@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.
Triple A North Africa?
-
You can see the TripleA forum to see if there’s any progress on it, ask/propose it, or even learn enough coding to make it yourself (if you have a lot of time).
I would love North Africa to be on TripleA, but not even Bulge or Guadalcanal are available, so I’m not holding my breath.
-
No worries, @DoManMacgee and I are currently working on a TripleA module for North Africa. It will probably be completely finished in early 2025.
-
Yay!
-
May I point out, please buy a copy of the game to support the manufacturer, if you’re going to play an online version. Thank you.
-
@VictoryFirst THANK YOU! YOUR A LEGEND!
-
Agreed, I’m worried otherwise Hasbro might sue TripleA for infringing on copyright and being an unlicensed competitor (let’s be honest, TripleA is basically competing with the physical game for time the players spend on Axis and Allies, it’ll probably be competing monetarily if it was more well known). Buying the game will (hopefully maybe) show them that TripleA isn’t a competitor, but a complement. We should reward Larry and the playtesters for developing such a fantastic game if possible.
-
disclaimer: I playtested the game alongside Andrew and others from this forum and also bought a copy, so I did my bit
Late to this thread but respectfully, having a tripleA plugin for this edition is something I view as monumentally important for developing the level of play on this new edition beyond the relatively basic level that I’ve seen so far on YouTube/social media/etc.
Yes the physical game should be purchased to ensure that hasbro/renegade continues making more editions but if there is no officially sanctioned online client for a&a NA I see no reason why an open source project that makes 0 income (not even on ad revenue) shouldn’t be allowed to exist. This very forum exists today largely on the back of continued G40 league play, which is also done exclusively via tripleA.
-
100% agreed.
-
GMT Games and MultiMan Publishing are two game companies that support their games with TripleA like downloads on open source websites. I have it on good authority from people in both that this has helped with sales as opposed to hurt.
I hope, one day, that the Axis and Allies community can rise to this level. Albeit everyone signing NDAs all over the place is the root of stifled opportunities and I …grudgingly… understand individuals being fearful as a result. Alas.
Still, I know someone who is/was afraid to share a reprint of the east and west map from the entirely defunct Imp games. Just bizarre…
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Triple A North Africa?:
Agreed, I’m worried otherwise Hasbro might sue TripleA for infringing on copyright and being an unlicensed competitor (let’s be honest, TripleA is basically competing with the physical game for time the players spend on Axis and Allies, it’ll probably be competing monetarily if it was more well known). Buying the game will (hopefully maybe) show them that TripleA isn’t a competitor, but a complement. We should reward Larry and the playtesters for developing such a fantastic game if possible.
Hard to sue a platform as TripleA does not come with the games and is used for various other games as well. But since hasbro does not want to make a decent online version of any Axis&Allies game ( the 1 on steam is crap compared to tripleA ) they cant really complain.
TripleA is great for those with little block of time or that lives far from others that play the game, not everybody can leave the board standing there for 3weeks and if you can only play 2 evenings a week for 3 hours the game might take a while
Suggested Topics
