<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts: AirLand Battle.</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/</link>
	<description>Science, gaming, and all things in between.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:05:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.36</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thoughts: Red Dragon. &#187; The Scientific Gamer The Scientific Gamer</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/#comment-17142</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thoughts: Red Dragon. &#187; The Scientific Gamer The Scientific Gamer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3532#comment-17142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] year, another Wargame. Eugen are releasing these things like clockwork, but while last year’s  Airland Battle  was a massively polished and improved version of  European Escalation  that more than justified a [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] year, another Wargame. Eugen are releasing these things like clockwork, but while last year’s  Airland Battle  was a massively polished and improved version of  European Escalation  that more than justified a [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gap Gen</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/#comment-15824</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gap Gen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3532#comment-15824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I like cool people! But yeah, will pick it up next time I feel like I have more than an hour at a time to put into a game.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like cool people! But yeah, will pick it up next time I feel like I have more than an hour at a time to put into a game.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hentzau</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/#comment-15823</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hentzau]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3532#comment-15823</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, absolutely. There is literally nothing about EE that AirLand Battle doesn&#039;t improve on, plus you&#039;ll get to play multiplayer games with cool people.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, absolutely. There is literally nothing about EE that AirLand Battle doesn&#8217;t improve on, plus you&#8217;ll get to play multiplayer games with cool people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gap Gen</title>
		<link>https://scientificgamer.com/thoughts-airland-battle/#comment-15822</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gap Gen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scientificgamer.com/?p=3532#comment-15822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given that I already own W:EE but never really played it, would you recommend jumping straight into W:ALB rather than giving W:EE more of a go?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that I already own W:EE but never really played it, would you recommend jumping straight into W:ALB rather than giving W:EE more of a go?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
