggressive . I would buy 2 tanks R1 .
 1 FGT R2 and 1 tank in later rounds .
 I agree with the 1 TANK / turn philosophy ( to keep a mobile and offensive - capable army on the board at all times ) , but I do n’t agree with the FTR on R2 . I understand that you can feasibly snipe the Mediterranean Fleet with 3 FTR ( or at least sink the transport ) but if a competent Germany scouts a lack of land units what ’s stopping them from pouncing on Ukr , Arch or W. Rus with everything ( which in turn forces Russia to bring everything to the German front , giving the Japanese a free hand to take Sink / India / Persia ) .
 With my 4 starting tanks i have a very potent force . In UK2 or 3 i start landing in Norway to support Russia . I do n’t see how 6 fighters can stop me there .
 Germany can either subsist without Norway or simply deadzone it by stacking Ukr . It ’s going to take a decently large stack of Transports to pull together a large enough force to actively hold Norway .
 The point of the FTR cloud is n’t to actually kill the UK Fleet ( It ca n’t do that cost - efficiently ) , but to force the Fleet to remain in one place at a time ( if any transports split off from the main fleet to land in far away places the FTRs and Bomber can easily wipe them out with a pretty minimal chance of a loss ) .
 UK amphibs into Norway , taking 2 INF/2 ART . They kill a lone INF defender without losses .
 Germany sends 3 INF + 6 FTR + 1 Bomber to attack Norway ( a bit of a reach , but it ’s for the sake of the example so bear with me here ) .
 Under low luck , UK gets 1 hit and a 1/3 chance at a second ( INF and ART defend on a 2 , 24=8 , 8/6 = 1 + 1/3 ) . Germany will get 4 hits under low luck ( 31 + 63 + 14 = 25 , 25/6 = 4 + 1/6 ) .
 So Germany will one - shot 14 IPCs worth of material while losing 9 overall ( I ’m assuming that the 1 - 2 INF that survive will die on the following British turn when they commit another landing party ) . That ’s pretty good value if you ask me , especially if UK is committing 100 % to Europe ( and losing 7 + IPCs between India / Persia / Trans - Jordan / Egypt ) .
 The ships in the mediteranean Sea are lost to me ! The uk home fleet is quite save in the first turn . I use it as a base for my future fleet . Uk1 I build a carrier to expand the fleet . If all german units position to strike my fleet i buy more defence , or i combine with the US first ! I position myself to strike the Baltic fleet at some point .
 What ’s your timetable for killing the Baltic , out of curiosity ?
 I usually try to have it dead by B2 ( you can do it with a B1 FTR+Destroyer+Trans build ) .
 Sometimes you have to delay until B3 if Germany goes with a naval opening , but in those kinds of games an aggressive USSR can usually win on its own .
 After that it is not worth loosing the fighters at a sea battle that will cost the UK a few transports at most .
 I agree , but remember the whole point of the pressure is to force the UK player to spend turns investing in a navy . This buys Germany much needed time to stack aggressively in the USSR ’s direction , forcing them to keep their men focused on the Germans and giving Japan time to get its IPC levels up to snuff with the Allies / put a drain on the Soviet and British Economies .
 But you ’ve never inflicted a serious loss on German hardware in this scenario . All Germany has to do is build heavy INF stacks all day ( with the occasional Tank thrown in to harass the Soviets ) , and the Allies are going to take an awfully long time to start hurting Germany .
 Additionally , if Russia is sending 5 - 10 IPCs of Tanks East every turn what ’s stopping Germany from moving the E Europe stack into Ukr and putting the Russians in a desperate situation ( guarding Caucasus and W. Rus simultaneously ) .
 TripleA gives the Soviets an 85 % chance to win with , on average , both FTRs and a lone tank surviving .
 So value - wise USSR loses 23 IPC ( everything but the FTR ) while the Germans lose 28 . A USSR win no matter how you split it .
 It seems like a narrow advantage but remember the USSR gets 3 of those IPCs back by virtue of taking Ukr .
 I think you might be too defensive as the allies . I have quite a few games as the allies and rarely lose .
 The reason for doing ukraine is simple . You save british fleet and can lock down the med fast . That German fighter is very important in the med and africa on G1 .
 Depending on the result of G1 , should should have some very good options on UK1 . I will assume germany did place 2 units in libya , sent the med fleet with 1 ftr to 15 , while sending 1 inf + 1 art from italy and 1 bomber to egypt .
 Germany will most likely have taken egypt and have about 4 landunits left . he will have 5 ftrs and 1 bomber ( instead of 6 fighters and 1 bomber ) . Where germany has placed these 5 fighters is very important . Usually , germany will not be able to place all of the fighters in france / Libya .
 I reccomend uk build in this situation of 1 ftr , 5 inf and 1 tank .
 You can hit egypt with 2 inf from india , 1 from TJ , 1 ftr from india and 1 bomber from uk . This attack will usually kill every german unit there , and you will quite often have an inf left to take the terr . You can at the same time send your entire UK fleet to morocco . If US sends its fleet to help you , you will have a situation where germany only have 1 inf and 1 art in africa . while you will have 2 UK inf and 2 tank in morocco and 2 us inf , 1 us art and 1 us tank . Your fleet of morocco will be : 1 UK BB , 2 UK TT , 1 US DD , 2 US TT and 1 ussr sub . At this point The german fighterposition is vitally important . If he can reach with 4 ftrs and 1 bomber , you are safe , if he has 5 ftrs and 1 bomber , this move does not work .
 At this point , the german position in africa is misrable . he has 2 landunits , you have 8 , you will continue to shufle landunits down there until you have enough UK fleet to switch to the north . Those landunits will run as fast as they can to caucasuss , ( you can ususally get between 10 and 30 landunits through before japan holds persia ) .
 So , If you kill that ukrainian fitr , you will get one more round of reinforcements to caucasus and lock down africa on UK1 . I have done this soo many times , and this is standard play among top players . The one wrench here is the german baltic fleet . A lot of germans will send it out on G1 to prevent this move . You have to be aware of it and calculate your fleet .
 I think you have me backwards . I ’m an advocate of striking Ukr . on R1 . I do not like Russian Openings where you let Ukr . go .
 I agree with you for the exact reasons you ’ve stated .
 Germany can easily place 4 FTRs in France and 1 FTR/1 BOMBER in Libya .
 I ’m more for a Navy build ( 1 DD/1 TT/1 FTR ) on B1 . I do n’t build land units because I ferry the tank from Canada to UK and simply land 1 INF in Norway , supported by the air units UK starts with ( 1 INF/1 ART if the Germans left more than 1 INF there to defend ) . That way I have the spawn units to fill my transport fleet next turn for a harder landing somewhere .
 time send your entire UK fleet to morocco . If US sends its fleet to help you , you will have a situation where germany only have 1 inf and 1 art in africa . while you will have 2 UK inf and 2 tank in morocco and 2 us inf , 1 us art and 1 us tank . Your fleet of morocco will be : 1 UK BB , 2 UK TT , 1 US DD , 2 US TT and 1 ussr sub . At this point The german fighterposition is vitally important . If he can reach with 4 ftrs and 1 bomber , you are safe , if he has 5 ftrs and 1 bomber , this move does not work .
 You do n’t even have to do that if you buy the fleet I suggest and move the Russian Sub to SZ6 ( the one right next to the Baltic ) on R2 .
 UK would lose the fleet to that attack but Germany only comes out with an average of 2 FTR . This means that Germany is effectively losing a large share of its air force to kill a fleet that the UK will happily rebuild on the very next turn .
 In most games I ’ve played Germany just uses the Medi fleet to snipe Ukr .
 Are you sure the shuttle of troops from UK - > N. Africa - > Caucasus is the best option ? Every turn you ’re not threatening Europe is another turn Germany has to setup giant stacks and/or stack Ukraine .
 I agree with these yes . Although if Germany sails its fleet out you can easily intercept and destroy it with the SZ2 Fleet ( The BB and the TT ) + the 2 FTRs .
 Yes this delays your fleet uniting with the Americans but if you build navy B1 and move the Soviet sub to link up with the British R2 the combined fleet can easily repulse the 4 FTR/ 1 BOMBER Germany can send your way .
 Wait , you ’re really happy to trade Britain ’s 1 BB / 1 DD / 3 TT for Germany ’s 2 SS / 2 FTR ?
 Aside from the fact that you are trading 60 British TUV for 36 German TUV , if Germany positions the rest of its air force properly , then it can hit Britain ’s next fleet with a minimum of 3 FTR / 1 BMR , or more if Germany built a new plane ( not unreasonable when you know you ’re ordering an immediate attack on the Royal Navy ) . What can Britain put in the water with one round of income that can stand up to that kind of follow - up attack ?
 Very rarely will I see a good player build a destroyer .
 Hi all . Sorry for not replying in a while I ’ve been busy with work and University .
 On second thought that ’s a horrible idea ! Should probably have thought that through a little more before posting .
 What would you say the optimal B1 buy / fleet move is , then ? I know it ’s a bit off - topic but I ’ve only just started playing Revised again and have n’t had the most time to practice .
 What do you propose UK buy instead of turn 1 , then ? A CV ( landing the spawn FTRs on it for a decently rock - solid defense ) ?
 I only ask because , while I understand that transport balls are the best option for naval combat , the initial UK Fleet is pretty lacking in terms of punching power ( 1 BB + 2 TT ) .
 Even if you buy 3 TT ( for a total of 1 BB + 5 TT ) , it ’s still going to take another turn or two before that fleet will be able to get anywhere near the European coast .
 no , Germany has 5 ftr and 1 bomber after you hit Ukraine . He has a good chance of loosing at least 1 ftr either against the UK BB , or the or against the uk DD in the med .
 You are wasting an entire turn of the allies by not attacking on UK1 .
 I misremembered . The sub should block the german fleet if there is anything left of it after UK1 , however , if germany have put their entire fleet outside france on G1 , you will not be able to stop germany from adding the vital subs as fodder for the Gibraltar attack . This is why you need to look at the german position before you decide if you want to put your fleet at gibraltar .
 Buying DDs is always bad . TTs are amazing combatunits in this game . Try running a combatsim with fighters against 1 BB and TTs , find out how many you need . It is alot . The DDs are really not worth the extra factor .
 Yes :) , but not through the entire game .
 Round 1 - 5ish is when you ship to africa . Then , at some point , you swich uk to Norway . You will have saved up some cash and might buy the needed carrier when you do . At some point , you will no longer have a landrout to cauc . At this point , you should have at least 80 americans between morocco and cauc , and about 10 TTs . Then you move all of your TTs to the med , and start landing 20 units/ round in the weakest spot you can find on the mainland . At the same time , uk will round 10 units per round , germany will collapse like a house of cards . I have done this countless times against good players ( this is what happens when you win against them ) .
 This is why you look at the map . most germans are not set up for it . To be set up for it , they need to not land in egypt on G1 , or they need to move their baltic fleet out on G1 , and have it survive against your UK airforce . Otherwise , you can block the baltic fleet with a uk subbuild , and the medfleet will be out of range . On , US2 , you will send in the DD and the 3 extra TTs you built ( if germany build navy on G1 , you might build an american carrier on US1 to seal the deal ) , and after that , the game is up . Germany will never be strong enough to kill your fleet .
 If you bring 3 FTR + 1 SUB ( the one from SZ8 ) against the 1 UK BB , the chances of you getting hit twice in that battle are absurdly low . The BB would need to hit you twice in a row ( 4/9 chance ) , while you would have to fail to get two hits in the first round of combat . The chances are better for this .
 -There a 6 ^ 4 ( 1296 ) possible combos of dice you can roll for 4 attackers .
 -Of those , there are 18 * 36 = 648 combos where you get two hits .
 648/1296 = 1/2 chance to get two hits .
 4/9 * 1/2 = a 2/9 ( ~22 % ) chance of losing two units to the battleship .
 ( < 5 % ) chance of losing the FTR .
 So there ’s a believable chance you ’ll lose one FTR in all of that , and wind up with a 3 FTR stack in W. Europe instead of a 4 FTR stack , but the odds of losing 2 FTRs in the opening sorties are laughable .
 I figured the attack on Egypt was implied . Not retaking Egypt turn 1 is tantamount to suicide .
 I fail to see the point in dumping an entire army in Europe , which would leave the fleet vulnerable to a counterattack and force the allies to waste 2 - 3 turns rebuilding both a fleet AND a land army . A good Germany will use those breather turns to win the game .
 That ’s two of you know that have pointed out that DDs are a bad buy . I ’ve looked into it a bit and I ’m starting to think that a CV buy B1 might be the best bet for not dying to the German Fleet ( it helps to be able to land two FTRs on it to basically give yourself 36 IPCs worth of defense for a 16 IPC investment ) . Thanks for the advice . Correct me if I ’m wrong on the CV though .
 Ahh , I see . I think my problem here is that this is a face - to - face tournament played under time controls ( that ’s how I ’ve been practicing , too ) , so I wo n’t be able to employ the safer strategies in the strict ( 5 hour ) time limit I ’ll have to get into a good position . That would probably explain why I have n’t considered the slower strategies that both you and MarineIguana suggested .
 I played a practice game with this strategy earlier today ( and had the Soviets focus on turtling ) and the Allies won handily , although it took an exceedingly long time to do so .
 As always , thanks for the advice .
 I usually land in africa until my pacific fleet makes it to the atlantic . then I split and send uk into norway and start landing in the americans in europe the round after that .
 I understand that TTs are the best ship economy - wise , but I believe that a CV may be an extremely cost - efficient buy for the first turn only ( because you have the two FTRs in UK that can land on the carrier no problem ) . Later in the game the CV would become extremely cost - inefficient , of course ( you ’re paying 16 for a 1 HP 3 DEF when you could be spending that same 16 IPC for 2 HP of 1 DEF that can also transport units ) .
 Do you advocate sending the Indian Fleet south ? What do you do about the TT in SZ59 ? When I used to play Revised/42/42SE I always remember going out of my way to eliminate it ( as forcing Japan to buy more TTs is a good way to buy the allies precious time ) .
 Uh ! And why not equip them with a pre - emptive shot and the capabilities to carry a fighter ? I like Transports also ! ! ! TRN is the more important unit after the infantry ( that is the more important unit overall in the game ) because they are able to transport the more important unit of the game , the infantry ! But … my TRN do not difend as Jen TRN do , they insist in scoring between 2 and 4 !
 I do agree that beginners should stick to the London factory . It does require skill pulling off the india IC . But It just depends on how you and your allies play the game . If each of you are gon na do your own thing , the game will certainly be over quicker than usual . That s the key …… Teamwork and persistance . Control the game by limiting the enemy of options . Do this and you ’ll win no matter who you are .
 Under item # 2 allied fighters can not be allocated as a hit allocation because they are not rolling on the attack so they are ignored . Also , Under item # 1 if your carrier is defending and has fighters from allied players they can be allocated as hits on defence and roll out as well . of course some of this is totally bogus and is totally unrealistic.but oh well .
 If i build an IC in a captured territory , and I lose that territory , and another ally takes it over , its now their IC . That s not even a question , I just feel its the answer to one of the next ones to be asked .


text:
Evan Rail, author of the Good Beer Guide Prague and the Czech Republic, offers his tips on the best of Czech beer culture at the Guardian Unlimited.
Quite a list of 10, from beer baths to beer hotels to the beer tram.
With a name that means “original source,” Pilsner Urquell has staked its claim as the world’s first Pilsner, and it remains one of the country’s favourite producers. However, even many locals don’t know that there are actually two varieties of Pilsner Urquell available on draught here: the regular kind sold throughout Europe, and a special, unpasteurised version sold only in the Czech Republic at special “tank” pubs which forego kegs for high-volume tanks. Without pasteurisation, the rich malt body is far sweeter and the bitter Saaz hops are decidedly sharper and more fragrant.
More malt character; more hop character. We’re there.

tokenized:
Evan Rail , author of the Good Beer Guide Prague and the Czech Republic , offers his tips on the best of Czech beer culture at the Guardian Unlimited .
 Quite a list of 10 , from beer baths to beer hotels to the beer tram .
 With a name that means “ original source , ” Pilsner Urquell has staked its claim as the world ’s first Pilsner , and it remains one of the country ’s favourite producers . However , even many locals do n’t know that there are actually two varieties of Pilsner Urquell available on draught here : the regular kind sold throughout Europe , and a special , unpasteurised version sold only in the Czech Republic at special “ tank ” pubs which forego kegs for high - volume tanks . Without pasteurisation , the rich malt body is far sweeter and the bitter Saaz hops are decidedly sharper and more fragrant .
 More malt character ; more hop character . We ’re there .


text:
The group from Colorado, comprised of frontman Nathaniel Rateliff and seven backing musicians, brought a fusion of funk, blues, and soulful R&B. the bands 60’s blues-rock sound, featuring groovy so.
The 120 bpm bangers didn’t have as many peaks and valleys as I might like, but the consisten future ancient tribal kickers with warbling white boy soul glazed on top was delicious. They did that song.
Featuring an incredible selection of music, art and activities, AUM NYE FESTIVAL 2017 represents the cutting-edge in. through to early hip hop and electro, soul, funk and RnB. The groovy, infectiou.
Peppered with the wondrous echo of groovy sitar strings, the track is equal parts funk jam and breezy pop ballad. Listen in below (via Stereogum). The band have a few fall tour dates lined up, includi.
Soulful deep house, for example, will tend towards 120 BPM, while funky house or tech house will be closer. Deep house is on the mellow end of the modern dance music spectrum, and has a warm, groov.
Looks like Noisey got Korn frontman Jonathan Davis in on the fun with his own music. I love it too and I appreciate it, but it was time for us to do different types of songs. And it paid off, man.
The most visible musical fashions are those we dance to, and dance steps come and go as fashion dictates. Queen Elizabeth I created a scandal when she danced the volta. The waltz, though it now seems.
Groovy, right. conflicted (not so F and E who leave after three songs – G and R meanwhile sneak onto the stageside for the first song before being shooed away). His band look like Ford Mondeo funk.
Don worries that Megan doesn’t fully appreciate death, while Megan genuinely doesn’t understand how Don could be okay enough with Betty’s condition to go out one night, and then be in a funk the next.
The band released its first official song just a. Ariel Pink and Dam-Funk on a recent free mixtape. So even with its new album not yet released, there’s a good idea of what expect from the band’s s.
Whether they’re disco screamers, candy-paint EDM nightmares, queasy mutant love ballads, or mind-melting trance weapons, the songs below trace the full spectrum of emotions—from burn-it-all-down anger.
Every song on this masterful debut album is excellent. No one bends and blends genres like these guys. Metal, rock, funk, blues and then some, Shade is a delicious and wonderful stew that you must.
But here are the top ten hipster bars in Miami. 10. Wood Tavern. There’s Taco Tuesday, offering delicious $2 Mexican street food out of a converted station wagon. Then there’s Sunday’s Backyard Boo.
A lot of these kinds of songs gained popularity through the surge in open-airs. Most people in the club played around 120 BPM. So it wasn’t as hectic as all that when slowed down. But still, it’s a.
Here he’ll perform a few songs he assembled with Jack White. a blind husband-and-wife duo who marry the spidery guitar rhythms emblematic of Mali with Western funk. Karen O wannabes, get thee to Ti.
With the recent stream of discouraging debates, increasing police violence and growing cultural tension, Saxophonist, DJ and producer Grant Kwiecinski (GRiZ) aims to fight the forces of evil with the.
Beyond the societal reasons for this song to be in Song of the Summer contention, there is also the simple fact that it is an incredibly catchy song which incorporates solid vocals, a catchy bridge, j.
It must be Easter if Whammy and Wine Cellar are opening their doors for this three-night musical extravaganza. With the likes of Tono and the Finance Company, Princess Chelsea, and Street Chant lined.

tokenized:
The group from Colorado , comprised of frontman Nathaniel Rateliff and seven backing musicians , brought a fusion of funk , blues , and soulful R&B. the bands 60 ’s blues - rock sound , featuring groovy so .
 The 120 bpm bangers did n’t have as many peaks and valleys as I might like , but the consisten future ancient tribal kickers with warbling white boy soul glazed on top was delicious . They did that song .
 Featuring an incredible selection of music , art and activities , AUM NYE FESTIVAL 2017 represents the cutting - edge in . through to early hip hop and electro , soul , funk and RnB. The groovy , infectiou .
 Peppered with the wondrous echo of groovy sitar strings , the track is equal parts funk jam and breezy pop ballad . Listen in below ( via Stereogum ) . The band have a few fall tour dates lined up , includi .
 Soulful deep house , for example , will tend towards 120 BPM , while funky house or tech house will be closer . Deep house is on the mellow end of the modern dance music spectrum , and has a warm , groov .
 Looks like Noisey got Korn frontman Jonathan Davis in on the fun with his own music . I love it too and I appreciate it , but it was time for us to do different types of songs . And it paid off , man .
 The most visible musical fashions are those we dance to , and dance steps come and go as fashion dictates . Queen Elizabeth I created a scandal when she danced the volta . The waltz , though it now seems .
 Groovy , right . conflicted ( not so F and E who leave after three songs – G and R meanwhile sneak onto the stageside for the first song before being shooed away ) . His band look like Ford Mondeo funk .
 Don worries that Megan does n’t fully appreciate death , while Megan genuinely does n’t understand how Don could be okay enough with Betty ’s condition to go out one night , and then be in a funk the next .
 The band released its first official song just a. Ariel Pink and Dam - Funk on a recent free mixtape . So even with its new album not yet released , there ’s a good idea of what expect from the band ’s s.
 Whether they ’re disco screamers , candy - paint EDM nightmares , queasy mutant love ballads , or mind - melting trance weapons , the songs below trace the full spectrum of emotions — from burn - it - all - down anger .
 Every song on this masterful debut album is excellent . No one bends and blends genres like these guys . Metal , rock , funk , blues and then some , Shade is a delicious and wonderful stew that you must .
 But here are the top ten hipster bars in Miami . 10 . Wood Tavern . There ’s Taco Tuesday , offering delicious $ 2 Mexican street food out of a converted station wagon . Then there ’s Sunday ’s Backyard Boo .
 A lot of these kinds of songs gained popularity through the surge in open - airs . Most people in the club played around 120 BPM . So it was n’t as hectic as all that when slowed down . But still , it ’s a.
 Here he ’ll perform a few songs he assembled with Jack White . a blind husband - and - wife duo who marry the spidery guitar rhythms emblematic of Mali with Western funk . Karen O wannabes , get thee to Ti .
 With the recent stream of discouraging debates , increasing police violence and growing cultural tension , Saxophonist , DJ and producer Grant Kwiecinski ( GRiZ ) aims to fight the forces of evil with the .
 Beyond the societal reasons for this song to be in Song of the Summer contention , there is also the simple fact that it is an incredibly catchy song which incorporates solid vocals , a catchy bridge , j.
 It must be Easter if Whammy and Wine Cellar are opening their doors for this three - night musical extravaganza . With the likes of Tono and the Finance Company , Princess Chelsea , and Street Chant lined .


text:
Net asset value reveals the percentage of a hedge fund's capital not claimed by liabilities.
Choosing the right hedge fund to invest in can be a daunting challenge, but savvy investors use a variety of tools to compare the relative strength of different funds. Net asset value is one such tool that provides insight into the true value of different funds at different times. To calculate net asset value on a hedge fund, you must first choose a calculation method, then determine the fund's total assets and liabilities.
The question of when to calculate asset values in a hedge fund can cause some confusion, but determines the method used. If a fund trades assets on multiple exchanges around the world, one exchange may be closed while two or three others are open. Because of this, asset values in some parts of the fund's portfolio will always be in flux. Some investors use the final asset values at the end of each region's respective trading day for the calculation, while others use the values from all holdings at a chosen moment in time.
Hedge funds hold a variety of assets in various states of liquidity, including stocks, currencies, options contracts and bonds. Hedge funds seeking new investors should provide in-depth information on their current holdings. When you are ready to calculate the asset values, according to your chosen method, multiply the quantity of each individual holding by its market value at that time to determine each holding's current value. Add all of the results together to determine the total asset value.
Hedge funds incur the same types of liabilities as other businesses, including debt payments, interest accumulation, salaries expenses and overhead. Add all of these expenses together to calculate the fund's total liabilities, keeping your chosen time frame in mind. Since net asset value provides a snapshot of value at a moment in time, only calculate current liabilities, including current payments of long-term debt.
The Securities and Exchange Commission defines net asset value for an investment business as the difference between the company's total assets and liabilities. Use the following formula as a reference for your calculations: Net Asset Value = Total Assets - Total Liabilities The larger the net asset value as a percentage of total assets,the more efficient the fund is at maximizing profit while keeping costs low. A higher total also indicates that a fund has more capital to invest, allowing it to earn larger returns.

tokenized:
Net asset value reveals the percentage of a hedge fund 's capital not claimed by liabilities .
 Choosing the right hedge fund to invest in can be a daunting challenge , but savvy investors use a variety of tools to compare the relative strength of different funds . Net asset value is one such tool that provides insight into the true value of different funds at different times . To calculate net asset value on a hedge fund , you must first choose a calculation method , then determine the fund 's total assets and liabilities .
 The question of when to calculate asset values in a hedge fund can cause some confusion , but determines the method used . If a fund trades assets on multiple exchanges around the world , one exchange may be closed while two or three others are open . Because of this , asset values in some parts of the fund 's portfolio will always be in flux . Some investors use the final asset values at the end of each region 's respective trading day for the calculation , while others use the values from all holdings at a chosen moment in time .
 Hedge funds hold a variety of assets in various states of liquidity , including stocks , currencies , options contracts and bonds . Hedge funds seeking new investors should provide in - depth information on their current holdings . When you are ready to calculate the asset values , according to your chosen method , multiply the quantity of each individual holding by its market value at that time to determine each holding 's current value . Add all of the results together to determine the total asset value .
 Hedge funds incur the same types of liabilities as other businesses , including debt payments , interest accumulation , salaries expenses and overhead . Add all of these expenses together to calculate the fund 's total liabilities , keeping your chosen time frame in mind . Since net asset value provides a snapshot of value at a moment in time , only calculate current liabilities , including current payments of long - term debt .
 The Securities and Exchange Commission defines net asset value for an investment business as the difference between the company 's total assets and liabilities . Use the following formula as a reference for your calculations : Net Asset Value = Total Assets - Total Liabilities The larger the net asset value as a percentage of total assets , the more efficient the fund is at maximizing profit while keeping costs low . A higher total also indicates that a fund has more capital to invest , allowing it to earn larger returns .


text: Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with SEO? I'm trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I'm not seeing very good success. If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!

tokenized: Hello there ! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with SEO ? I 'm trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I 'm not seeing very good success . If you know of any please share . Appreciate it !


text:
Key Words: Invasive alien plants (IAPs), Native plants, Anthropogenic activities.
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 13(1), 337-346, July 2018.
A growing problem for the vast extents of diverse tropical forests in the Philippines are degraded every year due to booming population and introduction of invasive alien plants (IAPs). This study aimed to (1) assess the effects of anthropogenic activities on the propagation of IAPs; (2) identify the resident’s purpose of utilizing IAPs; (3) identify the least and most invasive life forms in response to anthropogenic activities that are present in highly disturbed (Site 1) and less disturbed sites (Site 2) of Mt. Manunggal, Cebu Island, Philippines. Both sites were sampled by establishing four quadrats per transect and tallying each plant per quadrat to identify its total abundance per species last October-November, 2016. Residents were interviewed to identify utilization of IAPs and to show the relationship of human activities in the promotion of IAPs in the area. Linear regression test showed that as anthropogenic activities increased, high patronization of the IAPs were also observed in Site 1 and Site 2. High IAP consumption was enough to address the immediate needs of the residents which in turn exacerbate the spread and establishment of IAPs in both sites. At present levels, grasses and herbs were seen to be the most invasive life forms with largest impact in Site 1 and Site 2. The direct relationship between anthropogenic activities and IAPs could result in a dramatic rise of alien plant species, and may thus intensify risks of impacts on native plant species and communities.
Abaquita MLP, Buot IE. 2013. Etnobotany of Medically Important Plants in Mt. Manunggal and Its Vicinity.
Alsos IG, Ware C, Elven R. 2015. Past Arctic aliens have passed away, current ones may stay. Biological Invasions 17(11), 3113-3123.
Braun-Blanquet J. 1932. Plant sociology. The study of plant communities. Plant sociology. The study of plant communities. First Ed.
Center for Invasive Plant Management. 2007. Invasive Plant and the 2007 Farm Bill Workshop Results. 333 Leon Johnson Hall Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 (406) 994-5557.
Chamier J, Schachtschneider K, Le Maitre DC, Ashton PJ, Van Wilgen BW. 2012. Impacts of invasive alien plants on water quality, with particular emphasis on South Africa. Water SA 38(2), 345-356.
Daehler CC, Carino DA. 1999. Threats of invasive plants to the conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity and allelopathy: from organisms to ecosystems in the Pacific. Academia Sinica, Taipei 21-27.
Denslow JS. 2003. Weeds in paradise: thoughts on the invasibility of tropical islands. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 119-127.
Ecological Society of America. 2004. Invasive Species. [Internet] Available from: http://www.esa. org/education/edupdfs/invasion.pdf ERDB. 2009.
Frenot Y, Chown, SL, Whinam J, Selkirk PM, Convey P, Skotnicki M, Bergstrom DM. 2005. Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biol Rev 80, 45-72.
Higgins SI, Richardson DM. 1999. Predicting plant migration rates in a changing world: the role of long-distance dispersal. The American Naturalist 153(5), 464-475.
Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES, Hall C. 2013. Novel ecosystems: intervening in the new ecological world order. John Wiley & Sons.
Huang QQ, Qian C, Wang Y, Jia X, Dai XF, Zhang H, Wang GX. 2010. Determinants of the geographical extent of invasive plants in China: effects of biogeographical origin, life cycle and time since introduction. Biodiversity and conservation 19(5), 1251-1259.
Huiskes, AH, Gremmen NJ, Bergstrom DM, Frenot Y, Hughes KA, Imura S. Ware C. 2014. Aliens in Antarctica: assessing transfer of plant propagules by human visitors to reduce invasion risk. Biological conservation 171, 278-284.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2000. IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species. Aliens 11, 15.
Joshi RC. 2006. Invasive alien species (IAS): concerns and status in the Philippines. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Development of Database (APASD) for Biological Invasion. FFTC, Taichung, Taiwan, China (pp. 1-23).
Liu J, Ouyang Z, Pimm SL, Raven PH, Wang X, Miao H, Han N. 2003. Protecting China’s biodiversity. Science 300(5623), 1240-1241.
Magee TK, Ringold PL, Bollman MA, Ernst TL. 2010. Index of alien impact: a method for evaluating potential ecological impact of alien plant species. Environmental management 45(4), 759-778.
Rejmanek M. 1996. Species richness and resistance to invasions. In Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in tropical forests (pp. 153-172). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Impacts of anthropogenic activities on invasive alien plants in Mt. Manunggal, Cebu Island, Philippines.

tokenized:
Key Words : Invasive alien plants ( IAPs ) , Native plants , Anthropogenic activities .
 J. Bio . Env . Sci . 13(1 ) , 337 - 346 , July 2018 .
 A growing problem for the vast extents of diverse tropical forests in the Philippines are degraded every year due to booming population and introduction of invasive alien plants ( IAPs ) . This study aimed to ( 1 ) assess the effects of anthropogenic activities on the propagation of IAPs ; ( 2 ) identify the resident ’s purpose of utilizing IAPs ; ( 3 ) identify the least and most invasive life forms in response to anthropogenic activities that are present in highly disturbed ( Site 1 ) and less disturbed sites ( Site 2 ) of Mt. Manunggal , Cebu Island , Philippines . Both sites were sampled by establishing four quadrats per transect and tallying each plant per quadrat to identify its total abundance per species last October - November , 2016 . Residents were interviewed to identify utilization of IAPs and to show the relationship of human activities in the promotion of IAPs in the area . Linear regression test showed that as anthropogenic activities increased , high patronization of the IAPs were also observed in Site 1 and Site 2 . High IAP consumption was enough to address the immediate needs of the residents which in turn exacerbate the spread and establishment of IAPs in both sites . At present levels , grasses and herbs were seen to be the most invasive life forms with largest impact in Site 1 and Site 2 . The direct relationship between anthropogenic activities and IAPs could result in a dramatic rise of alien plant species , and may thus intensify risks of impacts on native plant species and communities .
 Abaquita MLP , Buot IE . 2013 . Etnobotany of Medically Important Plants in Mt. Manunggal and Its Vicinity .
 Alsos IG , Ware C , Elven R. 2015 . Past Arctic aliens have passed away , current ones may stay . Biological Invasions 17(11 ) , 3113 - 3123 .
 Braun - Blanquet J. 1932 . Plant sociology . The study of plant communities . Plant sociology . The study of plant communities . First Ed .
 Center for Invasive Plant Management . 2007 . Invasive Plant and the 2007 Farm Bill Workshop Results . 333 Leon Johnson Hall Montana State University Bozeman , MT 59717 ( 406 ) 994 - 5557 .
 Chamier J , Schachtschneider K , Le Maitre DC , Ashton PJ , Van Wilgen BW . 2012 . Impacts of invasive alien plants on water quality , with particular emphasis on South Africa . Water SA 38(2 ) , 345 - 356 .
 Daehler CC , Carino DA . 1999 . Threats of invasive plants to the conservation of biodiversity . Biodiversity and allelopathy : from organisms to ecosystems in the Pacific . Academia Sinica , Taipei 21 - 27 .
 Denslow JS . 2003 . Weeds in paradise : thoughts on the invasibility of tropical islands . Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 119 - 127 .
 Ecological Society of America . 2004 . Invasive Species . [ Internet ] Available from : http://www.esa . org / education / edupdfs / invasion.pdf ERDB . 2009 .
 Frenot Y , Chown , SL , Whinam J , Selkirk PM , Convey P , Skotnicki M , Bergstrom DM . 2005 . Biological invasions in the Antarctic : extent , impacts and implications . Biol Rev 80 , 45 - 72 .
 Higgins SI , Richardson DM . 1999 . Predicting plant migration rates in a changing world : the role of long - distance dispersal . The American Naturalist 153(5 ) , 464 - 475 .
 Hobbs RJ , Higgs ES , Hall C. 2013 . Novel ecosystems : intervening in the new ecological world order . John Wiley & Sons .
 Huang QQ , Qian C , Wang Y , Jia X , Dai XF , Zhang H , Wang GX . 2010 . Determinants of the geographical extent of invasive plants in China : effects of biogeographical origin , life cycle and time since introduction . Biodiversity and conservation 19(5 ) , 1251 - 1259 .
 Huiskes , AH , Gremmen NJ , Bergstrom DM , Frenot Y , Hughes KA , Imura S. Ware C. 2014 . Aliens in Antarctica : assessing transfer of plant propagules by human visitors to reduce invasion risk . Biological conservation 171 , 278 - 284 .
 International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN ) 2000 . IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasive species . Aliens 11 , 15 .
 Joshi RC . 2006 . Invasive alien species ( IAS ): concerns and status in the Philippines . In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Development of Database ( APASD ) for Biological Invasion . FFTC , Taichung , Taiwan , China ( pp . 1 - 23 ) .
 Liu J , Ouyang Z , Pimm SL , Raven PH , Wang X , Miao H , Han N. 2003 . Protecting China ’s biodiversity . Science 300(5623 ) , 1240 - 1241 .
 Magee TK , Ringold PL , Bollman MA , Ernst TL . 2010 . Index of alien impact : a method for evaluating potential ecological impact of alien plant species . Environmental management 45(4 ) , 759 - 778 .
 Rejmanek M. 1996 . Species richness and resistance to invasions . In Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in tropical forests ( pp . 153 - 172 ) . Springer , Berlin , Heidelberg .
 Impacts of anthropogenic activities on invasive alien plants in Mt. Manunggal , Cebu Island , Philippines .


text: Until election day, Pasadena ISD will be producing a series of articles and materials to provide our community and stakeholders with a detailed look at both Propositions A & B. Additionally, parent, civic, and community presentations will be held to provide further information regarding these two Propositions. Our goal is to inform our Pasadena ISD community on the facts that have led the Board of Trustees and Administration to call for these two election items. Check back regularly to our website and social media channels for more information.

tokenized: Until election day , Pasadena ISD will be producing a series of articles and materials to provide our community and stakeholders with a detailed look at both Propositions A & B. Additionally , parent , civic , and community presentations will be held to provide further information regarding these two Propositions . Our goal is to inform our Pasadena ISD community on the facts that have led the Board of Trustees and Administration to call for these two election items . Check back regularly to our website and social media channels for more information .


text:
With increasing threat of data breaches, the next major compliance mandate in data protection, data privacy, and IT security is EU's General Data Projection Regulation (GDPR) with global implications. The session explores requirements, impact, areas of compliance risks, penalties, and practical means of compliance solutions, including a basic set of questions for self-assessments such as: - Can you determine what your risk profile is? - Can we control where data resides? - Can we enhance data privacy, including data obfuscation? - Can we quickly and comprehensively notify in the event of a breach? - Can we continuously evaluate the effectiveness of our security? - What personal data is out there and where is it? - Can we control what personal data is accessible and who can access it? - Can we detect unauthorized access or breaches of personal data? Through the active discussion and self-assessment on these topics, the audience will gain insights to high level requirements and gauge current compliance level.
Describe the global impact and high level regulatory provisions / requirements of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR); Discuss and gain insights to basic set of questions for self-assessment for GDPR compliance, in consideration of data security and data privacy.

tokenized:
With increasing threat of data breaches , the next major compliance mandate in data protection , data privacy , and IT security is EU 's General Data Projection Regulation ( GDPR ) with global implications . The session explores requirements , impact , areas of compliance risks , penalties , and practical means of compliance solutions , including a basic set of questions for self - assessments such as : - Can you determine what your risk profile is ? - Can we control where data resides ? - Can we enhance data privacy , including data obfuscation ? - Can we quickly and comprehensively notify in the event of a breach ? - Can we continuously evaluate the effectiveness of our security ? - What personal data is out there and where is it ? - Can we control what personal data is accessible and who can access it ? - Can we detect unauthorized access or breaches of personal data ? Through the active discussion and self - assessment on these topics , the audience will gain insights to high level requirements and gauge current compliance level .
 Describe the global impact and high level regulatory provisions / requirements of General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ) ; Discuss and gain insights to basic set of questions for self - assessment for GDPR compliance , in consideration of data security and data privacy .


text:
PowerShares Capital Management last month announced the first exchange-traded fund (ETF) to provide direct exposure to a diversified portfolio of Indian securities. The PowerShares India Portfolio, with symbol PIN, was set to begin trading in late February on NYSE Arca, an online securities exchange owned by NYSE Euronext.
“The index on which PIN is based is designed to be the proxy for investable assets into the Indian market,” says Bruce Bond, president and CEO of PowerShares, which is part of Atlanta-based Invesco. The index, compiled by Indus Advisors, is rebalanced quarterly and comprises 50 components from a universe of India-based companies listed on the National and Bombay stock exchanges.
“Because India imposes certain restrictions on foreign holdings, any investable India index must explicitly address these limits,” says Ranga Nathan, managing director of Indus Advisors. The Indus index does this using a proprietary measure of capitalization of foreign investment.
While other ETFs provide indirect exposure to Indian securities, PIN will provide direct and diversified exposure to a broad portfolio of Indian equities. The fund operates through a subsidiary in Mauritius, which has a tax treaty with India.

tokenized:
PowerShares Capital Management last month announced the first exchange - traded fund ( ETF ) to provide direct exposure to a diversified portfolio of Indian securities . The PowerShares India Portfolio , with symbol PIN , was set to begin trading in late February on NYSE Arca , an online securities exchange owned by NYSE Euronext .
 “ The index on which PIN is based is designed to be the proxy for investable assets into the Indian market , ” says Bruce Bond , president and CEO of PowerShares , which is part of Atlanta - based Invesco . The index , compiled by Indus Advisors , is rebalanced quarterly and comprises 50 components from a universe of India - based companies listed on the National and Bombay stock exchanges .
 “ Because India imposes certain restrictions on foreign holdings , any investable India index must explicitly address these limits , ” says Ranga Nathan , managing director of Indus Advisors . The Indus index does this using a proprietary measure of capitalization of foreign investment .
 While other ETFs provide indirect exposure to Indian securities , PIN will provide direct and diversified exposure to a broad portfolio of Indian equities . The fund operates through a subsidiary in Mauritius , which has a tax treaty with India .


text:
except to have me download again.
Anybody got suggestions? Everything else works fine.
occurred after upgrading to 3.11 and now I cannot find the earlier installer.
This is seriously BAD software - no relevant help file entry either. Grim.
I would not pay for another Macromedia product if it is going to be like this.
installed with the Contribute 3.11 Installer for OS X (I am also using 10.3.9).
different Mac user account with Admin privileges, (4) re-install Contribute.
and so you have to install where Contribute can play safe.
Of course you'll have to reinstall under your new Admin/user account.
Interesting - sounds like the installer is all messed up.

tokenized:
except to have me download again .
 Anybody got suggestions ? Everything else works fine .
 occurred after upgrading to 3.11 and now I can not find the earlier installer .
 This is seriously BAD software - no relevant help file entry either . Grim .
 I would not pay for another Macromedia product if it is going to be like this .
 installed with the Contribute 3.11 Installer for OS X ( I am also using 10.3.9 ) .
 different Mac user account with Admin privileges , ( 4 ) re - install Contribute .
 and so you have to install where Contribute can play safe .
 Of course you 'll have to reinstall under your new Admin / user account .
 Interesting - sounds like the installer is all messed up .