Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?

I’m interested in the full records. Particularly the W Rus strafe reasoning and aftermath. Was it a retreat into Karelia? If yes, no need for further explanation on that count, though I’m still curious about the exact distributions, attack roll results, and defender decisions, esp. as 42.3 is Larry Harris setup right? and Germany took the bomber as an early casualty at Ukraine it seems?

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’d hardly call Russia buying INF all game and turtling in Moscow “correct play” in 1942.3, but to each his own. I have no tournament experience in this version but I imagine a marginally more aggressive Russia build (at least 1 Tank bought every few rounds) would yield better results.

Well I mean three Russian fighters seems like a super luxury to me, but as far as 8 infantry goes at least on the first turn, I’m not sure I’d really say that’s passive. The way I figure it, Russia needs casualty count and infantry are what you put out. Germany has this big logistics problem getting stuff to the front. So you build more infantry, you trade with fighters and artillery, you keep building infantry, you do strafes and stuff, more infantry keeps your unit count healthy while Germany feeds into it.

But infantry ALL game, I don’t know. Like, I think I would stick some artillery in there if I had infantry stacks, maybe not R1 or R2 or even R3 but . . . all game, all infantry? I mean, I could see it in some games but I’d want to see a game record to see how that all played out.

Isn’t that an exaggeration after all? I mean if you had three Russian fighters, didn’t you have to buy one? Or does patch 42.3 change that up or something? I don’t know.

“The UK traded a stack of tanks to fend off the german ones coming out of africa” - really, German had a stack of tanks in Africa? Is that normal? I don’t think I would expect it.

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

I’m interested in seeing one of your replay files if Germany is killing your USSR by only building Tanks and Strat Bombers in 42.3. Doesn’t seem like very cost-efficient trading to me.

Well German tanks repositioning can be really nasty. But still.

Also I’m thinking about the effects of tournament rules, what with timers and things. So if the Axis just contain 7 VCs then they win? How do games usually go on time? To the end with 9 Axis or 10 Allied VCs?

Because the tournament thing is pretty big imo. It’s like okay if Moscow is threatened normally maybe you pull out of India but if it’s a battle for 7 VCs before time’s called that’s less an option.

(edit - After having played more and read some old posts by Hobbes, I agree 8 inf is not the way to go in the now-implemented LHTR setup. If you have a good successful Ukraine strafe and retreat to Caucasus and everything goes right, then 8 inf can work. But if Ukraine doesn’t go well or if Russia captures Ukraine, then Russia loses a chunk of its attack power on R1 or G1 respectively. Then Russia can’t really punish German incursion especially with Japanese fighter reinforcement.)

@taamvan Good to see that you had some success at the tournament! I imagine that with a bid, crippling Japan is something actually feasible on this map. As in other “medium” size maps, they have 12 (really 11, who actually takes New Guinea?)/30 IPCs in the Money Islands, which means that once you bust their navy, they’re going to be hard pressed to mount any serious offensive threat for the rest of the game, unless they’re already at the gates of Moscow.

I’m assuming you just used bid money to buff up the UK India fleet to make killing the DEI Carrier + Battleship more of a sure-fire thing, then go from there?

AAO I’ve had the opposite experience as you. Most of my opponents have been rather poor so far. The only two games I’ve lost so far (as Allies, haven’t lost yet as Axis for obvious reasons) were one where I lost the West Russia attack R1, and another where it was a 5-player game, UK was controlled by the (miserably incompetent) AI, and the US Player left after turn 2, having sailed their entire starting fleet to French Equatorial Africa for God-knows what reason. I tried to swing things back around once I had control of USA, but West Russia went down on G6 so I called it quits.

The Axis players in particular that I’ve come across seem a bit green. Germany Players NCM their air force on to the front lines, and are too aggressive with leaving Tanks exposed to strafing in-general. My Allied opponents so far have been a bit better, though. I’ve been using a super-lazy build with Germany to try to force wins in 4 turns (G1 all Tanks, consolidate initial position + take Karelia, G2 all FTRs, hit Ukraine with everything/retake Karelia if needed, G3 all Bombers, everything to Caucasus and/or West Russia, G4 all INF (to defend against US/UK), Moscow crush, G5 onwards just spam INF to get US/UK out of Europe while you wait for India to fall). I’ve been surprised by the number of USSR players that are actually able to put up a pretty good fight, getting strafes off and whatnot. I’ve seen some variety in the UK strats like you have, but none of them have been what I’d call “good”. Most of them seem overly hell-bent on keeping Egypt alive, to the detriment of the defense of India.

My opponents (in 1v1s and multiplayer) seem to be the worst with USA. Lots of people just move stacks of Transports to Africa (but not a good SZ that threatens key territories, bizarre ones like the French-Equatorial Africa one or the Brazil one), leave Transports completely unguarded, hang their fleet, etc. None of them seem to like challenging Japan in the Pacific either, which frees up the Japanese Battleships/Carriers to take down India faster.

What was the time limit on your tournament games? A PBEM game that lasts until OOB Victory Conditions is generally going to take a stall-ier form than a game that has to be completed in 5 hours (~6 rounds). The real-time factor opens up the possibility for gambit-like strategies that aim to take enough VCs to win once time is called, but do so in a suicidal fashion that would surely lose the game long-term. Something like (totally hypothetical here) abandoning Moscow in a late round to 100% all-in Karelia/India (assuming the Allies can capture other VCs at the tail-end of the round to secure the win). Normally, Moscow falling is game-over for the Allies, but when time is called all that matters is who has the raw VC gain, right?

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@DoManMacgee

About the Tournament, its 5 hours. Since the Axis can take and hold Karelia, they can also sandbag the victory by playing REALLY slowly. In order to win, you have to take the phillipines and kiangsi or whatever that one is called. Even if the other players are going really slow, there is an art to prodding them, and Greg will come over and insist on fast play–they also have a rule about starting a new turn during the 45 minutes “end time”–when that’s called, you only play out that remaning turn. If its not, you start a fresh turn and finish that out to end the game.

There is def. an art to winning in that setting, with careful attention to things like rolling and casualties–our opponent asked to invalidate several rolls because the dice got swept before he saw them.

Yes, the bid goes to a sub for SZ37 (“The Black Queen Gambit” is what I call that attack). In one of the games, 2 subs lived (make sure selective rolling is done for the SZ37 battle because many pieces cannot hit everything present, on both sides, because no DDs). Those 2 subs went on to sink 2 destroyers and 1 transport. If japan doesnt build any DD, they have so few…that’s why I favor ripping stacks of subs for USA and Japan (and germany)

In AXAO…last night USA stepped up and I wiped his entire fleet, keeping all my surface ships -1 DD and losing 6 subs

Yeah, I have been beaten, much to my shame. I prefer to play an entire team myself as its disappointing to lose against weak players because your partner(s) are even worse.

Still hoping to get a game with the folks here going–but hordes of noobs keep joining my “Axa.org Only” games…

Think of it as teaching them the game. 😀

As for me, I’m not going to play it. It’s too inferior to AA50, and AAA anyway.

Tournaments are different to AXAO. Larry Harris setup, bid, games called on time so decided by +1 VC, AXAO doesn’t implement the rules per board game.

It’s like, I don’t think they can even be compared. OOB East Indies attack and two-territory Russia attacks are all unstable. 30%+ failure at East Indies, and a little dice swing on Russia 1 can be pretty nasty. Bid makes a big difference, plus the Larry Harris setup.

As to +1 VC, I really don’t know that I’d go 100% tanks on G1 in a normal standard game of 9 Axis VC / 10 Allied VC.

@DoManMacgee - French Equatorial Africa, not French West Africa? Brazil, yeah that’s just not right. But if it’s French West Africa, I don’t think it’s necessarily bad. Well maybe it is bad but I don’t think it’s bad because I might do it sometimes. And of course I have three whole weeks of experience on this board. Maybe two and a half. Whatever. So if I do it, it can’t be bad, right? :relaxed:

Stipulating we’re using OOB with the additional restrictions of AXAO - (i.e. no use of allied transports or carriers, defending fighters float instead of having to land or be destroyed if their carrier dies, defensive profiles (which are a big change, I could go on) -

OK anyways if Germany does 2 subs to East Canada and 2 subs air to UK battleship and lands fighters on NW Europe and Finland, then UK probably has no fleet to start. And if the UK player was using the default defensive profile, if the Russian sub joined the UK fleet then it didn’t submerge and is probably dead too. So UK is looking at Baltic cruiser and transport which is inconvenient to Russia, and has zero fleet, plus probably there’s a German sub hanging out. But all UK can build is destroyer and carrier if it reserves 9 IPC for 3 infantry at India. And if it does that, then it gets whacked by 1 sub 6 fighters 1 bomber, never mind what happens if UK tries to kill the German cruiser (which probably isn’t the worst idea considering London might be threatened) and loses a fighter in the process. Regardless, UK1 fleet drop probably not good.

So US1 builds fleet while UK does whatever. Then what does US2 move do?

Well if Germany grabbed Trans-Jordan on G1, UK might want to pull Egypt units to take it back. If UK attacks Libya probably Germany stacked it so that isn’t too good. If UK sits where it is, Trans-Jordan and Libya both attack and crush them. If UK runs into Africa and pulls German units after them, that’s not the worst, but Germany can just push up into Transjordan, UK units in Africa can never catch up, then Germany has a little pocket force in the Persia region. So none of those are maybe too great, so maybe UK hits Trans-Jordan.

Well if that happens then Germany marches into Africa, and what happens? US can drop to French West Africa and fight them off. If Germany fights them, that uses up some of Germany’s attention and stretches Germany’s logistics, so that’s not the worst use of some US units that couldn’t even think about landing in Europe any time soon. If Germany doesn’t fight, that works out okay too as UK income is preserved. US could drop to Morocco but that risks getting stalled out. But south of Africa, really hard for Germany to push to.

As to G1 tanks, G2 ftr, G3 bomber, G4 infantry . . . well on AXAO I can believe it wins. What with all the Russian players trying to hold Karelia with way too few forces, or buying Russian bombers, or stacking Buryatia where Japan just whacks them, or things like that, woo.

Edit - anyways I got sidetracked. So the thing is US1 two carriers and destroyer, US2 fighters and US1 fleet moves to Africa, UK3 builds fleet, US3 moves to reinforce UK fleet. Depending on what’s going on, maybe US1 three destroyers and a carrier, etc., maybe Japan flies a bomber to Karelia, little variations. Anyways US fleet really doesn’t have much other place to go than Africa if Germany’s zoning north Atlantic with subs on US2 (US fleet can’t reach UK waters), so US1 fleet drop only reaches London on US3 anyways . . . right? So then Africa makes more sense because hey.

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@squirecam I wont convince you, but I disagree. The game works great and AAA has glaring flaws I can’t overcome. Mostly I just want to play with my buddies, y’all.

which flaws?

I mean, AXAO you can’t use allied transports or carriers. Defending fighters float if their carrier’s destroyed (don’t need to land at all, just stay in the sea zone). Defensive profiles eurgh. I mentioned attacking the Japanese submarine, but there’s loads more times when def profiles just don’t get it done. Then there’s things like needing to assign casualties after each group of similarly valued units, unlike having all rolls in a sub-phase totaled before assigning casualties. Bugs. Like if you have a submarine and there’s an enemy submarine in the same zone (applies to other stuff too I think) then you can’t move your submarine out of combat unless it’s into a another combat; unlike in the board game you can’t move to a neutral sea zone and just hang out at all. Also various bugs.

Error: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property ‘width’ of null Please reload the game

Well it’s early days for AXAO yet. Still Early Access, this stuff is supposed to happen. Well we’ll see how it turns out.

@aardvarkpepper said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@squirecam I wont convince you, but I disagree. The game works great and AAA has glaring flaws I can’t overcome. Mostly I just want to play with my buddies, y’all.

which flaws?

I mean, AXAO you can’t use allied transports or carriers. Defending fighters float if their carrier’s destroyed (don’t need to land at all, just stay in the sea zone). Defensive profiles eurgh. I mentioned attacking the Japanese submarine, but there’s loads more times when def profiles just don’t get it done. Then there’s things like needing to assign casualties after each group of similarly valued units, unlike having all rolls in a sub-phase totaled before assigning casualties. Bugs. Like if you have a submarine and there’s an enemy submarine in the same zone (applies to other stuff too I think) then you can’t move your submarine out of combat unless it’s into a another combat; unlike in the board game you can’t move to a neutral sea zone and just hang out at all. Also various bugs.

Error: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set property ‘width’ of null Please reload the game

Well it’s early days for AXAO yet. Still Early Access, this stuff is supposed to happen. Well we’ll see how it turns out.

Why is this supposed to happen? Why can’t they get the rules correct first, before putting the game out for sale?

It’s that, or they are deciding their own rules…which is worse. Then it’s not AA42 but a home variant passed off as the game.

@DoManMacgee - French Equatorial Africa, not French West Africa?

No. French Equatorial Africa. Looking at a map, it’s SZ26. Completely removed from anything even remotely relevant. I’ve had some very odd players in my games, to say the least. It’s gotten to the point where I’ll only do 1v1s if I’m going to be playing Allies. Both of my losses so far stem from bad teammates (although to be fair, one of them wasn’t so much the teammate’s fault as it was bad dice R1, but I’ve griped about that enough in the 42SE board).

The only time I ever go down to that SZ as USA is if Germany has expanded everywhere in Africa and I need to get them out yesterday.

Interesting that slow-play is a problem at the large tournaments. I imagine games can often come down to extremely dicey all-ins revolving around Karelia/India/Philippines once things get close to the time limit. I’m sure if you’re aggressive/rude enough you can get your opponents to stop stalling and move, though.

@squirecam

AAO having weird rules

Why is this supposed to happen? Why can’t they get the rules correct first, before putting the game out for sale?

It’s that, or they are deciding their own rules…which is worse. Then it’s not AA42 but a home variant passed off as the game.

Stuff like Allied Carriers and Allied Transports are things Beamdog said they changed for the sake of “simplifying the game for Asyncrhonous play” (it’s stupid, I know, don’t shoot the messenger). The thing with FTRs not having to land/crash when a Carrier dies is something I reported a few days ago. They said it’s a known bug and they’re still working on a fix for it.

The game’s basically in an open beta right now, which is why it’s still a mess. On-launch the game was a complete disaster that was borderline unplayable (constant crashing, slow-as-molasses, etc.). It’s gotten much better over the past 4 weeks or so. They even added LHTR as a setup option in the latest update (after huge demand for it from us/others on Steam).

@DoManMacgee said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@DoManMacgee - French Equatorial Africa, not French West Africa?

No. French Equatorial Africa. Looking at a map, it’s SZ26. Completely removed from anything even remotely relevant. I’ve had some very odd players in my games, to say the least. It’s gotten to the point where I’ll only do 1v1s if I’m going to be playing Allies. Both of my losses so far stem from bad teammates (although to be fair, one of them wasn’t so much the teammate’s fault as it was bad dice R1, but I’ve griped about that enough in the 42SE board).

The only time I ever go down to that SZ as USA is if Germany has expanded everywhere in Africa and I need to get them out yesterday.

Interesting that slow-play is a problem at the large tournaments. I imagine games can often come down to extremely dicey all-ins revolving around Karelia/India/Philippines once things get close to the time limit. I’m sure if you’re aggressive/rude enough you can get your opponents to stop stalling and move, though.

@squirecam

AAO having weird rules

Why is this supposed to happen? Why can’t they get the rules correct first, before putting the game out for sale?

It’s that, or they are deciding their own rules…which is worse. Then it’s not AA42 but a home variant passed off as the game.

Stuff like Allied Carriers and Allied Transports are things Beamdog said they changed for the sake of “simplifying the game for Asyncrhonous play” (it’s stupid, I know, don’t shoot the messenger). The thing with FTRs not having to land/crash when a Carrier dies is something I reported a few days ago. They said it’s a known bug and they’re still working on a fix for it.

The game’s basically in an open beta right now, which is why it’s still a mess. On-launch the game was a complete disaster that was borderline unplayable (constant crashing, slow-as-molasses, etc.). It’s gotten much better over the past 4 weeks or so. They even added LHTR as a setup option in the latest update (after huge demand for it from us/others on Steam).

Do these developers even play the game?

French Equatorial Africa, well. Maybe they had family there and wanted to visit?

==

As to being aggressive / rude at tournaments - no. If they’re deliberately stalling you, they’ll be well prepared for aggressive or rude responses. I’d guess typical rejoinders would be “he’s shouting at me so I need a moment to think” (trying to get the judge to penalize you for delay, not them) or “would you check this guy out, can someone do something about this” (delaying the game further) or a bunch of things I can think of actually that I’ve seen in other tournaments though I’ve never been to an A&A tournament. Best thing I think is just remain calm and get a judge.

I mean, maybe it’s all an honest mistake (or maybe that player just really needs to take their time), who knows? Maybe you’re overreacting. (Maybe not. But maybe.) And if a judge comes along, probably they won’t penalize anyone for stalling, things being what they are nobody wants to make waves, but if you complain about that player and another player complains, at some point that player’s going to get a reputation. So make it official, it’s the best way.

==

As to fighters not landing / crashing when a defending carrier is destroyed - that was known behavior, not a bug, as far as I knew. It’s in the list of changes Beamdog published that changed the original rules - along with defender profiles and inability to use allied transports and carriers. Well if they’re calling it a bug that’s fine by me; I prefer the board game rules anyways.

@squirecam said in [Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?]

Do these developers even play the game?

Well imagine you’re a casual player and maybe you played once or twice, and you thought it was fun, then after years of never thinking about it maybe your company has a job doing it, then of course the office gets together and does some games, and everyone’s a casual player and has a good time, but maybe foresees some difficulties with certain features so changes are made. And of course nobody thinks anything of these changes, because stuff like 60% as opposed to 85%, or changing key timings so there’s 85% instead of 35%, or whatever, so what? I mean, that’s for nerds right? Does anyone take that sort of thing seriously?

Then some very fervent but inarticulate people say “omg you can’t do that!” but well, you know, EVERY game has their diehards, so who’s to say what’s actually the case? Maybe if casuals are the target market, the concerns of diehards aren’t actually so serious?

I said something about allied transports and carriers being a big change, what with changing UK fighters to India if you want to try that, importance of combined fleet timings, and whatnot, but woosh! the point was missed. it’s like, well, the rules are the same for both sides right? so what’s the big deal?

I mean, sure, right, if they didn’t play the game, maybe they would take it more seriously, my guess is they did play the game but maybe missed some of the finer points.

. . . those finer points which STAB YOU LIKE A SWORD IN THE HANDS OF A SKILLED PLAYER :white_frowning_face:

oh well hopefully they’ll come around.

@aardvarkpepper said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

French Equatorial Africa, well. Maybe they had family there and wanted to visit?

==

As to being aggressive / rude at tournaments - no. If they’re deliberately stalling you, they’ll be well prepared for aggressive or rude responses. I’d guess typical rejoinders would be “he’s shouting at me so I need a moment to think” (trying to get the judge to penalize you for delay, not them) or “would you check this guy out, can someone do something about this” (delaying the game further) or a bunch of things I can think of actually that I’ve seen in other tournaments though I’ve never been to an A&A tournament. Best thing I think is just remain calm and get a judge.

I mean, maybe it’s all an honest mistake (or maybe that player just really needs to take their time), who knows? Maybe you’re overreacting. (Maybe not. But maybe.) And if a judge comes along, probably they won’t penalize anyone for stalling, things being what they are nobody wants to make waves, but if you complain about that player and another player complains, at some point that player’s going to get a reputation. So make it official, it’s the best way.

==

As to fighters not landing / crashing when a defending carrier is destroyed - that was known behavior, not a bug, as far as I knew. It’s in the list of changes Beamdog published that changed the original rules - along with defender profiles and inability to use allied transports and carriers. Well if they’re calling it a bug that’s fine by me; I prefer the board game rules anyways.

@squirecam said in [Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?]

Do these developers even play the game?

Well imagine you’re a casual player and maybe you played once or twice, and you thought it was fun, then after years of never thinking about it maybe your company has a job doing it, then of course the office gets together and does some games, and everyone’s a casual player and has a good time, but maybe foresees some difficulties with certain features so changes are made. And of course nobody thinks anything of these changes, because stuff like 60% as opposed to 85%, or changing key timings so there’s 85% instead of 35%, or whatever, so what? I mean, that’s for nerds right? Does anyone take that sort of thing seriously?

Then some very fervent but inarticulate people say “omg you can’t do that!” but well, you know, EVERY game has their diehards, so who’s to say what’s actually the case? Maybe if casuals are the target market, the concerns of diehards aren’t actually so serious?

I said something about allied transports and carriers being a big change, what with changing UK fighters to India if you want to try that, importance of combined fleet timings, and whatnot, but woosh! the point was missed. it’s like, well, the rules are the same for both sides right? so what’s the big deal?

I mean, sure, right, if they didn’t play the game, maybe they would take it more seriously, my guess is they did play the game but maybe missed some of the finer points.

. . . those finer points which STAB YOU LIKE A SWORD IN THE HANDS OF A SKILLED PLAYER :white_frowning_face:

oh well hopefully they’ll come around.

Then they shouldn’t be changing rules if they are casual players. If they don’t play at all, then its even more applicable.

Its not “even” since the Axis can rarely swap fighters on allied carriers or use each others transports.

I’d hate to see what they’d do to AA50 or Global…

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

@squirecam I wont convince you, but I disagree. The game works great and AAA has glaring flaws I can’t overcome. Mostly I just want to play with my buddies, y’all.

Im still unclear on the flaws of AAA vs this abomination…

@taamvan said in Game 203 Report: What happens when you do everything right?:

… and AAA has glaring flaws I can’t overcome.

Would you please share those flaws you have identified? Maybe - in order not to hijack this topic here - open a topic in the TripleA Support category, please?

Hmm…“glaring flaws”. I guess it’s good I’m not blind from playing so much triplea. I see no reason to attack/bash triplea to promote an inferior pay program. I hope AnA online succeeds. The more players the better.
Coming out with a flawed game is probably not going to encourage first time users to come back though.

I don’t know about the devs, but I was playing the gencon set up with Julius last night and had a good time via discord. I’m like a complete insomniac and he was in a timezone way off so guess it aligned. I went for a pacific stall plan that panned out after making making a pretty clean sweep with Russia. Went with the blast on Borneo x2 inf/New Guinea x2 inf 1 cruiser bombard, sz61 1 fighter one cruiser (landed in Bury for the pacific press), Australian Submarine immediate dive in sz 37 for the extra attack forward attack pip and carrier forward to block at Philippines. Starting bomber to Kazakh. UK opened damn near flawlessly, placed a new bomber in India and pair of tanks in India, for UK2 crush on IJN from the air, and rush up of British mobile ground support to eastern front.

Some good early headaches thrown at Axis in the Pacific, but even when you nuke the hell out Japan’s starting fleet, Pearl is still on the table and they got a lot of options on defense. Still seemed to come down to getting ahead in the Atlantic, and basically down to trade German air vs Allied main transport group, after UK finally dropped a deck in round 3. Peeled off too many German air in that exchange for Axis to recover position on the center so called it inside of 7 rounds.

The whole defense profile and AAZ rules for carriers definitely changes some key things. But still feels like A&A even if different than the 1942.2 I was playing a few years back. I guess it works, but it would really be nice if more live play features were introduced and just keeping the asynchronous style as a default option, but with the option to enter live play and normal defender chooses casualties. I think that would probably make most people happy. Clean up the movement UI, and finish up with some basic unit editor (so you can fix player mistakes to save an otherwise hosed game, or bid via added units.) They do that and it probably ends up a pretty good platform for casual pick up games. But yeah, roll out was a little rough. I kind of expected it to be in a more complete state, but the last patch and hotfix added some nice stuff. Hopefully they keep going with it.

I probably use A&Aonline just to keep up, and maybe more new players find a way in that way. I’m too deep into Iron War and probably when 1914 Pops off that will eat up all my time in triplea heheh. It’s hard to go back to v5, but I can’t imagine any other way to play the global game than triplea and don’t see that as something very likely to crack off online elsewhere. I think they’d have an easier time adding the Anniversary game online than G40.

I don’t see why we necessarily have to pit AAO and TripleA against each other like you can’t just play both (or just ignore the one you don’t like). AAO is a casual, easy-to-access platform that’s in its infancy whereas TripleA has been built from the ground up over several years and caters to a more hardcore audience.

Obviously pretty much everyone here is going to favor TripleA, seeing as this is literally the community for Competitive A&A.

I think this thread’s gotten pretty off topic though, and it’s partially my fault for bringing up AAO in the first place. Sorry.

A 7-round KJF isn’t representative of how altered carrier rules affect the game.

As to making most people happy - that’s as may be, but when you have stuff like altered transports and carriers, floating fighters, casualties assigned after each sub-group of like-valued dice rolls instead of after all casualty rolls in a sub-phase, defensive profiles changing gameplay because of unresolveable issues - well.

Then there’s things like movement lines covering things up or unit icons covering each other and unit counts up or bugs or visual presentation or such things.

Then too there’s alternatives that offer options to view full game histories at each sub-phase of combat as well as positions before combat, noncombat moves, &c &c.

It’s not that TripleA is completely ideal either mind. Like casualty selection emails can get pretty weird, let’s face it. If you really want to do things “fairly”, you have to send the game state after combat moves completed and ask for casualty assignation after the first round of attacker hits connect. Then you need more back and forth emails for subsequent rounds of combat. So it’s not that TripleA had some ideal solution to asynchronous play either.

But then, you look at 1942 Online and though there’s a lot of nice things to be said for how it looks and thoughtful little things like Map Notes (too limited for my taste but it’s *something) and defensive profiles (better than full auto-assignation) - it is what it is. If it’s not implementing rules properly, it’s not.

If they had made Axis and Allies Zombies, then that would be one thing. If they had made Summer 1942 or something, and made clear it’s not supposed to be based on any extant board game version, that would be another. But supposedly it’s based off Spring 1942 - just with these odd changes that affect gameplay.

I could maybe be a little more forgiving if there were proper mathematical tools for risk assessment, extensive tutorials including in-game AI assists past scripted tutorials, a really great AI, ability to review game state history along with an ability to play back appended notes (not the Map Notes, but more detailed and extensive notes for extended commentary, or even audio files to be played back while viewing the game) - I mean, if there were something that made 1942 Online distinct, stuff that you just can’t find elsewhere.

But as it is, well - it does look nice. And the price tag is low. But I don’t get things just because they look nice and have a low price tag.

Of course I did get 1942 Online. But then, it’s in Early Access. So it could change.

Well it’ll turn out how it turns out.