Is there a version of TripleA with the revised map?
Latest posts made by Epicurus
RE: Playing A&A revised online - what's the best method?
RE: Playing A&A revised online - what's the best method?
Ah, not sure what an online dicey is. How shall I go about finding one? I’ll go search for old threads on this topic.
EDIT: All right, I’ve signed up with DAAK. not 100% clear on how to proceed but I’ll figure it out when I have fewer essays due. Thanks a million!
RE: India Complex: To be or not to be?
I can see your point regarding Africa, (though the US can always re-take that anyway, right?)
It just seems that when the UK ignores india, Japan is left alone to do as it pleases to too great an extent. maybe further play will show otherwise (especially once my opponents and I get good)
Playing A&A revised online - what's the best method?
I’ve noticed that some people on the forums seem to be having PBEM games of Axis and Allies and was wondering how to get into that? I’m always looking for a chance to practice and learn, since the people I play with are not as obsessed as me and can only stomach to play one game every month or two (if that!). I’ve heard a bit about DAAK… is this what i should pursue? I’d love to get into some games, if anyone needs an opponent (and not yet a very good one - easy wins ; )
India Complex: To be or not to be?
I know what you might be thinking: “hasn’t this fellow played a few games by now and come to the inevitable conclusion that a factory in India on the first UK turn is a death sentence for the allies?”
Well, yes, I have in fact read the India complex strategy paper on Caspian Sub and the comments of several forum members to the effect that a complex in India is untenable. And I will agree that if overwheliming force is brought to bear upon it then it is in fact sure to fall. But I don’t see why it is a terrible move for the UK (though of course it probably is; but as I have played only a few games I do not have the evidence to back this). In the games I have played, the presence of a factory in India has forced japan to greatly slow their attack on russia and China, even if it will eventually be captured. Like the Aborted Canadian shield tactic or reinforcing the balitc fleet as germany, it may have preventative value even if it should “fail”. I’m not saying it does; but in those games where the UK has ignored india, Japan just rolls through so quickly and thoroughly that it seems a good deal of ground is lost for nought (more, perhaps, than 15 IPCs and an eventual extra Japanese factory is worth).
So my question; what is to be done with the 15 IPCs saved for the UK? And please post evidence that it will be more useful long-term than the IPC in India.
P.S: This is not a claim that the India Complex is a good move - rather, I’m trying to see why it is not.
A note: in the games I have played, Japan has often neglected to transport their starting troops off of the island, opting instead to build factories. I know that this causes an early-game slowdown for the japs and might be skewing the results I have observed.
RE: German Strategy question: Fighters to Western Europe?
Yeah you don’t defend with just fighters…you stack infantry so your fighters are well-cushioned and wreak massive havoc on attacking forces…
I most certainly agree. In fact, that was probably the source of my confusion.
Anyway, it makes sense in light of the tactic of sending a few infantry per turn to support the fighters there, which makes Western Europe both a good staging area for fighters and also a very imposing defense. Thanks for the clarification!
P.S: Very quick and well-informed response! I’m impressed with the forum.
German Strategy question: Fighters to Western Europe?
I’ve been perusing strategy papers from various A&A revised resources cough Caspian Sub cough and I noticed that a commonly referenced German strategy for beginning players is to station most or all fighters in Western Europe. I’m wondering what the logic is behind this move… I believe that I read somewhere that it is to “defend against naval attack”. I don’t see how it could accomplish this, since a ship can be three squares away on one turn (and thus out of the fighter’s attack/return range) and then adjacent on the next turn, therefor able to offload tanks and infantry right into your expensive fighter planes. Now Bombers, I can see, since their effective range of 3 means that they can attack any naval threat at least once before it gets to offload, but the fighters just confuse me.
Are they intended to just sit in the territory and actually be the frontline defense? Without tons of infantry that seems crazy, as your opponent gets to trade infantry for fighters. Anyhow, I’m sure I must be overlooking something. If necessary I’ll look up the reference where I read this, but hopefully someone can clear this up. Where do YOU park your fighters on your first few turns as Germany?
RE: Rules clarifications re: Shore Combardment and AA guns
Many thanks. I thought that seemed a bit too potent ; )
Rules clarifications re: Shore Combardment and AA guns
Hello Forums, just a simple A&A novice who has recently picked up the revised and pacific editions. Just looking for a rule clarification regarding shore bombardment in revised: Based on my reading of the “opening fire” round entry in the manual, it seems that shore bombardment happens in every round of combat. and also removes targets such that they cannot return fire. This is very different from the rules regarding shore bombardment as stated in A&A pacific, I believe, and so I am seeking confirmation or correction. Also, do defending AA guns in a combat (not a Strategic Bombing raid) get to fire one shot at each attacking plane every turn, or only once? Again, the rules indicate every turn and every plane, but it nevers hurts to be sure.
Thank you for you time and expertise!