It should be about:
2 Carriers
2 Battleships
6 Destroyers
5 Transports
10 SubsThis is the amount I have in my set.
Great thank you!!!
Hypothetical German 1 Move
-
Just wondering that if first attack made by Japan to Russia is a strategic bombing and if Japan do not conquered Sinkiank nor Persia in that case the only place in which is possible to place the four infantries is Buratyia or not?
-
Romulus,
Most of us who play with NA’s do the following:
Random two NAs for each nation.
Bid.
Axis pick one each
Allies pick oneThat’s 6 NAs for the Axis and 7 for the Allies.
Now, you could have Banzai, Most Powerful and Night Fighting all at once. Though, to get that lucky you’d be blessed.
-
Ah, ok Jennifer, I understood!
With random NA is very different. You may have great advantages or something of less useful.Instead, we play choosing the NA. 4 for the Allies and 4 for the Axis.
First round each nation chose the NA before starting her turn.
Second round Germany and Japan choose a second NA for each of them and Allies choose which one will have the fourth NA among them.In this way we believe there is an additional interst to the game.
-
If you are going to go that route, I’d say the Axis should have 6 NAs and the Allies 5. Just because the Axis need the help against ver 1.3 and OOB NA’s.
2.0, so far, appears to be completely one sided against the Axis again in NAs. I’ll probably stop playing NA games if people move to 2.0, well, until things like Banzai are restored to normal.
-
We have taken the idea about NA from A&A Revised Enhanced. Sometime we play the full ruleset of Enhanced rules, other time LHTR with NA, but the way we use NA is the same.
Indeed I think we need some other games to be able to make an evaluation about NAs.
-
Enhanced has it’s own problems, however. Primarily U-Boat interdiction is too strong. It should be reduced to the NA level of 1 IPC per submarine, instead of 2 IPC per submarine on England’s border.
That, primarily, is one of the major reasons I have quit using the Enhanced rule set.
-
Enhanced has it’s own problems, however. Primarily U-Boat interdiction is too strong. It should be reduced to the NA level of 1 IPC per submarine, instead of 2 IPC per submarine on England’s border.
That, primarily, is one of the major reasons I have quit using the Enhanced rule set.
You just haven’t played enough Enhanced games to realize that subs are not the end all piece that you profess them to be in Enhanced. :-o :-o :-o
With enough experience, subs can be dealt with effectively. :-D
In Enhanced, every move has a counter. Every Strategy can be effectively beaten… trust me, I’ve played about 50 Enhanced games.
-
Like I said before (at FoE),
often the players that engage in the development of these rules variants
do it because they can’t overcome the strategic/tactical problems they’ve been facing…So you just slammed EVERYBODY that’s ever developed a house rule / variant?
You ARE a piece of work: Anyone without your similiar way of thinking is wrong.
You have a long way to learn how to play well with others.
-
Like I said before (at FoE),
often the players that engage in the development of these rules variants
do it because they can’t overcome the strategic/tactical problems they’ve been facing…
Thus instead of improving their (mediocre) tactics/strategies to overcome them
they choose to impose their distorted rules/simulations to warrant success
of their “tactics/strategies”…of what they see as good strategy/tactic…The final result is a product that conforms to their (limited) tactical/strategical capabilities/knowledge,
thus can’t/doesn’t represent a tactical/strategy simulation of (high) quality.When I saw (at FoE) the tactical/strategical quality of the player involved in the development of these rules I immediately discarded the possibility of reading them to not lose time with them.
From what I see here I guess I can confirm that I wasn’t wrong.I helped develop Enhanced rules mainly because I saw that Revised fell short or becoming more than a Russia to Moscow. I’ve played THAT game for 15+ years, thank you, and I wanted something different.
Revised can be so much more than a spiffed up Classic KGF game.
I still do play Revised/LHTR rules in tourneyments and do quite well thank you. I have more fun and options with Enhanced. I never slam others for playing Revised. I offer them the chance to try other rules that build on the Revised rules they are playing/enjoying.
Have you even TRIED to play with (A&ARe) Enhanced rules? Until you do so, you have no basis to criticize something you’ve never tied.
-
U-Boat Interdict in Enhanced is too strong. You can cripple the Allied income with a very modest investment without reprisal. That’s too strong. But you have to understand, I think SBR is too strong too.
SBR should be limited to 50% of a territory’s worth PER GAME TURN. That means you could only do 5 IPC damage to Germany from the time they collect income to the time they spend their income again.
Likewise, U-Boat interdict should be limited to 50% of a territory’s value per game turn and submarines have to CHOOSE what IC they are blocking, they do not get to block all in range.
That means, at BEST, Germany could intercept 4 IPC from England and 6 IPC from America. Hurtful, yes, crippling? No.
-
I ike t oplay Revised as it is. But I also started to play Enhanced, and I like its rule.
SBR now may do Germany a maximum of 20 ICP LOSS (10 max in British turn, 10 max in British turn), so Uboote interdiction is very strong, I agree with Jennifer.
But it is costly!
German have to buy Uboote on a regulare basis, and this has consequences on the land units buying. And this is a problem. An I like to have problem to solve in a game. So I agree with Axis_roll, Enhanced is interesting because raises new problems to solve. I am not saying, and neither Axis__roll said that, which Enhance is better, or easier or more beautiful than Revised. But for sure it is interesting and funny to play! -
I helped develop Enhanced rules mainly because I saw that Revised fell short or becoming more than a Russia to Moscow. I’ve played THAT game for 15+ years, thank you, and I wanted something different.
Gdn right. March to Moscow / March to Berlin, yawnz0rz.
Revised can be so much more than a spiffed up Classic KGF game.
I still do play Revised/LHTR rules in tourneyments and do quite well thank you. I have more fun and options with Enhanced. I never slam others for playing Revised. I offer them the chance to try other rules that build on the Revised rules they are playing/enjoying.
Have you even TRIED to play with (A&ARe) Enhanced rules? Until you do so, you have no basis to criticize something you’ve never tied.
You know, I tell my parole officer the same thing.
_Have you ever tried smoking crack?
Have you ever tried lighting your head on fire while dancing naked around pictures of Jessica Alba?
Mm hm. That’s what I thought. You’re totally The Man, man. Loosen up, live a little. Introduce me to your daughter._
-
Have you ever caught the hair “down there” on fire while jumping skyclad over a Beltain Balefire?
It has not happened to me personally, but I DID get to see it happen once. I took precautions to make sure it never DID happen to me :-P
Beat that crack smoking parole officer! LOL
-
boy this got weird ….
-
Like I said before (at FoE),
often the players that engage in the development of these rules variants
do it because they can’t overcome the strategic/tactical problems they’ve been facing…
Thus instead of improving their (mediocre) tactics/strategies to overcome them
they choose to impose their distorted rules/simulations to warrant success
of their “tactics/strategies”…of what they see as good strategy/tactic…This is the typical product of someone who was bested by another and cant let it go…. Something like Agent Smith used to do. They have no understanding of how they are perceived by others and constantly need to find new harbors to find a new audience that may listen to their troubles. Eventually they ( this new audience) find out whats going on as well…
The final result is a product that conforms to their (limited) tactical/strategical capabilities/knowledge,
thus can’t/doesn’t represent a tactical/strategy simulation of (high) quality.More Hyperbole…
When I saw (at FoE) the tactical/strategical quality of the player involved in the development of these rules I immediately discarded the possibility of reading them to not lose time with them.
And yet you found yet another excuse to comment on these people who DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME. oK
From what I see here I guess I can confirm that I wasn’t wrong. -
Not all variants are worthless. But I’d like to see more games with tech and national advantages before I see games with new variants. At least familiarize and master some of the more esoteric parts of the game before complaining the game is too vanilla and reinventing the wheel. IMHO.
-
I would like to have som standards in A&A. Or 2-3-4 alternate options for gameplay rules.
I think this game is already complicated… :-)
Thats why I prefer the triplea version.
Can’t do any wrong moves, except the transport unloading bug. And a few others, but this is same for alle players.
Everything is the same for all, u can’t “forget” or make “mistakes”, that isn’t allowed.
The LHTR should either be mandatory/original or excluded.
Someone should make a good A&A PC game with only one set of rules, or maybe several. And then the online gaming would be handled much better than now.
But with several set of gamerules it should not be possible to mix this rules.
I.e. in triplea the TTL should not be an option it should be included like the 4th.ed. rules.
With boardgame u can everything u want to… of course everyone try to follow the rules but that isn’t easy.
I played with some friends a few weeks ago and they didn’t even notice the change of rules from the classic version!! :lol:
With classic it wasn’t all that complicated once u get used to it, but the revised 4th.ed. it’s really easy to make mistakes, that is when playing the boardgame variant.
And other mistakes than the rules I do all the time…
I like to play one variant at a time, and learn to play it well. Like revised 4th.ed.
And when, or if I become really good, then it’s time to move on. -
TripleA is loaded with errors though, most notably among the technologies and don’t forget it has no support for national advantages.
-
I support TripleA.
TripleA for Prezident!
-
TripleA is the best there is right now.
But it would be much better if someone made a commercial PC game.
Triplea is freeware and it has its restraints.
With a A&A PC game it should include all variants, like LHTR, 3.rd.,4ht.ed. etc.
Guadalcanal, Revised, Europe, BOTB etc.
Online gaming inlcuded.
And GOOD AI to play against.
Suggested Topics
