Posts made by Lucifer

Check my signature links, and http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki/TripleA

Pac40 will not not work until TripleA itself is coded with the new rules of Pac40, but it should be able to run in TripleA even if there are many rules which are not yet implemented.

This link should be made a sticky in the software or player help forum: http://n2.nabble.com/Download-Maps-Links-Hosting-Games-General-Information-tp4074312ef1671093.html

Well, chess (online games) are not exactly esthetically beautiful, but chess is still way more popular than most boardgames which are available as computer-games, including A&A.

I think AA42 is not as popular as other A&A games, mainly b/c AA50 is “better”, more complicated and probably more interesting. But I have a hard time understanding why some people still prefer classic or revised over AA42, or AA50.

@Imperious:

Lets not call people noobs here ok?

If anything try to add to the discussion and not derail it.

It’s far from impossible to win as allies in a +NO game in both scenarios, and in 41 dice is a very huge factor, but it is a fact that in a 1vs1 experienced setting, allies need a bid, probably close to the amount used in AAR.

It is impossible though, to win (more than 50%) in the long run w/o a bid, assuming experienced players and more than 15-20 games played, the dice will be (close to) average given enough games played.

If the bid is not used in Europe/Egy, in the long run it means that Germany/Italy will capture Moscow, and Japan will at least be able to defend itself against the US.

Because the allies had much more production and manpower, the war was lost for the Germans when Germany didn’t finish off UK, and failed to take Moscow.

All the techs on the list would only prolong the inevitable. Germany needed the A-bomb, and/or a totally different long time strategy after they attacked Poland in 1939.

I voted “other”, b/c in 1943, the only weapon that could win the war for Germany was the atom bomb.

The A-bomb was the only thing that could stop Russians, the British and Americans from crushing Germany after 1942.

I got all my info on the battle of midway by watching a documentary on discovery channel    :-)

@hammerfadl:

Hello.

me and some friends have recently started playing A&A revised atleast once a week. Over the course of a couple of months we’ve developed a “strategy” for Axis , that the allied side just cannot seem to counter.

Give the axis a smaller bid  :-D :-) :wink:

@Funcioneta:

[
I’m not saying AA42 is horribly unbalanced,
[/quote]

Agree, although I didn’t play half as many AA42 games as Revised, but it seems that AA42 is more balanced than Revised.

@Funcioneta:

Well, I think no need of much bid was needed for Revised in first place, unless you corrupt the balance with LL

That is not true in a 1vs1 experienced setting. LL or reg.dice does not matter in Revised, but I admit it does have an impact in AA50.

It was not only skills who decided the battle of midway, the Japanese spotted the US first.

The engineers who constructed the US carriers, which were hit but didn’t suffer the damage that the Japanese carriers did.

@captainjack:

Does anyone know if a triplea version of RISK has been made?
Thanks.

Probably not, but there is a RISK version available for free for Linux, so I guess there must be a version for windows also, just do a google search.

@Krieghund:

Playing to 13 VCs gives the Axis the choice of whether to try to take down an Allied capital or to pursue a less central strategy that involves taking only peripheral VCs.  The latter strategy spreads the action out around the board more.

If axis got 12 VCs, they most likely have much higher production, and 13 or more VCs does not make any difference about global domination compared to 15 or 18 VCs. That being said, I don’t disagree with the OOB number of VCs.

@squirecam:

I have more than enough experience with the game to form my own opinions. Your opinion as to bid balance is just that, an opinion. Dont act as if its fact.

Actually I had to play a couple of AA50-41 games w/o NOs until I figured out the most optimal strat(s), but after that it would be very very difficult to beat me as allies w/o a bid. I never lost in 42 w/o NOs and w/o bids as allies.
Several years ago, before I started playing online, I also had not yet learned that AAR needs a bid to balance the game…

But for decent/experienced players, my opinions are a matter of fact, as regards to the different setups of AA50, meaning +/-NOs, 41/42 scenarios. I don’t claim to know the exact amount of $bid that is needed, but you need a bid for axis in both 41 and 42 w/o NOs, and you need a bid for allies in both 41 and 42 with NOs.

@squirecam:

With the escort rule, its balanced. (you still bid for sides based upon # of rounds you expect to play and side preference). Without the escort rule, though, the allies have a clear advantage (due to allied bombing) with the lack of NO income really hurting Germany.

No it is not… :roll:   but ofc you might (as I did) need a few games to learn the basics, and a matter of fact is that allies is obviously favored in this setting, I guess the axis bid needed is somewhat near AAR.

@allweneedislove:

if playing to 11vc then vcs are relevant

But that is a house rule…

It is very obvious that the japs could invade parts of siberia, but they didn’t have a strong land army, as compared to the navy, which was almost as good as the US, except much smaller.
But it would take a long time for the Japanese army to get deep into Russia/Siberia. The japs would have the same problem as the Germans, too long supply lines, and that defending was easier than attacking.

@TG:

I’d also like to see what the average range of the “correct” Allied Bid is.

I don’t know what the average bid will be in the spring tourney on this forum, but generally for 41 +NOs, it is allies get 6-9 ipc, with a one unit pr. TT limit.