Axis & Allies N. Africa RoundRobin

If an Italian bomber attacks the Malta Convoy zone in where you have 3 Supply Tokens and 1 UK Fighter, his attack value is technically 6 with the Fighter having a defense value of 5. This is of course quite absurd that a slow bomber would be able to attack a Spitfire and have a stronger attack value. Has there been a complimentary rule on this in order to reduce the bomber attack value to well below the Fighters value to reflect the very slim chance of success
?

@DoManMacgee A&A North Africa - OT ITA11.pdf Ok, I’m sending the last post about the first game played in the “Operation Torch” scenario (with the usual file that reproduces the situation on the battle table). The Axis players decided to sign a surrender at the beginning of Italy’s eleventh turn. Maybe the abandonment was a bit premature (they could have fought a bit longer until the capitulation of Tunis), but I think it is largely justified by the situation on the table. As I said in the previous post (before the tenth English turn), the UK (after our “war council”) has invested heavily in the fleet and air force to try to regain control of the Mediterranean and with it:
a) interrupt the flow of convoys towards the African continent of the Italian-German troops,
b) reopen the convoys to Malta (the Suez convoys would have been useless given the turns remaining at the end of the game).
As expected (me and the English ally), this attracted the Italian fleet and the Italian-German air force in SZ 6 (Algiers) giving life to an epic battle that contributed (definitely I think) to give a precise course to the continuation of the battle. An English destroyer was left in SZ3 to prevent the powerful German U-Boats from joining the party (and it certainly deserves a medal of valor, like the Italian submarine in SZ8 of the previous post). The survivors of this clash were very few, but this is certainly to be considered an advantage for the Allies.
On land the Axis did not fare better: the English swept away the Italian contingent of El Aghelia in a devastating way and my Americans occupied the Kesserine pass suffering very few losses (also thanks to the support of the French troops). The axis, taking note of the extremely difficult situation (and also considering the lack of supplies in the Tunis/Mareth area and the imminent arrival of the English from the East), decided to acknowledge defeat and put an end to the clash. I repeat: probably it could have tried to fight a little longer, but I think the fate of this battle was already sealed.
General considerations on the game.
After the game, we stopped, while it was still hot, to try to review the course of events. Surely tactical and strategic errors were made by both sides (first of all the incorrect or inappropriate use of mines … to understand their optimal deployment), but it was the first game on this scenario (and in any case the general experience with this game is very limited unlike other editions of A&A, at least mine). I reproached my son (who played with Germany) for being too cautious and not trying to push the Americans (me) when he had the chance (i.e. in the early turns): I think that if the Americans “settle down” it is difficult to avoid the continuous influx of troops and their push towards Tunis. It always remains (but this was a problem for all of us) to understand well which troops are the most effective and in which situations (and I think this is a “crucial point” of the whole game): the Axis has the Germans who have superior units to all the other players, truly devastating (to compensate for the Italians who instead … but it’s all historical, so ok), but the Allies have many resources, many more than the Axis and this risks making the difference in the long term (but this is also historical, so ok). And this was especially evident in the two naval battles that had opposite outcomes: in the first major clash the Italian navy and air force wiped out the English fleet in the central-western Mediterranean, in the second (possible after the English decided to invest everything in ships and planes) the Anglo-Americans prevailed, but this practically ended the battle. A note on the French troops: they risk becoming a really annoying presence for the Axis due to their ability to be self-sufficient (and therefore allowing flanking attacks … for free that help the allies and not a little). What to say in conclusion: I renew my compliments to Matt for the masterpiece he created (and I can’t wait to play Stalingrad), I confirm the impression that Axis and Allies North Africa is a very deep game strategically. This was only the first game (I think of many others) and I hope to be able to become an expert of this game soon, being a great fan of the entire A&A series. Obviously I await your comments (if you want to participate in this discussion). See you next time.

@Witt THANK YOU! I did not realize that. :)

@CentralCommando @SuperbattleshipYamato Thank you for explaining. I feel they should cost 4 it is more realistic. But for 3 and a 2 or less not bad at all if the opponent has a ton of aircraft. They are also good for defending Malta.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

AI is trash when it comes to Axis and Allies. I asked it a few times, it only gives very generic info that’s not really helpful. Still, a specialized AI explicitly tasked with coming up with Axis and Allies strategies and loaded with all the rules and maps could be very helpful (although it doesn’t exist yet).

@Sergeant-Steve

Agreed. I didn’t mean giving more units to the Allies though, I meant replacing a British infantry piece with an ANZAC/French infantry piece