Long game or Slow game

Over a year ago, there was a discussion thread somewhere on this forum (I can’t recall in what section) about GTO’s demise.  As I recall, GTO was supposedly saying that it was shutting down temporarily and that it would return sometime in the following year with a new game that it would be offering in some kind of partnership with Larry Harris rather than WotC.  The details were quite vague, and nothing seems to have come of that initiative…assuming that it was indeed an initiative that had any substance to it, rather than just speculation.

@Young:

The split is less confusing because they are different coloured units with their own nation and turn sequence, so it’s the same as ANZAC infantry in Egypt with UK pieces.

Lol. I do own physical copies of each game but you can tell how often I’ve played them :)

I’d be curious about a minor in Egypt paired with successful Taranto. Egypt would be pretty hard to get without Germany sending considerable resources.

I’m looking for some G40 forum action.  Either side is fine by me.  I’m sharpening up my Allied skills, though currently having 3 games as the Allies on the go i wouldn’t mind being the Axis either.

IM me and we can get it started.  I promise several turns a day.

Welcome, indignation!

Retreating is done at the end of a combat round.  You can’t skip the prior steps and go straight to retreating, so you must fight at least one round of each declared battle.  It’s the same in all versions.

However, in AA42, AA50, and AA40, attacking (and defending) subs may avoid fighting by submerging at the beginning of the first round if there are no opposing destroyers.

@AllyAxis:

@orania:

There is a major IC in Paris. This isnt possible with A2 rules. Captured Major IC turn into a small one.

Really.  I didn’t see that one in the rules I downloaded.   No Majors in non native territory can be built.  but France falls to a minor?  Didn’t see that one at all.

Holy crap your right.  I guess it only mattered for France since Britian did not fall  or russia. Not sure if we placed that many forces there anyway.  Because the Germans did not build that many forces there throughout the game.  The italians moved troops in,  well maybe before berlin fell late in the game the Axis player on turn 9 may have built more forces there,  but largely he used the Italians to defend western Europe and built germans in West germany to defend Denmark.

Ultimately I don’t think it impacted our game or its outcome,  but will note that for the future!!!

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.