A vacation A&A game

That’s why under Caspian Sub and tripleA ladder rules you can’t attack an enemy capital with ground troops in your first turn.

Like you mentioned, it turns a wonderful game into a coin flip and spoils the fun.

Thankyou folks. I’ve just purchased a secondgand A & A Europe.

Tristy

Africa is not critical if the Axis is doing an “aimed spear” at Russia and can slow the Allied landings by a turn (usually throurgh AF threat to their fleet).  It is also contingent on Russia being afraid of a permanent loss of Caucuses (usually through a combined threat).  The “Aimed Spear” requires a strong Japan naval presence in the Indian Ocean immediately, which can mean risk from the USA in the Pacific if TOTAL naval dominance was not achieved via Pearl and the Pearl Counter.  It is also a risky attempt by Germany, since it involves a lot of ARM purchased on G1 (in advance of seeing the Allied moves that may or may not destroy the threat of an “aimed spear” attack).

@Nix:

Goggle for TripleA, it has a very weak AI, but better then Hasbros…  (doesn´t say much of course…)

TripleA’s AI is almost static for the first 3 rounds.  Go with insane German purchases for the first two rounds and you’ll own Moscow because it doesn’t know to stack Moscow with infantry.

You have to be a member of the Caspian Sub yahoo group in order to access their posts and files.

Under LHTR, in the description of AA guns, it does include a specific exception to AA guns ONLY moving in NCM when being carried on TRNs.

It is not 100% conclusive.  But it is more than enough to make me think that the AA gun does indeed offload in COMBAT movement (but of course cannot “attack” so it is ignored as a unit for the attacker).  If the Attacker wins the combat, they finish setting up the AA gun in NCM, and it protects the newly captured territory.  If the attacker is thrown back into the sea, the defender gains the AA gun.

At least, that is how I read it…

@ncscswitch:

You must have missed a few of the games in the Games threads…

**NAVAL BATTLES DO NOT AND WILL NEVER WIN A GAME WHERE VICTORY IS DETERMINED BY CONTROL OF LAND TERRITORIES!**  …

Go ahead, play test it a few times.  You will quickly see what I mean.

Well, I agree and do understand your point. But it is sad that control of sea is not worth anything when history shows a different story. What if one included a rule for convoy raids! Try my rule for convoy raid in 2-3 games and then tell me if you think the game becomes more interesting. I just want you to try this rule to see what I mean. Navy will be more important, but with the twist of Axis favor!!! Then you will be more open for the discussion of cheaper navy!

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to “sink” IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territory’s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

Revised edition is much better. Except for neutral countries…we should be able to invade them as the axis.