Yes it does. Thank you.
. Though the final idea is alittle different form the proposed I believe. I would still like to seize another city but after considering it, if we take any loses elsewhere(from counterattack, and I can almost hear the swords being rushed already), the southern attack could divert resourse needed elsewhere and with a few loses could doom the offensive. In short we could do it, but with no margin of error I'll take what we can get. (OT- MacArthur was a truly great general, however Nimitiz truly was the one who won the pacific theater and Mac Arthur wasted many lives in a phillipine campaign that was unnecessary, IMHO. Though a good arguement can be made that the campaign was important for psychological reasons. Now ifwe had liberated indochina many bad things could have been avoided). I see the western campaign like we could have seen korea campaign. Quicky victory and stop without bringing in a much larger enemy force. I am afraid a hamburg attack could push into the teeth of a large swordsmen force that would be heading south. At least with taking munich we will get the option of peace. We don't have to take it and can press north. I agree with you that if we take hamburg, I would probably have to be now, though we will play it by ear. Personally I say after munich we go east and secure the persian theater. Teach those non banana believing persians to mess with us. Though I hope the next turn is a chat since its hard to see all possibilities.
I was in fact talking about the workers near Seeburg 
Comment