Me and my friends are using the unstable versione 1.0.3.4 and it works really well. There are some bugs to solve, for example about the fleet movement.
We are also sending the email proposed by Veqryn at the email addresses he provided.
I hope that a lot of people join this initiative TripleA developers deserve at least a minimum effort in trying to explain how they have contributed to the A&A community even if they are not Hasbro employee and do not allow Hasbro to make money directly.
I believe that the only important thing proposed in this thread is the idea of sending an email to Hasbro explaining why TripleA is a benefit for them!
The discussione about tech and other belongs to other threads. (They are interesting but here are not the place to discuss those ideas)
Yes, the DD cancel the sub ability Cannot Be Hit by Air Units and so the defending fighters may hit the attacking sub.
Definitely your idea is interesting and worthy to be used.
@Cmdr:
Yea, it does, virtually, require a purchase of air power for Russia, but to be honest, I almost always buy some air power for Russia anyway so I don’t have to spend expensive artillery and armor trading land. If you use a fighter instead of an artillery in 10 combats, you’ve paid for the fighter, right? (2 Inf + 1 Fig or Inf + Art.) Not to mention, you have better odds of success!
And yes, as I said, there is a use for it, but how often do you get to use it? Generally, the submarine sits there as a potential threat convincing Germany not to even build the destroyer and allowing England or England + America to conduct their bombardments. But even then, is it not serving a purpose? I mean, since it’s there and we’re kinda stuck with it!
Agreed! But still I like to buy artillery with Russia, that potentially may be forced to trade up to four territories in a turn and so having a couple of artillery at hand is good in addition to some air force.
I do agree that winning against an opponent that obtains a the “right tech” working around the tech requires ability but on the other hand winning obtaining the “right tech” requires more luck than ability.
So I have the possibility for winning a potentially more harder game but at same time I may lose in a fast manner.
Tech is like an House Rule I think and Larry Harris has rightly classified it as optional in Anniversary.
With my playgroup we like a lot the National Adavantages in Revised (that I would like to have in Anniversary… Italian tank that may retreat from battles… :mrgreen:) that we usually assigned with dice. Obtaining Dive bombers or Panzer Blitz for Germany was almost overkill. Winning against them was really enjoing. Also they are more like House Rules.
Then, HR may like or not but they are not mandatory and IMHO is not right to think that a player that choose to not use a HR is a worst player of another that use it.
The option suggested by Cmdr Jennifer is a useful and interesting employment for the russian sub.
However, it requires some back up from Russian air force. Usually I do not buy aircrafts with Russia in Anniversary, I buy mix of infantry, tank and artillery.
Maybe this potential use is another positive point of buying a russian fighter or better a russian bomber. I should try! :)
By the way, is it just me, or on TripleA do the Italian AA’s seem hit on an extrodinarily high ratio when the Allies are SBRing Italy?
This is an historical issue… Italian A&A should hit only when scoring a 0… :-D
I have a different experience in our games with TripleA and Anniversary: SBR bombing is very useful, the A&A shoot down really few bombers. However we play usually PBEM using the external dice roller not the TripleA built in dice roller.
Subs being sunk by aircraft only happened in the war, especially in the Bay of Biscay when the German subs were transferring to the Central Atlantic, but given the scale of the game it’s good that it’s omitted. We also see shore batteries and mines sinking subs on the link posted, but that’s not in the game? Bringing a DD is easy to do and it introduces more strategy in the game and builds matching the opponent, works very well.
Only thing I’d like to change is 1) subs move being blocked by DDs (since this pretty much kills German sub builds in Baltic) 2) subs not being able to block movement of unescorted transports. After that, subs are perfect! :wink:
I agree on both ideas.
And I suggest two more: 3) BB and AC not able to hit the subs; 4) SUBs defending at 2.
Maybe too much? :-D
I hope that my post is clear enough, I have tried to explain my ideas, in english and maybe they are more complex than my english writing abilities.
Your english e benissimo. Mi dispiace about triple A
Thank you! :) (+1 for you!)
In our Italian forum we use only TripleA for PBEM and online play. Every member of the forum has more than one copy of the game. Moreover… people that can not play A&A “live” with friends come to the forum for playing with TripleA and they have their own copy of A&A. And finally we have also people that, thanks to the forum and TripleA have discovered A&A and bought it. I have made the translation in Italian language of the Anniversary Rulebook for using by the forum members and the high number of download it is an indication that initiative like the forum and like TripleA are “free advertisement” for A&A and that is a gain for Hasbro! Heck, Hasbro should pay TripleA developers and the forums (like this one also) that are able to disseminate A&A knowledge increasing the selling of the game! All the active members of the forum own at least Classic and Revised and, if lucky, they have also Anniversary.
Hasbro should compare this “free advertisement” with their marketing policy… there are people that have not their copy of Anniversary because there are no more copy to buy!!! They made a number of game boxes less than the number of cgame boxes they could have sold. Way? Maybe becasue they are not able to evaluate the positive effort of “free advertisement” provided by initiative like TripleA and forums?
So, Hasbro sold less game boxes than the real market demand and are worried about losing in selling?!?!? Who are the market experts at Hasbro? Duffy Duck and Donald Duck? How they “made the numbers” of the game box to manifacture?
IL there is also an important advantage with TripleA. In our forum we use TripleA to play multiplayer A&A with PBEM, each nation is played by a forum user and we enjoy the needs for diplomacy and mediation between players, as in the original spirit of the game as was conceived by Larry Harris. TripleA is far more easy to use than AbattleMap and other similar programs, without it a lot of our entertaining games will be not possible because there are people that have difficult in usign map managers programs.
I hope that my post is clear enough, I have tried to explain my ideas, in english and maybe they are more complex than my english writing abilities.
Thanks Gallo Rojo and Critmoster! (+1 for both of you! :-D)
I think that all is related on how much complicated the battle resolution is.
The actual combat resolution is more abstract and simplified. I like the sub rules of anniversary more than the rules of revised even if I would like to have some other modification. And I agree with you that some aspect seems strange when related to other units behaviour.
Your ideas are also interesting, they may be realized using a different approach to combat resolution allowing specific targeting of the enemy units or selection of the opponent casualties on particular result of the dice rolled.
I think there are house rules that allows that.
@Emperor:
@Cmdr:
I do have to admit that Paratroopers technology is perhaps the most under appreciated technology on the charts. I don’t think many players fully comprehend the utility of paratroopers in the grand scheme of things.
You can use them for island hoping, for sniping under-protected territories for additional income (territory and sometimes national objectives), you can use them to augment attacks where you don’t quite have the manpower and would like more infantry, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, you can still use the bomber in the attack, which is REALLY nice! Some incarnations in the past said the bomber EITHER bombed OR hauled paratroopers making the paratrooper ability pretty useless.
Agreed. Getting them is the problem. :-D
And also having bought the bombers necessary to paradrop them.
I think the sub are better modeled in Anniversary than in any preceding A&A. To still improve the modeling we should have that sub could be hit only by DD, and DD allows CA and aircrafts to hit subs. BB and AC have no depth charges or torpedoes for attacking the sub. Thay may only maneuver for avoding subs torpedoes or trying to ram a surfaced sub.
Submerged sub may not be hit by the guns of the surface ship. So the better defense for sub is to submerge. No any sub in a real battle stay on the surface for being attacked by ship guns or aircraft bombs.
In the real fleets it does not esist the “escort submarine”. It exist the escort DD, or the escort AC etc.
Submarine operate separated from the rest of the fleet, in autonomous operation.
They were not around during fleet engagement they were too much slow for staying togheter with a battle fleet. They cannot maneuver nor stay in formation with ships that have, at least, the double of their speed.
They were specialized attack vessel, which task has been lurking around to hit passing ships.
DD and aircrafts had the task of dealing with subs.
When Bismark was sunk in battle with the Home Fleet there were a lot of Uboote around the battle area, they arrived just in time to disturb the UK DD rescuing of the Bismark survivors, after the battle.
In the battle of Midway there were a lot of Japanese subs around the islands with the task of intercepting and attacking the USA ships. Before the battle the saw and attacked nothing.
Yorktown, heavily damaged, and on the way for the Hawaii was sunk, after the battle, by one of the japanese submarine still patroling the sea.
There is a huge difference between an infantry and an AA. The difference is, the infantry can be destroyed…
Someone mentioned the idea of capturing the gun…except a solid Russian strategy is to not bother defending both zones that protect Russia (Belorussia and Eastern Ukraine). A single mass of units exist in one zone (along with an AA), while only the AA exists in the other. If the Germans try to capture the gun, they will be taken by the mass in the other zone.
The use of the AA to block the blitz allows the Russians to protect both zones effectively while only occupying 1 zone and risking no units.
Sorry Octopus, but the huge difference is that infantry has a chance of killing a panzer. AA just gets captured. It doesn’t even provide air cover for Moscow since it doesn’t fire on moving AC.
IMHO this does not appear to be a solid Russian strategy.
Besides, if you make a House Rule saying the AA doesn’t block a blitz then the Russian would produce the same cheap road block - actually a 2 IPC cheaper one - that also fights back by placing a single infantry in the non-stacked space. At least that way they get a 1:3 chance of killing a panzer rather than leaving my thrust untouched.
Really in Anniversary AAGun cost 6 IPC, then it is possible to buy two infantries that cost the same adn have 2/3 chance of killing an enemy unit.
Excuse me, but according to you the only way to conquer Moscow for the German is by mean of a massive blitz of panzer? One have to use a “can opener” move to win? It is not possible to conquer Moscow in other way?
Then use Italian forces: attack the territory during Italian turn, conquer the territory, conquer the AA and then blitz all the panzers across the territory.
AA is a unit. No matter if it roll dices or not it requires a battle for being captured, this is acceptable for me. Also defenceless transports require a battle to be destroyed even if there is no one die rolled. Also this is acceptable to me. Moreover it is simple to be explained and it is easy to be remembered.
Gaming the system? No I believe it is called “keep it simple strategy” (KISS). Making a rule and then introducing several exceptions is the way to create a complex ruleset that may cause problems to new players and quarrels between experienced player when one of them did not remember Exception 1.3 “Blitzing through ostile territory with only an AA Gun present and no other ground unit” to Rule 4.17/A “Moving tanks of two spaces during Combat Move”. Moreover, the more are the rules, the greater is the possibility of errors, misprints, and other problems in the rulebook that have to be corrected, with FAQ, Errata etc.
Considering your solid russian strategy, I have some doubt.
Consider a stack of russian unit in Belorussia and an AA Gun in Eastern Ukraine. Consider a German Stack in Poland.
If German is strong enough to move its stack in Eastern Poland and Russian Army is not strong enough to destroy it or at least strafe it, then your strategy is in problem. Because now the Russian army is in a dead zone created by the German stack present in Eastern Poland. Next turn Russia have to make a choice: stay and die or run to live. If they select to stay, next turn German player will attack Belorussia, killing the Russian Army and preparing to invade Moscow, while other panzers and/or fighters in NCM move to Eastern Poland. Panzer will blitz across Belorussia next turn.
Otherwise German army may move in Eastern Ukraine, capture the AA Gun, using it to cover its advanced army.
In your scenario, moreover it is possible also to do the move that you would like to do. If Germans attack Eastern Ukraine and capture the AA Gun then the Russians have to counter during russian turn. Problem: AA Gun, being involved in combat, even if they do not roll dice, may not be moved. So the Russian have the problem to cover the territory where the attack come from: Belorussia. AA Gun cannot be moved to Belorussia, being involved in combat. If Russians leave only an inf there… then the can opener move may be performed: using Japanese airpower to clear the blitz path for the panzers.
If Germans are not able to deadzone the territory in wich Russian army is placed then they do not deserve to conquer Moscow.
What I am trying to say is that A&A is a game that requires sounding strategies. Tricks and expedients may work in few games against some players but there is no solid strategies based only on “gaming the system” approach.
Said this, you may use and propose a House Rule in which AA Gun are not able to stop the blitz, every one is in his right to play the game in the way he enjoys more. So if you feel that the rule is wrong ignore it or make an exception to it. Everyone that likes that HR may use it.
However, there is no need to try to change the OOB rules, because other player, like me, may enjoy to play the game with the rule as they are.
Subs and transports do not block sea movements and do not prevent amphibious operations.
It seems realistic. Non combat ships have a difficult time in trying to stop a squadron of warships. Subs usually stay below the water looking for targets and so they do not even try to stop enemy movements. They lurk in the shadow, silently waiting their chance (i.e. their turn) to hit.
IC block blitz, and I see no reason for which they should not.
I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz.
Bingo.
Even if is only my opinion it is right because simplicity avoid complication and misinterpretation!
Mmm… I am not sure that is such a broken rule. Also a single infantry inhibit the blitz and cost only 3 IPC while a AA gun cost 6 and, moreover, beiing indestructible is captured togheter with the territory. Yes the tanks have to stop but they have also the additional defense of the AA gun. So if you want to counter attack in such territory your aircraft may be shoot down by your ex AA gun…
I suppose that the the rationale of the rule is to avoid exceptions: tank may blitz only through empty territories, any type on unit stops the blitz. The problem maybe is why the AA gun are indestructible?
I may agree on the fact that they are satisfied to sell only a limited number of boxes to a limited number of customers. However, this is the problem: with a more focused promotional campaign they had sold more boxes. More boxes sold means more profit. Hasbro/WOTC should be interested in profit. Business company are supposed to investigate the market to identify the real demand not to make therotical hypothesis on the number of boxes to sell.