The way I remember it is that, if a plane can theoretically land at the very end of the turn, it can attack.
The only exception to that is a retreat. If you use a carrier in an attack, you can’t assume that you will retreat on some combat round and thus allow your fighter land on it. Other than that, yes, if it can theoretically land, even if a battle is required to be won (like 1 sub versus 1000 battleships) then it can land.
eta?
also, has anyone tried the other iphone/ipod A&A dice sim available in the app store?
anyone know for sure if the ipod/iphone version is as up to date as the web version?
Ummm, I don’t think the game was designed to be a one on one match-up over a multiplayer scenario. I daresay that many problems only arise when you have one whole side being controlled by one person and one faction moves soley to support the others on their team or having everyone move in rediculously perfect harmony, likely in a way that you would never have in a real multiplayer game. If you want that kind of game and descover that it’s not balanced for scripted movesets perfected over dozens of games with all sides moving in perfect sync then either realize your playing the wrong game or just use a bid and be done with it. The only balance that really matters is the multiplayer one, 'cause if you try to balance the game for the “perfect move match up” then anyone who doesn’t use those moves are screwed.
That’s a fine theory you have there. Unfortunately it is completely unfounded.
1. the rules are designed in such a way that despite any given power doing poorly, as long as their side wins, they win too. if A&A was a ‘real multiplayer’ game (your words) then that would not be the case.
2. there is rich variety in all A&A games, and these ‘cookie cutter’ worked out strats aren’t really all that scripted (again, your words). yes, standard openings get worked out, but that is not any more due to heads up or multiplayer games, but due to A&A players becoming better educated in their A&A game, and irrespective of the format.
i’d like to add that i would be loathe to put much stock in multiplayer games, and the conclusions one might draw from them. heads up games between experts and the perfect coordination of forces that result are really the only way to go, and if your multiplayer games have that perfect coordination, then i dare say there must be de facto persons in “charge” so to speak of the allies and axis - dictating play, and the multiplayer nature of the game only an illusion. compromise has no place in a game of A&A.
that said, i am forced to agree that the allies are looking good thus far in this game.
THE END WOULD BE THE SAME EVERYTIME! US WINS!(sans dice rolls). The roll of the dice would be the only way to have anything different.
While I am on board with you about the silly criticisms about the lack of historical accuracy, I don’t think that those histro-centric folks are demanding a game where the Allies win because… the Allies won. They want the conditions/ opportunities available to both sides to as accurately model what was available to the combatants at the time.
If, for instance, the Axis powers had “played” WW2 perfectly, they would have no doubt have won. That is: no tactical or strategic errors, perfect builds, and all other conditions that can be controlled for, done correctly. Now, that might be next to impossible, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that with superior “play” on the part of the Axis powers, a very different result might have occurred.
My major gripe with those who gripe about history, is that A&A is simply not a WW2 simulator, but a board game with a WW2 theme. One cannot point to one aspect, or even several, and claim those are the most important a-historic aspects to the game, when you have things like perfect information (you can see where all the guys are), planes that cannot ditch in the ocean, lack of logistical concerns, and… factories in captured territories raising infantry?? None of that “makes sense” in the context of a WW2 simulator, but makes perfect sense in the context of the great boardgame that is Axis and Allies.
my games with zooooma have seen this strat in play. my response to a japanese threat against north america, is to build ground troops in central US; from there they can either move to california or not, and transports can be built next (or later) turn.
if someone scanned in the map, and then triplea used that scan, that would be a violation. however, a map drawn like the Global 40 map is not copyright.
yes, that is the american copyright.
@special:
It’s already a thin line in copyright issues, charging for it would make it worse (good intentions or not, a TripleA version of Global40 is still a violation of copyrights)
No it isnt. You can copyright a name. You can copyright graphics. You can copyright a wording of rules. What you can’t copyright is a game system.
Here’s the law: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
If money is the driving force regarding development of the new rules set, then I would suggest a set annual usage fee by triplea - $5 or $10 bucks a year or something like that to help maintain the site and to pay for development of new games. I think that just about everyone who is familiar with triplea would be willing to pay that. Some people simply will not donate…they are in it for the free ride…gotta push 'em to open there wallet a little…
I think the way to do this is to offer a free option and a pay option. The free option could include some highlight game like Revised and NWO, but if you want to play WW2 v3 41 or 42 (or the new global) you have to buy the map. This way, you can keep the community growing (because people are simply not going to pay for an unofficial A&A style game without being able to try it out)and still provide a source of income.
I dont see any transports of the U.S. even in range of the U.K. And the ones south of southern france are blocked by the Bat I believe.
incorrect. they can go around.
The Japanese Navy IS a joke. The U.S.A. can hide from it, widdle it down, ignore it, or in a matter of a turn or two, obliterate it. as absolutely 100% of U.S.A. income can be spent against the Atlantic at this game point.
so it can’t be disregarded, resources not already built will have to be built to deal with it. therefore, not irrelevant, and potentially buying time.
If india doesn’t fall, it has a major impact, as the Japanese Pacific campaign is essentially over. The only hope the japs have of holding on, is to take india, and build troops there to expand their economic empire, and TRY to get pressure off Germany. India also can’t be liberated once taken by the japs, without TURNS of equipment and thought. It’s thier ONLY major move in the pacific.
japan is much too far away, too many turns to stem the allied tide (although, if the japanese fleet in the atlantic can buy them a turn or two, then perhaps they are close enough)
Why did the U.K. LOSE their capital TWICE? That’s bad play.
it might have been, but many things had to go right for the germans to get it back after it was liberated.
And why doesn’t America have a minor navy in the pac? Answer those questions please, or it’s scientifically concluded - BAD FORM.
you defining what makes good play doesn’t make it scientific, it makes it arbitrary and ill informed. there was no US navy in the pacific because japan went straight after america in an effort to justify sea lion.
Technically Allied Advantage
Here is the Reality. U.S.A. must, MUST liberate the U.K. As soon as Possible,. If this FAILS MISERABLY the axis hold on to hope.
obviously, and as it is the italian player’s go, and the USA is up next, and there are no german boats set up for a retake, the lib of UK is simple and assured.
The Jap navy in South America is a JOKE - Disregard entirely. (Lack of ANY transports the reason)
the japanese navy cannot be disregarded. that is extremely silly to suggest. yes, it is not threatening a landing, but it could disrupt landings/make life generally difficult. USA will have to blow it up (probably with subs and bombers).
If the Axis relies on it’s experience however, and plays balls out, there is one BIG oppurtunity in their favour. India “Could” fall with no chance of recapture on the next Japanese Turn. This will have a DEVESTATING effect in the Pacific. Probably not soon enough to save Germany, but certainly an ugly wild card.
nonsense. india falling or not will have no impact on this game.
Who does this all come down to? One player. Russia.
Those Russian Tanks need to be Rolling into Berlin and eating up the S.E. portions of Europe as soon as possible, and eroding the German empire piece meal. A campaign can also be diverted to Liberate India (A VERY GOOD IDEA ASAP).
But if sloppy Russian play continues, this could go 50/50 or pro axis in a matter of 3 or 4 turns.
the russia stack pulled back for one turn to liberate leningrad and avoid being crushed by the (at the time, bigger german stack) it was, for a couple of turns, just sitting on the german doorstep. accusations of “sloppy play” or incorrect placement of forces, is just hogwash.
Ok. So its round 6, and Italy is to play. I am inclined to think Allies still have a nice edge here, but things aren’t simple. The Japanese fleet in the Atlantic will have to be dealt with, and Germany will spend 91 ipcs at the beginning of their next turn. The downside for Axis is the American presence in Southern France (note that the UK fighter sometimes pictured in Tobruk is actually in Southern France, for a total of 3 UK fighters in SF, and the USA forces in Spain are actually in Gib) the very large Russian army, no German planes or navy, Japan is many turns from Russia (due to china being strong enough to effectively delay)
album with all the pictures together:
http://s34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/?start=all
they aren’t named or edited, but they are sorted into groups of related pictures, starting with a bunch of wide angle shots of the board, then pacific, europe, china/india, north africa/med, and atlantic.
also, i took the time to do some counts on a few photos, and here are direct links to those:
money:
note that Germany has 91 ipcs due to having taken UK a second time. america has 83. UK does not have tech.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/IMGA0793.jpg
russians that can hit poland (not including bomber):
note that this also does not include the two inf and art in slovakia.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/russiacount.jpg
atlantic navy counts:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/JapanversusAmericainAtlantic.jpg
east USA unit count:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/EastandCentralUSA.jpg
berlin count:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/berlincount.jpg
*note, i am not sure if there are 1 or 2 red chips on the stack of arts. the count i give is for 1 chip.
USA in Gib count:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d105/rockrobinoff/AAsavedgame/AmericaGibraltar.jpg
I think you have a very serious idea on your hands, so congrats on spotting this intriguing idea.
However, I do have some problem with:
Most likely, Russia will have the vast bulk of its forces as infantry and art and too far away from Russia to turn them around to either: 1.) Attack your landing forces, or 2.) Make it back to Russia before you attack.
If Russia suspects a Sea Lion (tipped by a transport build) it won’t be inf and art they will be building, but mech-infs and tanks. Other builds are too slow to hit Poland and then Berlin in time.
That said, there is still a lot of merit in what you say, and could be simply devastating under the right circumstances.
From post 1.
I am not ready to say that the game is broken, as fascinating ideas about Japanese threats on North America are cropping up, and the intricacies of this game are extreme. That said, autopilot Germany attacks Russia sinks UK ships and waits for Japan to help strats fail miserably.
Game on.
My basic Colonial UK strat has been to build alternatively one carrier or two transports on turn one, moving hard and fast to Egypt with those units that can sail, and with the others through the middle east (picking up guys along the way - useful when going through pro-axis iraq) The rest of the game: buy ground troops to die against Japan if she is coming your way, and consider a second wave to Egypt, depending on how fast Japan is being.
As for Anzac, in my last game I built an airbase in Western AUS, and flew my planes to India to group with UK and die against the Japanese. For the moment, that is the most I have been able to really squeeze out of Anzac for the global allied effort.
Is my job easier because the Axis are inherently disadvantaged, or because there strategies are more limited, more complicated, and harder to refine?
You seem to believe the former.
I keep saying this, over and over again in this thread, that i dont think the game is broken, and by that i mean, that i do not have cause to conclude that the axis are inherently disadvantaged. i am clearly aware of the concept of harder to play/ objectively disadvantaged (we have discussed that at great length about anniversary). by “onus” all i have meant was, that axis seem to be having a hard time of it, therefore, people who claim that axis have an even game, or think it likely, or what have you, have the burden. as things stand now in our games, and in the general consensus of this board and those people’s experiences, axis “having a hard time of it” is the norm.
as for failing miserably. that wasn’t an estimation of your ability or play, but the result of the games from the axis side. not even close in my opinion, given the final positions of the last two games, and even with axis having the better time of the dice.
