Posts made by Romulus

Fighters never move during mobilization phase.

Tou may build fighters on a your own Carrier that is in a sea zone adjacent to the territory that contains the IC.

The Carrier may be a new one or an existing one moved in that sea zone during the turn.

You can not build fnew ighters on friendly powers carriers.

You ay also place existing fighters on newly built carriers. In the non combat move fighters are moved in a sea zone adjacent to the IC’s territory and, if a carrier has been purchased in that turn, you may declare that it will be deployed in those sea zone allowing the fighters to legally land in the sea zone.

@Mazer:

BTW - that was my 100th post!  How cool is that???

Now I can give out karma.  I just gave you +1 because you’re simply a peach.

Karma +1 for your 100th post!  :-D

You are welcome Granada!

I am only trying to give a hand!  :-)

Aknowledge!

I would like to read and study them!

Thanks Commander!

You have to enable the port forwarding in your router.

On this web site you may found a brief explanation of the operation you have to do (and why  :-D):

http://aaazone.amicron1.com/default.asp

simply follow the link to port forwarding in the home page.

@Cmdr:

Daggaz,

As self declared secretary for C-Sub (as in, I’m the one who converts the files from text and doc and any other format known to man into PDF for them) I have almost all of their files (except ones written since August this year.)

Feel free to email me at isfcco@hotmail.com and I can send them too you. It may take more than one email to send though, due to size.

Great! Commander may I also send an email to you for receiving such papers?

Thanks Krieghund.

Given the fact that I am already integrating the FAQ in the translated manual I will do the update as you suggest!

Thank you Commander! :)

I am performing the translation in italian of the Anniversary edition rulebook.
I have some problems in translating one sentence. May some one here try to explain it to me … in other words!  :-D

pag. 20 of the rulebook, step 6 conclude combat:

…Place your own control marker on the territory. (Note, if you are playing in the 1942 scenario, place your marker on top of the original control marker; do not remove it).

If I have not misunderstood it means that I have to stack the new control marker on the top of the preceding one without removing the control marker already positioned in the territory. Correct me if I have not understood correctly.

What it means? The rulebook is suggesting me to not try using the scissors for removing the control marker from the board?
Or it regards territories that in the set up of 1942 are owned by a different power and then the suggestion is to leave there the 1942 control marker in order to mark that the original controller of a territory is the power which control marker is at the bottom of the stack that is different from the marker printed on the map?
Or it is only a way to stack the control marker in the territory?

I am confused.

@Krieghund:

@a44bigdog:

@risk:

and air craft can attack submarines only if there is a destroyer present, correct? does that mean that they can attack them even if they are submerged??

Submarines cannot submerge when a destroyer is present. So they can be target by air because a destroyer is present or if no destroyer is present they may submerge. Once they submerge they are placed on the game board on their side. They no longer are considered to be part of any battle once they submerge. They cannot fire at units and cannot be taken as hits.  In this state they act as if they do not exist. At the end of the non combat move stage they are then turned upright and considered to have surfaced.

You’re carrying a little baggage from Revised here, A44bigdog.  When a sub submerges, it is simply removed from the battle board and placed back on the gameboard.  There is no need to turn it on its side or right it again at the end of noncombat movement.

If one is using the battleboard!
However after few games even my new friends, which are playing Anniversary with my playgroup for the first times, are used to resolve the battle “on the map”. To keep track of the submerged subs it is useful to turn them on their side if the unit are not moved to the battleboard. (IMHO using the battleboard add a lot of overhead to an already long game, we use the battleboard only in really big battles)
Sure, the rule are just as you say Krieghund but for a newbie it is also interesting to have such information! :)

@Rakeman:

@Krieghund:

Attacking and defending fire is considered to be effectively simultaneous, as Woodstock points out.  However, as a matter of practicality someone has to go first, as explained on page 18.  This expressed simultaneity also applies to submerging versus firing for subs.  The wording of the submerging rules obscures this issue, so it was clarified in the following FAQ entry:

Q. Exactly when is the decision made whether or not to submerge submarines?
A. The decision whether to submerge submarines is made before any dice are rolled by either side in an exchange of fire. The attacker decides before the defender does.

Does this mean that sub-stalling is in, if an attacking submarine can submerge before fighting?  Obviously only if a destroy is absent.

But subs, as TRNs, can not stall because they may be ignored by other surface ships that may treat the sea zone with subs within as friendly or am I wrong?

New sub rules are really interesting!

@AxisOfEvil:

@Bob_A_Mickelson:

While playing the MB Classic version years ago Japan lost Pearl Harbor II. Japan lost all its units and USA didnt even lose a single unit.

Japan brougt in:
2 battleships
2 fighters
1 aircraft carrier
1 submarine
1 transports

USA had
1 aircraft carrier
1 fighter
1 submarine

I cant even fathom how astronomical the odds of this happening could be. The tripleA battle calculator says that japan will win this battle 100% of the time with 20,000 simulations. The calculator doesnt even show that USA would win a single battle. What is more incrediable is that USA didnt loose a single unit in our game.

ummm wow.  This is the winner so far. Did u surrender right there?

mmm … have you burnt the USA miniatures and threw away the dice?

Revised miniatures on average are better than Anniversary miniatures. I have seen several boxes open (in my playgroup we have three Anniversary boxes overall) and read reports on the net.

I have personally compared the miniatures. As an example Anniversary T-34 is worst than Revised T-34: it is smaller, narrower, lack the details, and its turret is also asymmetric. Ships structures are a mess.
The only Anniversary miniature largely better then the Revised one is the Panther, which is a miniature taken from A&A Battle of the Bulge not specifically made for Anniversary. I already used Panther from Battle of the Bulge in Revised before Anniversary was released.

From a gaming point of view Revised is more balanced than Classic and presents more challenging in planning.

The Revised rules, in my playgroup we use the LHTR, are more clearly written than Classic. We use LHTR also in Pacific and in Europe. Anniversary rules are based on LHTR not on Classic rules.

Teaching A&A with Classic is a waste of time imho. There are few rules that are the same. The remaining rules are completely different. Learning A&A with Classic require a lot of effort for learning Anniversary. Learning A&A with Revised requires only few rules clarification (or complication in case of China) for being ready to play Anniversary.

Revised has been sold as a balanced historical games? I do not trust advertising.
Anniversary Adverstising said that the new nations will have new unique sculpts … and other amenity that are not true, as the release date.

Revised is still a solid light wargame, cheap and quite challenging. I own all the games of A&A series and Classic is less played than Revised. We play Classic only when we feel nostalgic.

Ok it is rigth and interesting.

However, I think that they are too much details for a light wargame like A&A.
There are a lot of things that are different from the real world and from the real History in A&A.
Simply I do not feel the needs for them i nthe basic rules set. Thay could be fine house rules.

@TG:

I wish Avalon Hill had just stuck with Axis and Allies: 1984 and Axis and Allies: Anniversary and that’s it.  The more I look at Revised, the more it reminds me of a bastard child.  It’s an unfair statement because Revised did come out by Anniversary, but Anniversary ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED what Revised had set out to do.  Which is disappointing because Revised came out 4 years before Anniversary.  If you’re talking about board games, 4 years is not a long time.  Not when you compare it to the 24 year gap separating the original and anniversary.

If I shelled out money ($$40-50?) to own Revised, I would be peeved off to buy AGAIN the game I thought I was buying 4 years ago.  Which isn’t fair to the consumer.

In short, to every potential gamer out there: “Don’t even waste your time with Revised.”

I have to disagree.
This is not fair for Revised. With all its limitation and problems Revised is a great improvement over Classic that has far greaters problems and limitation than Revised has.
With my playgroup when we bought Revised we stopped to play Classic. Also on line gaming is made with Revised more than with Classic.
Anniversary is an improvement in respect to Revised but Revised had been an improvement over Classic.
Anniversary is superseding Revised, not Classic that has been already superseded by Revised.

In A&A Anniversary it is even possible to go from Mediterranean to Black Sea, using the Bosforous Straits that were closed for the neutrality state of Turkey, why should we have an impassable land terrain?

Moreover other region believed impassable had been militarly used in the WWII. Ardennes for example were the stage for two major German offensive: 1941 and subsequent fall of France and 1944 the last German offensive and the Battle of the Bulge.

I am not saying that those territories are comfortably usable for military operation.
I only think that for this detail level they could not be considered without making a great error.

In the real war if Italy had planned with more care her intervention alongside with Germany, instead of being in competition or trying to emulate, Italy had reached a slightly better result. I am not saying that war could have ended in a different way for Italy, however, a different course could have been seen for her.

Considering the game. I found interesting the introduction of Italy. If controlled by German player it may be used to perform a 1-2 punch against England and Russia, in different order in the two scenarios.
If played by two different players we have the need for discussion and agreement on the strategies. Arguing on the strategies between German and Italy may be a balancing factor in the 1941 scenario, that seems much pro axis. If Germany and Italy do not collaborate efficiently Allies may have slightly more time to recover from the Axis offensives.

Italy in WWII was a poor nation. Fleet was powerful but can not afford losses. To repleace a unit Italian shipyards would have taken too much time. Moreover the shipyards were totally engaged in making escort units (DD and frigates) and transport ships to supply African campaign, and have no resource to complete the Capital ships under construction. Two more BB of Littorio class and two Aircraft Carriers (Aquila and Sparviero) were started but only one BB, the Roma, was completed.
Mussolini and Fascist Party pro-capitalist economic policy had never planned to focus Italian Industrial production for war purposes. For example even in the 1942 Italian Industry was never completely mobilized for war production.
Aircraft industries were leaved free to produce different fighters models, and all of them were used by Regia Aereonautica for evaluation. A logistical nightmare for what regards maintenance, training, spare parts  and supplies. Lack of central coordination, due to the fact that each company had a “protector” in the Fascist party that allow them to make its specific fighters model and then force the Aereonautica to buy a batch of them, really weakened the Regia Aereonautica.
Italian Army had only manpower to use for countering other nations army. Mussolini, in one of his speech, “threathend” the Allies with his “6 millions of bayonets”… what a pity that the bayonet had become and ineffective weapon long time ago during the Napoleonic wars… but Italian soldiers were asked to conquer the New Roman Empire using them!

So Italy at 10 IPC is correct. You have some initial assets, you may barely supply your fronts, and you have at same time to gain territories to increase production if you want to have a weight in the war. All in all Italy had to be an aggressive player IMHO.

Flashman, here in Italy we have a strange situation.
The fasces is a simbol that cannot be used. Fascist party and all its symbols and ideologies are strictly forbidden by our constitution. However, hammer and sickel are used without problem.
I agree with you that Hitler dictatorship and Stalin regime were both evil government, but as you said History is written by winners.

However, after my preceding wrong observation I have made some investigation about Italian symbol.

Forst roundel ever used by Italy as military mark for aircrafts was in first world war, a roundel red outside, and green inside, used on fighter wings. It was changed in 1918 as green outside and red inside. It was changed again in 1936, becoming the roundel with three fasces inside. Up to 1943 it was used by aircrafts. The Navy and the Army, used as mark the banner with the Savoia red shield (the one on the left in the Black_Elk pictures may be suitable).
After 1943 the Salò Republic, the norhern part of Italy that continued to fought with Germany, used a three colored banner with an Eagle in the center.
After the war the roundel selected for military marking is red outside and green inside. The justification is that if you take the Italian banner and wrap it around the pole you will have a cilinder red outside, green inside with white in the middle.

@kendric:

This is really good info guys. Thanks a bunch. The ICs were not to be faster then tranies, but rather allow you to build more tanks since you can only transport half tanks on boats. But I may give the no ics till later strat a go since I have been doing factories for so long. I never built above the 3 on J1 like you are suggesting so that could be the difference.

Thanks for the detailed recap on germany air defense of africa Rom! Any comments on the weakened egypt retaliation due to not having the 2 extra units from italy there(since the transport went to the west?).

Also I don’t know what time zone you are in but If either of you are up for a game let me know. I happen to be free most of the morning(central time) tommrow(vacation) which may line up if you live in europe :) Otherwise i usually can only play from like 7:30CST on. _Oh. I have said that my approach is not free from problems and one is the possibility of a counter to Egypt. It is a nasty move for Germany tha lose the possibility to blitz Africa. However it weaken India and leave some UK ships open to counter to Japanese East Indies fleet.

I am Italian, so my time zone is GMT+1, while, Central USA should be GMT-5 or GMT-6. Anyway sometime I stay awake and connect to TripleA Lobby. My nickname is always Romulus, so if you see me online contact me for a game. I usually play with LL, I agree with Kendric, no worse than a game ruined by dice._

I am not againist ABattleMap. I have ABattleMap and Mapview installed on my laptop, I have evaluated both of them comparing with TripleA, for online gaming and PBEM purposes on my A&A italian forum. Me and my friends there have selected TripleA. We have taken this decision for several motivations, and we are fine with TripleA.
The principal difference that I see is that they are two different types of programs. ABattleMap and Mapview are map utilities while TripleA is a game engine. It is like comparing a word processor with a database, for example. There is no best one. There is always a specific tool for making a particular work.
Any way TripleA is ordinarily improved, by the community, and contributing signaling them the problems is a way to have them solved.