The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push

[VictoryFirst]

Game History

Round: 3

    Combat Move - British
        1 UK-fighter moved from Malta to Sicily

    Combat - British
        Battle in Sicily
            British attack with 1 UK-fighter
            Italians defend with 1 aaGun and 1 factory
                Italians roll AA dice in Sicily : 0/1 hits, 0,20 expected hits
                British roll dice for 1 UK-fighter in Sicily, round 2 : 1/1 hits, 0,40 expected hits
                Italians roll dice for 1 aaGun in Sicily, round 2 : 0/0 hits, 0,00 expected hits
                1 aaGun owned by the Italians lost in Sicily
            British win with 1 UK-fighter remaining. Battle score for attacker is 3
            Casualties for Italians: 1 aaGun

    Non Combat Move - British
        Trigger AddCoastRoadCairo: British has 1 coast_road placed in Cairo
        Trigger AddCoastRoadMersa Matruh: British has 1 coast_road placed in Mersa Matruh
        Trigger RemoveCoastRoadMersa Matruh: has removed 1 coast_road owned by British in Mersa Matruh
        Trigger RemoveCoastRoadCairo: has removed 1 coast_road owned by British in Cairo
        1 UK-fighter moved from Sicily to Malta
        1 UK-aaGun moved from Mersa Matruh to Tobruk
        1 UK-antitank and 1 infantry moved from Cairo to Mersa Matruh
        1 matilda moved from Cairo to Mersa Matruh
        1 infantry moved from Mersa Matruh to Tobruk
        1 UK-truck moved from Cairo to Mersa Matruh
        1 5-supply and 1 UK-truck moved from Mersa Matruh to Tobruk
        1 UK-truck moved from Cairo to Mersa Matruh
        5 1-supplys and 1 UK-truck moved from Mersa Matruh to Cairo

    Place Units - British
        1 UK-aaGun and 2 UK-fighters placed in Malta Convoy
        1 UK-aaGun, 1 infantry and 2 matildas placed in Atlantic Ocean Convoy

    Assign Convoy Escorts - British
        Trigger SetBritishAircraftToKamikaze: Setting isKamikaze to true for unitAttachment attached to UK-fighter
        Trigger SetBritishAircraftToKamikaze: Setting isKamikaze to true for unitAttachment attached to bomber
        Trigger ReduceMovementBritishAircraft: Setting movement to 2 for unitAttachment attached to UK-fighter
        Trigger ReduceMovementBritishAircraft: Setting movement to 2 for unitAttachment attached to bomber
        Trigger RemoveSupplySaharaDesert: has removed 20 1-supplys and 5 5-supplys owned by Uncontrolled in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1British5-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 5-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 4British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2British1-supplyMalta Convoy: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 7British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 6British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1British1-supplyMalta Convoy: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1British1-supplyMalta: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 9British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2German1-supplyEl Agheila: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 3German1-supplyBenghazi: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2British1-supplyMalta: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 8British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2British5-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 5-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1British5-supplyTobruk: Uncontrolled has 1 5-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 5British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1German1-supplyEl Agheila: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1German5-supplyTripoli Convoy G: Uncontrolled has 1 5-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 2German1-supplyBenghazi: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1Italian1-supplyTripoli Convoy I: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1German1-supplyBenghazi: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 3British1-supplyCairo: Uncontrolled has 1 1-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger 1German5-supplyBenghazi: Uncontrolled has 1 5-supply placed in Sahara Desert 1
        Trigger IncreaseAircraftMovementTo4: Setting movement to 4 for unitAttachment attached to UK-fighter
        Trigger RemoveKamikaze: Setting isKamikaze to false for unitAttachment attached to UK-fighter
        Trigger RemoveKamikaze: Setting isKamikaze to false for unitAttachment attached to bomber
        Trigger IncreaseAircraftMovementTo6: Setting movement to 6 for unitAttachment attached to bomber
        Trigger AddCarrierToSea Zone 12British: British has 1 carrier placed in Sea Zone 12
        2 UK-fighters moved from Malta Convoy to Sea Zone 12
        1 UK-fighter moved from Malta to Sea Zone 12

    End Turn - British
        British collect 0 PUs; end with 5 PUs
        Objective British Base Income: British met a national objective for an additional 6 PUs; end with 11 PUs
        Turning on Edit Mode
        EDIT: Removing units owned by British from Mersa Matruh: 1 coast_road
        EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode
        Turning on Edit Mode
        EDIT: Removing units owned by Italians from Tripoli: 1 coast_road
        EDIT: Turning off Edit Mode

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Italians regular : 0,00
British regular : 0,60
Italians AA : -0,20

UK3.tsvg

[VictoryFirst]

I just realized we made a rules mistake on round 1.

I attacked Benghazi and Mersa Brega with one scout car each. The Supply Raider ability destroys one supply, but you also need a supply to defend against the attack, which I forgot. I only removed one supply from each territory while it should have been two.

[VictoryFirst]

I think if you remove two supply from Benghazi, that would fix it. I’ve looked at the history and I don’t think this had an impact as you always had enough supply for your attacks.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst ah, I found part of the problem and sorry I didn’t see this earlier. You can only deploy one mine per territory per turn.

“You may either deploy or upgrade 1 token in each such territory in each turn.” Page 14

It’s too late to go back to the early turns but I will ask that one of the Tobruk mines disappear. I have no issue if you want to adjust your entire purchase/turn.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst also, are there the black “axis” mines somewhere? I captured a mine in Bir-Jal and need to convert it.

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain I am not sure about the mines. I think if the limit was only one mine per turn, it should have said “You may either deploy or upgrade 1 token each turn.” and not “…in each such territory in each turn.” That sounds like the limit is just one per territory and the limit resets every turn.

Should we ask Krieghund?

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain No, I removed the black mines because the land mines are technically generic. And also this way it is much easier to check for the land mine stack/piece limits. Otherwise there are two separate unit types. In that case, mines would have to be placed via triggers in Sahara Desert 1 just like the supply and the sea mines to get the total number of units on the board, and this would make the module even more computation heavy. But it could be done though. If you really liked the Axis mines, I could put them back in.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst we can ask no problem.

However, I am confused as to how you’re confused. The rule is not about deploying a single mine each turn.

It’s that you cannot place two mines on the Tobruk border on one turn. You can only place one mine on a Tobruk boarder per turn.

For example, on round 2 you placed two mines on two boarders of Tobruk. You also placed two mines on two sides of Bir Hachiem. You should have only laid one mine from Tobruk and one mine from Bir Hachiem.

You can place as many mines per turn as you have territories/units to lay them. Limit: one per territory.

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain Ah I see now. I got mixed up with “territories” and “borders”. You are definitely right there. I’ll redo the turn in that case (and remove mines I placed in earlier turns if necessary)

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:

@The_Good_Captain No, I removed the black mines because the land mines are technically generic. And also this way it is much easier to check for the land mine stack/piece limits. Otherwise there are two separate unit types. In that case, mines would have to be placed via triggers in Sahara Desert 1 just like the supply and the sea mines to get the total number of units on the board, and this would make the module even more computation heavy. But it could be done though. If you really liked the Axis mines, I could put them back in.

How do we discern who’s landmines are whose when we both lay them on the same boarder?

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain You can use the comment log for that. If you go to View>Show Comment Log you can write comments. Every time you place a mine, you should specify which territory it came from. This way, if you are unsure whose mine belongs to who, you can take a look at the comment log.

It’s not the most elegant way unfortunately, that would be to have the border territories split up into two, which one half belonging to one territory and the other half to the other. Then you would know to which territory the mine belongs. I experimented with this but the mines don’t fit very well into a half-circle. They overlap and it looks very messy. So I decided to stick with the larger full circles and then using the comment log to keep track of the ownership of the mines.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:

@The_Good_Captain You can use the comment log for that. If you go to View>Show Comment Log you can write comments. Every time you place a mine, you should specify which territory it came from. This way, if you are unsure whose mine belongs to who, you can take a look at the comment log.

It’s not the most elegant way unfortunately, that would be to have the border territories split up into two, which one half belonging to one territory and the other half to the other. Then you would know to which territory the mine belongs. I experimented with this but the mines don’t fit very well into a half-circle. They overlap and it looks very messy. So I decided to stick with the larger full circles and then using the comment log to keep track of the ownership of the mines.

excellent! I will be sure to cover this in the video. NICE

[VictoryFirst]

Sorry for the mines, that mistake did have a large impact on the game. There is no way to prevent the player from placing more than one mine per territory. The only way would be to get rid of the border territories and have mines be placed in territories directly, then have a bunch of different mine units with the name of the territory they are placed along in their name, so e.g. landmine_BEN, landmine_BIR, etc. Then you could hover over the landmine and then you can see against which territory the mine defends.

Pros

• The limit of one mine per territory can be enforced by the engine
• Control of land mines would be immediately clear.
• Powers would be able to buy mines themselves, no need for the extra player “Mines”

Cons

• It is not immediately clear along which border the mines are placed (you’d have to hover over the unit to see, and the mine would be placed somewhere randomly in the territory, not necessarily along the correct border)
• There would be a lot of different units for the mines, so the purchase or edit screens would be bloated
• It’s harder to check for the mine limits (although not undoable, it can be done in the same way as supply).
• You will not be able to place mines directly in uncontrolled territories, so you would have to place them in a territory you own and then use edit to place them in an uncontrolled territory.

A possibility is that the “Mines” player still exists, and that it controls all the different mine units and that the normal powers can only purchase just the generic landmine and that afterwards they need to be replaced by a mine controlled by “Mines” that has the name of the territory included. This would not bloat the purchase or edit screen of normal powers, only the edit screen of the “Mines” player

What do you think?

[VictoryFirst]

By the way, I propose the following changes to correct my mistakes:

• One mine is removed BIR-JAL
• One mine is removed from MAT-TOB
• I will redo the UK purchases to fix the mistakes that happened this turn (that will probably included one less mine in Tobruk).

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:

By the way, I propose the following changes to correct my mistakes:

• One mine is removed BIR-JAL
• One mine is removed from MAT-TOB
• I will redo the UK purchases to fix the mistakes that happened this turn (that will probably included one less mine in Tobruk).

I’ll keep the Bir-Jal mine for the Axis, lol. I need something for eating the extra mine hits from earlier.

the others sound good. it’s all good. were mostly just trying to make sure the engine runs well enough.

the mines issue is a bit confusing to me so I might just advise you do what you think is best. I didn’t have an issue with keeping track of them myself when the mines were black and tan. But i get what you’re trying to do in having TripleA assist the player as much as possible.

That being said, I cannot visualize your solution. Honestly, I wasn’t even aware there was a “mines player” in tripleA.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst this playing community is spoiled rotten by TripleA and people like you lol. in every other gaming community, we use VASSAL.

And there is ZERO expectation in other gaming communities that a program is developed to keep players from having to know the rules lol

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain Alright! Yeah I tried my best to explain the mine issue. I think it’s best to keep it the way it is currently and just give a small note about this in the game notes. I think the pros outweigh the cons, with the biggest drawback being that the map would have to be redrawn again…

The mines now all having the same color is not to make them more easy to track for the players, but for the engine. The stack/piece limits are now very easy for the engine to check and require little computational power. Otherwise, it would need a lot more and could cause delay between game phases. Another reason I didn’t mention is that only one mine image nicely fits in the border territories. If you have two different mine images then it looks really weird (I tested it). This is cleanest looking way to deal with this.

[VictoryFirst]

@The_Good_Captain said in The_Good_Captain (Axis) vs. VictoryFirst (Allies) | North Africa, Rommel's Last Push:

Honestly, I wasn’t even aware there was a “mines player” in tripleA.

Lol, I did explain this feature in the game notes for anyone who would be confused about it.

There doesn’t necessarily exists a “mines player” in TripleA. Eric and I created one. You can create players and give them any name you want. From Germans to Russians, and from Mines to Dwarf Warriors.

The reason we have this is because it allows mines to be placed directly inside border territories. To place a unit in a territory, you always must control the territory. This is a little difficult with four different players. You can’t give control of a territory to all four powers at the same time. If you have one dedicated power that places the mines and controls all the territories they can be placed in, that solves it.

[VictoryFirst]

I removed a mine from MAT-TOB, and moved a mine from BIR-TOB to CAI-MAT.

UK3 edit.tsvg

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst all of what you said makes perfect sense. thanks for clarifying. all this will make the demonstration video much smoother