@Hansolo88 Thanks

@DoManMacgee

Thanks! Think i got i covered then :)

@kenny Scout cars never need supplies. If the defender want to defend against them all units that require supplies must use them to defend against the scout car. I do believe the scout car is required to leave that zone, or it can just not capture it. I assume @Panther would know. Re-thinking I do believe it can stay in that zone as long as it is neutral or friendly.

@Ramstark 1-2 is for Anti Air. I’m not quite sure if the German AAA’s were that better to warrant for a 3 or less. If so then I would be happy to add it to my North Africa 1939 Variant game.

If an Italian bomber attacks the Malta Convoy zone in where you have 3 Supply Tokens and 1 UK Fighter, his attack value is technically 6 with the Fighter having a defense value of 5. This is of course quite absurd that a slow bomber would be able to attack a Spitfire and have a stronger attack value. Has there been a complimentary rule on this in order to reduce the bomber attack value to well below the Fighters value to reflect the very slim chance of success
?

@Axtivate I tried to play as close to the rules as possible. I believe I got about 90% of them correct. The ones I missed were minor.

I’ve played it more times now and I have seen results split between the sides with the Allies getting more wins. Getting to Cairo is hard and by the time Operation Torch starts Germany has to then focus on protecting Tunis from the Allies. The times I have seen the Allies lose was a failure in having enough supply.

@Matt-Hyra

Thanks Matt! I didn’t realize that was a different app since we were in Discord still and it opened from Discord.

@Vital-Signs ! Combatminiatures.org
SAS 3.JPG sas 4.JPG

@Krieghund thank you everyone for their time. We appreciate the clarity…good to know it is a legal move we made on our last game.

@Sergeant-Steve

Agreed. I didn’t mean giving more units to the Allies though, I meant replacing a British infantry piece with an ANZAC/French infantry piece

@OlivieroRuggieri

A sea mine can be detonated against any ship that enters the zone, which includes transports deploying there. Only newly-arriving ships/transports are subject to sea mine attack. Units already present when the mines are placed do not allow the sea mine to trigger, nor are they affected should a later ship/transport enter the zone.

@DoManMacgee A&A North Africa - OT ITA11.pdf Ok, I’m sending the last post about the first game played in the “Operation Torch” scenario (with the usual file that reproduces the situation on the battle table). The Axis players decided to sign a surrender at the beginning of Italy’s eleventh turn. Maybe the abandonment was a bit premature (they could have fought a bit longer until the capitulation of Tunis), but I think it is largely justified by the situation on the table. As I said in the previous post (before the tenth English turn), the UK (after our “war council”) has invested heavily in the fleet and air force to try to regain control of the Mediterranean and with it:
a) interrupt the flow of convoys towards the African continent of the Italian-German troops,
b) reopen the convoys to Malta (the Suez convoys would have been useless given the turns remaining at the end of the game).
As expected (me and the English ally), this attracted the Italian fleet and the Italian-German air force in SZ 6 (Algiers) giving life to an epic battle that contributed (definitely I think) to give a precise course to the continuation of the battle. An English destroyer was left in SZ3 to prevent the powerful German U-Boats from joining the party (and it certainly deserves a medal of valor, like the Italian submarine in SZ8 of the previous post). The survivors of this clash were very few, but this is certainly to be considered an advantage for the Allies.
On land the Axis did not fare better: the English swept away the Italian contingent of El Aghelia in a devastating way and my Americans occupied the Kesserine pass suffering very few losses (also thanks to the support of the French troops). The axis, taking note of the extremely difficult situation (and also considering the lack of supplies in the Tunis/Mareth area and the imminent arrival of the English from the East), decided to acknowledge defeat and put an end to the clash. I repeat: probably it could have tried to fight a little longer, but I think the fate of this battle was already sealed.
General considerations on the game.
After the game, we stopped, while it was still hot, to try to review the course of events. Surely tactical and strategic errors were made by both sides (first of all the incorrect or inappropriate use of mines … to understand their optimal deployment), but it was the first game on this scenario (and in any case the general experience with this game is very limited unlike other editions of A&A, at least mine). I reproached my son (who played with Germany) for being too cautious and not trying to push the Americans (me) when he had the chance (i.e. in the early turns): I think that if the Americans “settle down” it is difficult to avoid the continuous influx of troops and their push towards Tunis. It always remains (but this was a problem for all of us) to understand well which troops are the most effective and in which situations (and I think this is a “crucial point” of the whole game): the Axis has the Germans who have superior units to all the other players, truly devastating (to compensate for the Italians who instead … but it’s all historical, so ok), but the Allies have many resources, many more than the Axis and this risks making the difference in the long term (but this is also historical, so ok). And this was especially evident in the two naval battles that had opposite outcomes: in the first major clash the Italian navy and air force wiped out the English fleet in the central-western Mediterranean, in the second (possible after the English decided to invest everything in ships and planes) the Anglo-Americans prevailed, but this practically ended the battle. A note on the French troops: they risk becoming a really annoying presence for the Axis due to their ability to be self-sufficient (and therefore allowing flanking attacks … for free that help the allies and not a little). What to say in conclusion: I renew my compliments to Matt for the masterpiece he created (and I can’t wait to play Stalingrad), I confirm the impression that Axis and Allies North Africa is a very deep game strategically. This was only the first game (I think of many others) and I hope to be able to become an expert of this game soon, being a great fan of the entire A&A series. Obviously I await your comments (if you want to participate in this discussion). See you next time.

@Herr_B

“If an Axis player has one or more bombers on Crete, THEY may deploy 1 sea mine…”

So only Axis players that do can mine the Suez.

@COJOH
Yes, that is correct. Think of the old cargo as at the mouth of the port. Not so easy to mine that area.

@Matt-Hyra Thanks, that’s what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

@OlivieroRuggieri

I appreciate the compliment!
If the Axis doesn’t have a sizable 1-2 punch (Italy, then Germany before the UK can land reinforcements), then it might not be worth attacking Cairo.
I’ll leave the real strategy advice to others.

@Witt I am a history enthusiast (like all wargamers I think) and I have taught it for many years.

@cmmiles I think it’s fantastic! Stack limits and supply really creates a whole new way of thinking. You can’t simply stack 25 infantry, instead you must be creative and figure out the best unit combinations for any given situation.
I also think the fight for control over the Med/ convoy raid system is really cool. It’s all on a knife’s edge for the first few rounds in my experience- very well balanced.