Posts made by Black_Elk

Yeah, but you also gotta figure that the percentage “to Win”, and the percentage “to Win with enough units leftover to make a difference”, are two rather different things. I would be worried about a dud in Ukraine or W. Russia, or a failed battle in Norway causing a major set back. Not that its a bad play necessarily, just a lot of risk to take on the first turn. A Europe/Russia bid by Germany might also complicate the situation somewhat, making counter attacks by the Wehrmacht a little more promising.

Low Luck is just a different game as far as I’m concerned. While there is some overlap in general strategies, overall the dynamics of the gameplay are quite different, such that its hard to draw meaningful parallels. The way infantry stacks and AA guns work, just allows for much greater variation in a dice game.

I think buying 2 Factories in the first round is almost always a bad play for Japan. I’d only consider it, under the most blatant KGF conditions. If there is a possibility for an Allied Pacific game, a double Factory build on the mainland usually just leads to disaster.

You should never buy a factory unless you can fill it with 3 tanks every turn. Japan doesn’t need a second until they are collecting at least 45+ IPCs per round, and even then its debatable. Transports provide more flexibility with less risk. Even the guys from the JTDTM Factory school of thought, usually won’t buy the second IC until the round 2 or 3. In a low luck game the dynamics are more favorable towards factories for J, but low luck distorts the mechanics so dramatically that its basically like playing a totally different game; and in my view not really worth taking seriously. Under standard dice rules, I’d never buy 2 factories in the first round. Its just asking for trouble.

If I was playing Allies, the second factory would make me want to throw everything + the kitchen sink at the Japanese.

I just hope one of them is relatively well balanced.  :-D

I’ve been hoping all along that the 42 scenario would be better than the 41, with the Midway glory and such.
China looks a lot more interesting in 42, but in the end the 41 game might prove the closer match up Axis v Allies (without a bid) since Japan seems to be in a stronger tactical position.

The packaging looks really cool
:-D

Where do I find this Beta package download?

http://www.tripleadev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=1&showtopic=10400&show=30&page=1

All the map really needs is some texture and that can be accomplished with the reliefTiles. The classic map looks decent with map details (view > show map details) enabled. Actually, if you use the reliefTiles creatively I think you can make a pretty cool looking map.

I’m all for that. Right now its just bare bones baseline map, but if someone has the skills to do the reliefTile stuff that would be cool. Logan made the Classic map, but I haven’t heard from him in a while. I know there was a tutorial about it floating around a while back, but I wouldn’t know where to look anymore. I was rather hoping someone else continue where I left off, which I think is still the plan. The only thing that bugs me is how TripleA re-draws the lines when scaled. But if someone wants to take a crack at the layering and such, by all means go for it.
:)

Yeah, I haven’t figured this out yet either. Can anyone help us out? I have the folder unzipped, but have no idea how to actually start a game.

Download the lastest stable build of TripleA for whatever OS you use.
http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

Then download the latest Beta package for AA50.
Extract the AA50 files from the zip, and place the folder called AA50 in your “Maps” directory of TripleA, and the XML file called AA50-41 in the “Games” folder of your TripleA directory. Then launch the program, select “Choose Game” and pick AA50-41. Prepare to be underwhelmed by the graphics. ;)

Macs are supported, though you might run into issues with custom mods, if people are lazy and don’t bother to make everything case sensitive. For the standard game it should work fine though. Also, don’t hold your breath on seeing the 42 scenario until after the holidays. If you want to learn more about Larry’s surprise, you’re just going to have to order a copy of the actual board.
:-D

Imperious Leader, thats a very nice map. I think the geographical distortion is a bit over the top (Africa especially), but the official map is the same way, so I can’t really fault you on that one.

I’m also a big fan of Dagons map too, though it seems to have the opposite issue (not enough distortion, too close to Mercator.)

I still prefer my own world projection to those , but it doesn’t have any eyecandy or polish like the maps linked above. With enough time put into it though, you could probably use either of those maps with TripleA. But before you plug in all the relief layers and eyecandy, you need to have a functional baseline. That means you need a 3 color gif (black, white, and blue) with the border lines at 1 pixel 100% black. That’s the thing that presents such a pain, because you have to draw in the skeleton map before the game will even know how to process the info. And it invariably looks terrible when resized. If you have Photoshop you can see the difference very clearly with this simple analogy: just try to resize a GIF image (in indexed color) versus resizing a JPEG image (in RBG color) and you will have an instant appreciation of why TripleA sucks it from a graphics standpoint.

I’m definitely all for better maps though. The way TripleA handles its current graphics stuff, makes me want to put my head through a brick wall. Also, Iron Cross never updated his map skins, after Sean gave the engine an overhaul a year back. So it don’t think the old marbled ones work anymore, which is somewhat unfortunate. I had high hopes for that feature, but alas.  Believe me, I feel your pain guys. I wish we could do more, but the engine holds us back in many ways.

:)

I know you’d think so huh, but somehow it just doesn’t work out like that when the crunch time arrives.

What I would love to see, if you want to know the honest truth, is an Official “Umbrella” Game for all the various A&A boards, with some of the same customization features that TripleA allows: an edit mode, user map mods, things of that sort. If something like that was available, I’d happily switch over from TripleA in a heartbeat, but I just don’t see anything at level right now. Battlemap is cool. I sometimes use it in conjunction with TripleA, or to track stats from the physical board (in case a face to face game has to be put away) but I want a full game with multi-player support.

It would be nice if AH or whoever the publisher ends up being, could produce a solid PC/Console version of the A&A board games and then launch an online community to bring everyone together under one roof. Right now everything seems to be scattered across the web, with a lot of reduplication of info/effort. I wish we could merge the functionality of TripleA, with the user interface of Battlemap for example, or do more things of that sort. I don’t think anyone but a for-real game publisher would be able to pull off what I really want though. The Hasbro CD was what, 1997? Aren’t we overdue for another PC game here?

:)

from your remarks it looks like the map is not the problem but the map engine (code) is. It should be fairly simple to use any picture as background. You just have to define where the zones (countries and seazones) are on the map and after that it doesn’t really matter what background you use.

Oh man, if only it were that simple… Believe me how I’ve wished for something like that.  :-D

I’m sure ZeroPilot knows where I’m coming from here, since its usually just me and him arguing the case to the Java guys about how it needs to “look better.” The unfortunate reality though, is that the necessary interface just isn’t it in place to handle something like that, simple though it might sound.  Every time we make a new custom game, we try to push the limits of the engine, but its always an uphill battle. For sometime now, my thinking has been that TripleA should be designed primarily as a map editing program, with a focus on adaptability. But what you have instead is a program that was originally just hardcoded to play Classic, and was never really intended to do much beyond that. Even just getting the engine to the current level of flexibility has been a pretty impressive feat of re-working.

Its seems so easy in principle though, especially the way you describe it: as a background layer, or mask. If they built something official along those lines, I’d be the first to order a copy, but right now TripleA is the best I can get. Gametable doesn’t offer any level of customization at this point, and the other programs like Battlemap and Mapview, don’t offer the same style of real time gameplay that you can get out of something like TripleA. That’s the only reason why I keep struggling with it, and why I try to make little improvements when I can.

I agree though, the aesthetics totally leave something to be desired, especially the way borders are drawn/re-drawn when you scale the map (it gets all pixelated) and the text display and unit positioning is also pretty irksome. Right now though, its a sacrifice I’m willing to make to play live. Not for everyone I guess, but it has its merits.

I’m sure the AA50 map can be redone at a later date, if people really dislike it, but at least it works. :)

If the tournaments are Play By E-Mail, then there’s no huge advantage to using TripleA over the other programs available.
But if you want to play in real time that’s a different story.

I don’t know why people always compare TripleA to Battlemap. Battlemap is a stat tracking utility, which can be used for any number of purposes, but its not a self contained game in the same way that TripleA is. You can’t just quickly load up Battlemap, meet other players online, and start a 5 man game in real time the way you can with TripleA. The Gametable stuff looks promising in the real time department, but as of right now, it doesn’t have the level of functionality that TripleA offers.

The downsides to TripleA are mainly with the poor aesthetics (janky graphics) and port forwarding/hosting issues like the ones Jennifer mentioned. If you play a lot of A&A though, those things are not such a big deal to overcome. I’m not sure if its the best suited for official Tournaments and such, but its certainly useful if you want to practice or play a quick pick up game.

:)

my god why do they always use such an ugly map? Its not even worth the time to play on such junk.

Thanks for the dig man. I drew that map.  :-P

If you designed yours to work with tripleA, then we could have used it. But you didn’t, so we can’t.
Why not try contributing to the project instead of just complaining about it? You’ll get more accomplished that way. :)

TripleA uses a 3 color Gif image (called a baseline map) which it then processes and breaks apart using its own quirky code to produce what you end up playing with. Its not like you can just use any image you want. Jpegs don’t work, nor do PDF files or PNGs. The game has to be able to first parse the information contained in the baseline map, before you can make it functional. Its actually a huge pain to make a map that works with tripleA (on account of the shoddy raster graphics programming), but I guess I won’t wait on any “thank you” for all the time I put into it, since you obviously think its the worst thing ever.

In any case, we’re not mind readers. Where is your map anyway?
If you have something you want to share, then post a link or something.

Well the important thing to remember is that there is a huge difference between how the game is played under KGF conditions, versus how the game is played under Pacific or KJF conditions. If you try to apply the strategies and tactics from one set of circumstances to the other, you’ll usually end up failing. That’s why it’s important to pick an opening plan with USA and then stick with it, regardless of which direction you end up going.

Some the strategies discussed above sound more like an Allied Pacific feint to me, sometimes called “Contain Japan First” or “Stall Japan First.” In a game like that you have a bit more flexibility as Japan than you would under a full scale KJF, but even under a hardcore commitment from USA, you can still turn the Pacific game to your advantage as the Axis. You just have to be smart, and conservative about what you do as the Japs. There are a number of slight variations on the same basic Pacific patterns (Jennifer outlined some of them earlier) but all share similar theme of confusing the Jap player and forcing them into making bad purchasing choices. If you play it smooth though, you want to call down as much Allied money into the Pacific is possible, so G can just go nuts and run the board. As the Japs all you have to do is stack the home island for as long as possible, conserve your fleet, and prevent the USA from setting up enough production in range of Tokyo to seriously threaten it. The UK needs to start doing the same early on with London, (basically as soon as the battle of the Atlantic is won), if you want to hold the Germans at bay during the endgame. Really the only reason why KGF is preferable to KJF in my view, is that it provides for a more favorable end game set up. From a cutthroat game mechanics standpoint, its just much better for the Allies to have the UK/USA in Berlin with the Japs in Moscow, than it is to have the USA in Tokyo with the Germans in Moscow and still controlling Europe. That’s not to say that you can’t win out of the KJF endgame, but its harder to pull off once you get into that 2 vs 1 situation. Pacific games are more entertaining, but are harder to bank on and require more set up.

If I was setting up for KJF I would open like this…

Russia:
3 tanks, 3 inf
Summer Offensive (take Ukraine), or Tank trap (strafe Ukraine, risk Caucasus)
Both are high risk openings, but if they work as planned, then:
Russian stack to Bury
Forward position on India and Sinkiang
Fighters land in Kazakh (Novos/Moscow optional)

UK:
Couple Options for the UK build depending on which kind of Pacific strategy you want to adopt.

1 fighter, 1 destroyer to sz 59
If Borneo/New Guinea attack, then land the fighter in Bury, with the option to send the Carrier to block at Philippines should Borneo go well.
-Or stack India and land the fighter there, retreating the rest of India fleet to Africa and Evacuating the ANZACs to sz 42.
-Or merge the fleets in sz 30, with 1 inf to threaten (baits Japanese into poor position, but somewhat high risk.)
-Or send the fighter to attack sub in sea zone 45, landing on USA carrier (sub par I think, but can pan out with a luck at Pearl.)
Bomber to Novos or Caucasus depending on what happened with Russia and Germany.

Whether you decide to buy a Factory or not, depends on what sort of game you want to play. If you just want to Contain or Stall Japan you don’t need a factory in the first round, and you can always buy one later if the opportunity presents itself. It’s very hard to out-and-out Kill the Japanese (eg take Tokyo) without investing in Asian production though. A factory will commit you to full KJF, whereas all of the rest of it up until this point can be backed out of at the last minute by USA if things go terribly on J1. That’s why I still prefer a Carrier or Fighter build with UK over a factory.

Japan:
This sort of game is the reason why it’s a good idea to save 1 or 2 IPCs of the Bid for Japan. If you get more than that in a pre-placement bid, you might consider 1 inf in Borneo, or 1 art in FIC. Other options are also available, depending on how much of the bid went to Japan. Germany usually needs at least 4-5 ipcs of the bid for pre-placement units, so its rare to see Japan with the whole purse, but some will give the whole thing to J.
-Bid 1 ipc (build 2 transports and a Factory)
-Bid 2 ipcs (4 transports, or possibly 3 transports and a sub.)
-Bid 3 or more pre-placement ground unit

If Japs build a Factory at East Indies, it can throw a major kink in the plan, usually forcing USA to either abandon the Pacific or re-double the commitment. The other option for the Japs is to go heavy Naval. A mainland factory on the first round, usually just invites disaster. If you can sink the US fleet, then that is always advisable, but priority number one is to conserve your forces whenever possible.

USA:
Depending on what happens in Japans first turn, you have basically 3 options as USA. Continue in support of a full KJF, abandon the KJF at the last minute (having forced a somewhat undesirable first round purchase by Japan), or you can mess around with a two front engagement and see how things pan out. Of the three options available, that last one is the riskiest, but it’s also one of the more entertaining. Most players agree that you need to pick a direction and go all out in the beginning though, so it’s pretty rare to see the USA splitting the difference. I don’t use bomber strategies, or rely on SBR to steer the course of the game, but its possible to set up on Japan in fairly short order if you’re that way inclined. I think you’re better off focusing on ships though, because you usually need at least 2 carrier decks (and probably 3) before you can safely support a campaign in the South Pacific or the Soviet Far east. If Japan doesn’t buy a Factory in East Indies, then you can go island hoping with 1 transport, but if they do, then you’re going to need more than that to have an impact down there. I favor a solid Fleet with a healthy number of transports over a Facility (in Sinkiang or Alaska), just because it gives you a little more flexibility. Its always possible to buy factories in round 2 if the war on the mainland goes well, but if you buy them in the first round, then it locks you in to somewhat one dimensional strategy. You can say much the same thing about a Jap factory on the mainland in the first round. Usually they just end up tying you down and causing more headaches than they’re worth. Unless you’re prepared to fill them with tanks every round, you should always think twice before buying a new IC on the mainland.

You never want to completely ignore Japan. Instead the idea is to ignore them within reason, until you can properly confront them from the center (i.e. Africa/Russia.) Sometimes this might involve some early skirmishes in the Pacific, but usually it just focuses on the race to the middle of the board that is so familiar to many of us.

I can say this about the alternative KJF model: if the Allies are setting up for a Pacific showdown, all you have to do as the Japanese player to nix the southern route (from Solomons), is to buy a Factory in Dutch East Indies during the first round. I know what you’re thinking - “That’s crazy, why would you build a factory on the island instead of the mainland?”

Trust me, this is the simplest and fastest way to lock the Americans out of the South Pacific. Under normal circumstances I would say never buy a factory until the second round, but if it looks like the Allies are going Naval KJF (Bury stack, UK to Borneo etc.) then the East Indies build is definitely the way to go. It can be also made to work without a Pearl Attack, in the those rare cases when you can’t afford to ignore other areas of the board in order to sink the USA carrier. Basically what it does is to instantly force the US player to double their commitment (Atlantic ships through Panama say) or else abandon the KJF. If the allies continue with a Pacific strat this gives the Japanese the option to quickly stack East Indies with infantry, while also providing another key sea zone with production capacity for new warships. In a full KJF showdown I don’t advise factory purchases on the mainland as the Japanese player. You’re much better off covering the home island and slowly fanning out from Bury or FIC, always with a focus on defense.

In a KJF the Japanese have different priorities than in the standard game, and can afford to let Germany take on more of the burden. So sometimes a seemingly ridiculous move, like buying a factory in East Indies, can actually prove extremely effective. It ties down even more Allied units/money in the Pacific if they decide to continue with the KJF, and it does a lot to keep Japan afloat and fighting in the Pacific, while G sets up for attaining Monster status in Eurasia. Give it a shot sometime if you like, and you’ll see what I mean about how it narrows the options available to USA.

:)

As for the KGF game. If you’re having trouble executing this, its probably because you’re not sending enough aid to the Russians early on. For any KGF game to work, you have to lock the Germans out of Karelia as quickly as possible, and then ‘wheel’ south through W. Russia towards Caucasus/Ukraine as circumstances allow. That doesn’t necessarily mean hitting Karelia first though, because its invariably easier to stack in Archangel or Norway and then move out, than it is to take and defend Karelia in one move. Definitely you’ll want stay out of sz 5 until well into the endgame. Sea Zone 4 is OK, but Sea Zones 3 and 6 are optimal because they allow you to threaten Berlin/France, and also (more critical) to back up Archangel from the same position at a moments notice. As a general rule USA should push through Africa for the first couple rounds, but at some point you need to set up a direct troop train into Russia in order to maintain parity with the Axis forces converging on Caucasus.

The essential idea is not take Berlin per se, but rather to make Moscow impregnable. Once that is accomplished you can adopt whatever strategy seems most appropriate to the conditions on the board. Think of it as a race to Moscow first and foremost, with Berlin coming into sharper focus only after you can feed about 10-12 Western Units a round into the Russian wedge. The more transports and fighters the USA has the better off you’re going to be during the endgame, so you might want to consider magnified builds during the opening rounds of play (2-3 fighters in one round, 2-3 transports the next etc.), and a steady stream thereafter of at least 1 transport or 1 fighter per round. Also, don’t be so tempted to set up out of Eastern Canada, that you delay deployment. The quick shot to Algeria in one move can be a useful trick, but often times trading out transports will get more units to the front, faster than you could by moving to E. Canada first. Just something to think about if your KGF is stalling out the gate. Its easy to become infatuated with that move once you know how it works (sz 13 to sz 1 and back), but its not always the best thing to do in the beginning. Finally, on USA’s first turn, consider going South with the Atlantic fleet (2 destroyers) to sz 18 rather than North to sz 1. Usually you can have a greater impact on the game by covering Africa initially, then you can by launching troops into Norway. Going to  Brazil still allows you to threaten France, but it gives much more coverage on Africa then you can get from sz 1.

Hope that helps a bit :)

China: the us player must complete the chinese combat move and conduct combat phase before beginning the combat moves for the us forces, OR vice versa. (so they cannot attack together)
the IPC value of those chinese terretories can only be earned by the axis. not new, but now confirmed that china gets 1 inf per 2 terretories that are controlled by the allies on the purchase units phase of the us player. they can be placed on any chinese controlled terretory, but not on any, that contains 3 or more units (independend whether those units are uk/us/russian ones it seems)
this is interesting then:
“chinese units have a limited range of occupation, displayed by the colored boreder. they can also be moved into the japanese occupied terretories of kiangsu and manchuria. china can take control of these terretories and have them ciount toward their new infantry placements. chineese units cann0ot load onto transports.
kwangtung is a special case. while it is not a chinese territory and cannot be controlled by china, chinese forces can attack axis units there and occupy it, but the ipc generated go to the UK. this is the only non-chinese terretory that chinese units may occupy.”

the us fighter thats in china at the setup, moves together with chinese forces and cannot be replaced by another, if lost.

Well, I still have high hopes for the game, but I can’t help but be disappointed with this news. I don’t see the benefit of including China in the set up, when all these China-specific rules introduce so much unnecessary complexity into the game. I hate to make suggestions for next time, because I have a feeling its going to be a while, but in the future I really hope the designers take into consideration whether new rules/features are going to be worth the effort, before including them.

So far I can count about 5 or 6 new rules that only pertain to China, and way the Chinese interact with the rest of the “Normal” players. But when you compare that with what we actually get out of China in terms of gameplay, its hard for me to see where the big pay off is coming from. Unlike the National Advantages in Revised or Tech, the China rules are not optional, but built into the framework of the game.

My request for future development would be to PLEASE stop incorporating new rules into the game, and stop looking to new “House Rules” as a solution to fix underlying game balance problems. Instead, focus on fine tunning the core gameplay mechanics that already exist (i.e. the stuff that is the same for everyone, throughout the duration of the game.) Consistency, simplicity, and ease of use, should always trump the other considerations, and only give way when an idea seems really innovative and promises to open up new and interesting dimensions to the gameplay.

That’s all I wanted to say. Other than all these nation specific rules, I’m happy with AA50, and look forward to playing when my copy arrives. :)

I hope so.

I favor starting factories as a balancing mechanism :-D

I’ll have to drop by the TripleA site sometime and see what the engine’s capable of now
It’s been a while since I’ve played a game there

When you download the latest stable build, make sure you check out the “Game” tab, and click “enable edit mode” to see some of what we can do. Right now the edit mode is the easiest way to implement things like house rules. Its still not as flexible as it could be, but we’re starting to get there. Right now the things that are the most difficult to simulate are rules that effect combat. Things that are more related to income or units (bonuses and penalties) are much easier to do. Some of the Enhanced stuff is I believe supported now though, and new NOs for AA50 would definitely be doable, so long as players are willing to track/edit the stats. :)

As soon as the real set ups are known, and we have the actual board in front of us, it should be a lot easier to start working on things like Enhanced National Objectives. I’m stoked that this sort of feature has the Pope’s blessing now. It should make house NOs easier for players to accept. :D

Thank goodness :D

I was starting to seriously worry about the set up, so I’m taking this latest development as excellent news.

When developing the enhanced NOs please try to consider the TripleA game engine.  :-D

We can test a lot of ideas using the edit mode, and if we had more coordination and eyes on it, we could probably get a little more coding help from the devs. Things like X ipcs for Territory A, or no units of type Y in Territory B for a bonus of Z ipcs. As long as we keep it within some sort of general framework, it should be pretty easy to customize or expand the rules. I think simplicity and ease of memorization is the ticket.

I like the Russo-Jap NAP for example, and the Submarine stuff too (Germany/Italy need an incentive to buy ships or it’s never going to happen.) If it comes down to it, we may also want to seriously consider a 21 VC system instead of 18 as another relatively simple adjustment that might help. For the house rules though, the easier they are to explain the better the odds that players will adopt them. Something to keep in mind while brainstorming.  :-)

We should try to come up with 5-10 really innovative but ‘easy to remember’ NOs, and then try to establish them as a kind of standard House Rules option. Then we could include them at the bottom of the game notes *optional expansion to give the rules some additional sense of formality. The edit mode should already make most of these ideas possible, the only issue right now is that the players have to track the stats themselves (which is sort of a pain). That’s not much different from what you have to do in a face to face game though, so its not unreasonable. Hopefully Kev will look into coding some of this stuff, or at least providing some more UI flexibility to deal with things like expanded NOs. Even just getting some good house rules in the gamenotes would be cool though.

I’ve felt for a long time now that the game could use an influx of additional money, so I think additional House NOs would be fun (more money means more build options, means less dependence on the starting set up and more dynamic strategies.) If we wanted to limit the impact of these additional NOs, we could always drop the standard bonuses from 5 ipcs to 3 ipcs, or something of that sort, to make room for the new ones. But I think you could bring everyone up 5 or 10, and as long as it was even, most players would accept it.

As a house rule along these lines, I also think it would be fun to award 1 additional IPC for each Victory City controlled. We can do a lot right now though, using the edit mode. Its a little unwieldy, but still allows for a lot more flexibility than we had before.

Right now I’m spending most of the cash on Air.

I’m starting to think that the new transport and sub rules really favor the Allies more than the Axis. A few rounds of concentrated Air purchases from Britain and the USA, and you can pretty much shut down any hopes at an Axis naval game.

I had heard that there would be a lot more sub purchases on account of the reduced cost and new rules, but absent some sort of economic damage I still don’t see why anyone would buy them. The fact that they can’t be hit from the air unless a destroyer is present, means that they also can’t be used to defend your main fleet from air attacks. Under the old rules they were basically fodder and blocking units. I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work exactly, now that that fodder role has been coopted, but I don’t see a huge benefit. I guess we’ll probably notice more of them in the Pacific, if the US decides to go that route, but from what I’ve seen so far the new rules just make Fighters and Bombers even more effective than they already were. Now you don’t have to get through subs and transports to trade aircraft for ships, so I’m seeing a greater focus on that type of dynamic.

How is it with the rest of you guys?

I’m not sure yet whether Egypt or Karelia is more critical for G1. In my games the Allies have totally locked down Africa, even when Egypt is cleared/taken in the first round, so I’m not sure whether its worth sending in the bomber and the extra tank, only to get backed out again or trapped in Trans-Jordan almost immediately thereafter. The odds aren’t very spectacular either, so its almost just as likely that the fighter will survive regardless of what G does. Karelia on the other hand risks the AA gun fire on the Luftwaffe, but if you take it out then you also get the NO bonus (and most likely on the next round as well.)

I’m not sure though, G seems really strapped for cash. I’m amazed for example that they don’t even get a battleship in sz 5. There’s just no good reason to make a naval purchase that I can see, since Germany needs every penny to coordinate the defense of Europe in round 3.

I don’t think the game is balanced without the NOs.
KGF is just way too easy to pull off otherwise.

I like tanks for the mobility. :)

Also, Soviet Far East is a MUCH better landing spot than Buryatia. I expect to see more Japs parked up there in AA50