See more synonyms for gambit on Thesaurus.com
Chess. an opening in which a player seeks to obtain some advantage by sacrificing a pawn or piece.
any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage.
I like Larry's thoughts they are well thought out and offer possibilities.
But here is my retort:
In this 2nd game, Chuck made a gambit. It looks good early, but if it costs him the game in the long run, how good is it? If this ends up to be a losing gambit for Soviet players, then new rules aren't needed. The move will simply be a shinning turd. I like the move, but as the Germany player, I see some nice option opening that don't include Allies winning (sorry bombur :)). Maybe they are shinning turds as well... we'll see.
My gripe is Claus and Bombur put three years into this game for our pleasure and some have given it a few days to pronounce it not good. I like Two Tribe, and you too Larry. But honestly, this is unfair (and a few other words I won't use because I like you both). This labor of love by Claus and Bombur should be treated with equal love. It's a very good game.
Larry wants a replay of WW2. V2 wasn't such a game either, so I'm not getting it. My personal opinion is you have welded yourself into one track. You wanted to replay WW2 up to a certain point and the rest of the players be a spectator and oblige your strategy and history until you deem otherwise. It kinda' felt like you wanted us to be role players in your remake of history, rather than active participants.
Again, I really enjoy your company on this forum, and you as an opponent. BUT, you played our game poorly. You didn't adapt. Many examples: you let Benlu get taken, you let Romania get taken. You were fighting for Turkey with Japan politically and all of that could have been used on primary goals benlux and romania. you had this vision... a good one but it's was viewed with tunnel vision (two shipyards after that was happening (400PP!!!)? Hell... you didn't even condense your forces down and grab all the PP you could have used... I think I shaved down the German army for like 60PP that went to very good use. But when Chuck and I decided to not follow the roles scripted to us, you did not respond. Soviet forces were weak. I pushed into Poland because you showed weakness. If you had acted with strength I would have sat back. I have said it many times... you are a bright and learned scholar, you have great stories of your life, and I enjoy learning from your wisdom... but this is meant to be a framework of history not a retracing where one player gets to determine when we go off script.
Again, I like all your thoughts on the rules, but for God's sake give it a couple of games. If you can't see you played poorly,despite what you think of the rules, then I believe you aren't seeing it correctly. This all might shake out the right way. Yeah, I started it with being aggressive... that's how I play. But you played passive and that's not how Germany I meant to play. Fair is fair and truth is truth.
This is a game of grand strategy.
I hated Chuck attacking. I immediately thought there should be some way of preventing this... but now a few rounds from it, I see that Strategic options are present to win this game and prevent Soviet players from doing this in the future. Maybe I'm wrong. But as a competitor, who is grateful for this wonderous game that has been labored over FOR FREE, I look forward to the challenge before I come to a conclusion. And even if I do come to the same conclusion as you, all my thoughts will be one that come from gratitude and friendship to help this GREAT game be the best it can be. Far to often we all quit before we find wisdom or victory. It's a shame to give up after a loss or a few turns... Claus and Bomber didn't quit after 3 years... I for one am very glad they didn't-- I'm enjoying the heck out of the game.