Missing boards for the 2004 version - National Production Chart and the Reference Chart for the Soviet Union

@justluthor
From the Revised FAQ:

"Q. The Nonaggression Treaty allows the USSR to place four units in the territory Japan attacks
first. What if the Japanese player attacks two or more red territories on the same turn?

A. In that case, the Soviet player chooses which of the territories being attacked gets the four infantry."

For the sea battle, yes; for the land battle, no.

The TripleA is a cool game, but it’s a shame that the AI is sooo lame. It really is to easy.
However, it’s great that they included a lot of versions, and a few new ones(at least to me). The Great War scenario looks nice :-D

wrong section to post these . put them in house rules. This forum is only for the OOB game.

The reason they are rated low, for me, is as follows:

1)  Submarines are expensive
2)  Submarines die to fighters without risk to the fighters
3)  Submarines purchased take 4 full turns to break even (odds?)
4)  The two submarines in SZ 5 die in every game I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a debate over when, not if they die.
5)  Germany has no business buying up lots of submarines.
6)  America is relatively unaffected by U-Boats.  Sure, they have less money, but honestly, -3 IPC from 42 IPC is not that much.

Those are ranked in order of importance to me.

That said, if you get them as a random bonus, it isn’t horrible.  Germany, of course, has no worthless advantages.

lol at Japan. thats prety funny. nice board but how’d the US and Japan let that happen?

Some are just cheap, though, like the Superfortresses. Since fighters can’t intecept SBR’s, you can bomb at will with America, while being perfectly content to lose nothing.

@prof_tc:

1: Are you sure the Superfortresses aren’t too strong? Then again, it is historically accurate.

2: what happens as you lose tanks with the Ger. heavy tanks?
I know you tested all these new rules, and I’m sure you made a decision. I assume that the first is a heavy tank, and then every 4th after that.

1. The superfortresses advantage is now counterable for the Axis, but cost a lot to develop Jet Fighters! However to old rule of mine that I have in these revised NAs may be a better choice since now the U.S. needs to develop heavy bombers as well. This variant with one additional die per bomber in a SBR is not really playtested! But compared to the original one, I am sure it wont be worse to the Axis as long as they can counter it with jets! :wink:

Damage caused by heavy superfortresses (Heavy Bombers development and Superfortresses advantage) against an IC protected by jets (Jet Fighter development):
5/63(1/61+1/62+1/63+1/64+1/65+1/66) + 5/61/610 IPCs = 10,1 IPCs

Damage caused by AA fire and intercepting jets (on a 1:1 ratio for fighters and bombers) on bombers in a SBR:
1/615 + 3/615 = 10 IPCs

This means that the German and Japanese player needs to develop Jet Fighters to an average cost of 30 IPCs and have as many fighters protecting each IC as there are U.S. heavy superfortresses within reach for a potential SBR! The allies would just have a slight advantage to the axis if conducting a SBR with heavy superfortresses, it is even less then for a regular bomber that conducts a SBR on an IC only protected by an AA gun!

2. this is from another thread about “Heavy Tanks”:

First cycle of combat:
Put the first 2 tanks on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat this until all tanks are on your battleboard. At the end of the combat remove casualties.

Second cycle of combat:
Remove all remaining tanks from battleboard and redeploy them by putting the first 2 on 3 and every third tank on 4. Repeat that until all your remaining tanks are on the battelboard… and so on!