Posts made by Magister

Greetings from ROmania!
I had played A&A Revised regularly on the former TripleAWarClub Ladder and discussed on this forum - but 2-3 years ago.
I had enjoyed greatly the strategic depth of AAR (No Tech, mostly Low Luck, pairs of 9IPC bids for Axis played by each side) exactly for what it is - a much stylized representation, not a simulation of war, but not exactly chess either. Much more interesting as choices than the first A&A.
At the time, when A&A Anniversary was launched, there was much criticism that it introduced way too much randomness with the strategic bombing and countermeasures.

In your collective opinion, has A&A Revised remained the best for the niche that it was at the time ?
I don’t refer to slight improvements in historical accuracy/simulation value/feeling.

Sorry, my last bug report may have been not-actually-a-bug.
The enemy ships that appeared to co-exist with the own were not moved but built there in the Purchase Phase.
I understood this is forbidden in some A&A versions and allowed in others - but can’t track now which is which
The scenario may have used the setting which allows that.

Thank you very much you team! I checked 1.2.3.0 unstable and it doesn’t have that landing bug in any situation.

Come across another bug under 1.2.3.0 in the ATARI scenario - so don’t know if it’s the engine or the scenario - US flotilla (destroyers, torpedo boats) comes to area of Japanese fleet (carrier+planes, subs, battleship), the sea gets colored red but no battle, they coexist. Can I send a sample file somewhere ?

Generally, is there a more direct procedure to help bug-fighting in a work like TripleA ?

The last Unstable I found (1.2.2.0) seems to have a severe bug!
Land troops unloaded from ships won’t attack enemy area, they just remain there and coexist with defenders.
This happened in many scenarios - and by induction, in any of them.

Yes, 2-3 bombers can be effective either against Russia, or Germany.
But I think it’s most effective if this is done by ONE power only - the one that isn’t sending the main land force. That main land force is much better served within same expense of 15 IPC by extra 5 inf, later 1inf 3art, later 3tnk, then 1ftr 1tnk and last 1bmb - as builds converge and march to the moment of final assault.

I’ve seen Russia being threatened more by Germany - then Japan must bomb more. Or by Japan - then Germans support by bombing (if their own survival isn’t more important). Similarly, US can bring the main troops against Germany with UK to bomb and swap flanks, or the reverse.
Just sending the starting bomber of the ‘land mass power’ to bomb until downed by AA - no problem with that - IF naval threat or land swap functions aren’t needed more. Its damage done until lost (17.5 IPC ~ 6 inf less to enemy) are much less than its effects in the final assault, and just waiting until them.

Now, extra German planes in the mid-game can be a good investment against a balanced, slow KGF if Allies don’t have excess escorts. They already defend where they are almost like 2 more inf (6 IPC), also threaten 1-2 fleets that will need extra escorts, and swap easier on land. Combined with the Japanese fleet coming throught the Med, they can paralyze the Allied moves sandwiched between each of them.
But, that’s not ships, but anti-ship build…

Caspian Sub recommends as its variant to build 2-3 transports on G1. I’ve used those successfully against beginners ! They threaten a landing to Britain either in Turn 2, or 3 (with 5 tra more built).
1 trn is still not enough to defend surely enough against the RAF.

Against veterans, I don’t build German ships. It’s cheaper for the British to invest (planes, subs) to sink them than their cost to Germany. And Germany doesn’t want 1:1 IPC exchanges with any Western allies.

First, one should think WHY did Japan build the 2 factories, instead of the usual 3tra 2inf or 3tra 1tnk or 4tra (with 2IPC from bid) ? If they would like maximum pressure in Asia, the best times to build these factories would be in turns 2-3-4, only to supplement the transports started early.

More often, the 2 IC buy is an emergency response e.g. to the British ‘exploding’ around (Borneo, New Guinea, Solomons, bomber near), so Japan cannot defeat them all and cannot escort a transport mass together with the needed Pearl and China attacks.

Then yes, that buy diverts 30 IPC that neither fight soon at sea, nor on land, so ‘helps’ the US decisions towards KJF. But that is still ‘far away’ enough of the decision ‘hump’ (as in the ‘hump of the camel’ or railroad ‘triage hump’).

I’d jump to KJF on 1US if Japan has built 2IC AND took significant losses (1 carrier, e.g. if btl car didn’t sink the UK destroyer in sz59 easy enough; or 1sub 1fig 1bmb in Pearl)
OR Japan didn’t attack Pearl at all - so US survive with sub car fig worth 36 IPC - that usually go down, often taking only the repaired hit on the Jap battleship.

My style is more ‘tight’ than ‘wild’, but I’ve done:
R1: 1art 4tnk (all in Moscow and Caucasus empty, if Ukraine doesn’t fall to keep Caucasus defensible)
G1: 4inf 7art, also 8inf 4art and the usual 9inf 2art 1tnk

Guess more frequent ‘reactive’ buys don’t count, like:
UK1: 5inf 3tnk (when a large landing threatens)
UK1: 3ftr +US1: 2bmb 4inf (when Germans fleet comes out)
J1: 2 factories (when scattered UK ships are hard to beat fast)

OK, a Karelia G1 stack is very desirable if it can survive (no 3tnk Russian build). It can be fortified in following turns (G2 land fighters, G3 more troops arrive etc).

But the real ‘forking’ pressure comes from a German stack surviving in Ukraine ! How do you prefer to go about shifting the mass there ? -esp. if Allied landing threats are starting to multiply on turns 2-5.

• retreat to EEU with concomitant tank build, next turn push to Ukraine.
• through Belorus
• direct advance to WRU (if possible to defeat Allied stack there, or Allies retreated and Germans can survive counterattacks there)

Yes, the “UK-India and US-Sinkiang factories” is a separate variant of KJF, deserving separate analysis. I’ve seen the analysis on CaspianSub how J can prepare for a huge T3 offensive to retake India (going up to building bombers on J2, and temporarily giving up Manchuria and even Kwangtung if Russians approach), so UK should not do this.

But then cannot see how J can keep at bay the US fleet soon nearing their islands… necessarily a weaker US fleet, since if the Sinkiang factory is built then it must build troops, right ?

I also remember some games started as feigned KJF (1UK ‘explosion’, UK+US factories) but continued as normal KGF (no more US Pacific fleet), still seriously bottlenecking early J income and options, so that J was no threat to Russian income until turn 8 at least.

Often US starts KJF after seeing Japan build 2 factories instead of transports (if UK ‘exploded’ and threatens all seas early). Japan should NOT spend on factories after seeing a clear KJF (big US naval build), but the one in Indochina is still nice to have. Can retreat the fleet in front of it and keep it growing, while threatening any landings on richest islands.

“Japan builds fleet” - OK, but what kind of fleet ?

1. Offensive -many subs; extra fighters for land-carrier doubling
2. Defensive - groups of 2fighters, carrier(s)
3. Free strafing - battleships, but in one big battle least effective for the $.

Also, what is Japan to do in this case ?

• Main US fleet (+some UK remnants) advances to Solomons sz; sacrificial sub covering NW of it (Wake sz).
  Japanese air alone is not enough to defeat it, and next turn whole Jap fleet cannot defeat it with added US reinforcements.

Japanese IC in Novosibirsk or Kazakh. Turns a survival siege into preparing a final offensive.
UK in East Europe. Final builds if Germany holds stubbornly.
UK in West Europe. Only If Germany made the mistake of insufficient counteroffensive power ready in 1-2 turns.

Spain - its neutrality (non-invadability by Allies) makes a German Fortress Europe sometimes feasible.
Himalaya - reduces use of Indochina or India factory, separating the Asian theater in 2 (Mongolia fuirther separates the center-north in 2).

Sea: Baltic. Means Allied landing threats multiplied x5 and Germany starts to give up some -or more- of them.
Land: Kazakh ! A strong Japanese stack there both besieges Moscow and keeps at bay a huge US flow through Africa.

German bomber ! May be key to keeping Allied fleets at bay longer.
(Since it isn’t on the list, then, have to settle for…) Russian fighter.

OK with a UK/US division of labour to reduce multi-attacker’s disadvantage, but I’d do it the other way !
England has a limit of 8 units production and often limited income too, so better they swap coasts and bomb (and a little inf+arty first strike doesn’t hurt either). US can gather the big assault army with 11 units per turn (4 transports x2 + 3 from Norway factory)
Another good bombing opportunity is a new Japanese factory unprotected by AA. Averages only 2.5 IPC = (1+2+3+3+3+3)/6 with a limit of 3 IPC, but no risk.

If you can add several bid units to same area, then yes - 2inf 1arty in Ukraine are way better than 1 fighter there.
And even if not, 2inf 1arty can help several theaters - like arty Libya, inf Ukraine, inf Belorus (or EEu).

There is enough good in Ivan’s suggestions for basic cases, still too rigid.

1R To strafe Ukraine with less than full power is the worst, enduring the fighter’s defensive fire without destroying it.
Taking it (or attempting seriously) yes, withdraw if not enough forces remaining yes (say 2ftr vs 1tnk 1ftr).
West Russia is the MUST in any case. Just because 6inf 1art do not have anything else to do On top of WRU, then Ukraine or Belo are reasonable choices.

1G take Egypt and clear Med yes. Clear Ukraine yes, to try lightly if reasonable (2inf 1tnk 1ftr vs 2tnk) but to hold NO, likely impossible.
Hold Karelia, yes, if survivable. Russia can make it a dead zone (say 7inf 1art 2tnk survive in WRu and build 3inf 3tnk)

Later builds: mostly inf, yes. Short impulses of all-tanks can be decisive added to earlier inf waves, and if Allied coastal threats are tolerable. More fighters can also be good in some combinations.

1UK counterattack Egypt yes, if enticing enough (up to 3 tanks). The Borneo amok is still not bad.
1UK+1US group to Algeria (not Tunisia, not an A&A area) yes, if no overwhelming air+fleet in range. Not if GE 5ftr 2bmb vs 1btl 1des 4tra 1sub.
Evacuating India can be a necessity, better than losing it with troops and AA too. AA helps enough Russians.

1J the stated combination (Pearl, China, Buryat) is suicidal against the maximum of each.
Building 2 IC instead of 3 tra can be a forced necessity if enough (UK) naval threats survive nearby.

1US building 3tra 3tnk 1inf is too Germany-oriented, a Japanese fleet threatening Canada makes it a catastrophic mistake. Even 3tra 3art 2inf is too troop-thin.

If fighters are already plentiful for needed pitched battles and/or swaps, then yes, bomb their key capital even vs AA.
On average a fighter should live 5 missions before being shot, and do 17.5 IPC damage. 6 less inf to beat is much more than the attack contribution of the bomber kept waiting for that final moment.
Even better, this circumvents multi-attacker’s disadvantage, so, say, Germany can specialize on bombing Moscow (2 bombers every turn) and Japan assaults it better than if Germany sent a barely (in)sufficient siege/assault force.

If enemy will advance the main mass there, then leave it empty, (or if it’s enemy controlled now, blitz it with a tank and back and leave it empty).
If it will be swapped, it depends who has superior airforce. Germans usually leave 1-2-3 inf. Russia leave it empty.
If Allies do KGF with multi-attacker disadvantage (vs Germany, redundant to say), then leave 1-2-3 inf. Germany leave empty (since equal attrition is disadvantageous). Except if wanting to prevent a deeper penetration, then leave a tactical block.

What if the Russian Turn 2 counterattack to Ukraine is a 2-3 round raid and retreats (to either WRus or Cauc) just before exposing the expensive victors ? Then add more arty/inf in Caucasus and tanks in Moscow so Ukraine is a real dead zone. To enter it (and stay alive), Germany needs infantry, LOTS of it. Tanks alone are a big waste !

2-3 German rounds of building (almost) all inf, followed by 2 rounds of tanks throw an irresistible ‘cumulated charge’ at Ukraine and beyond. Survive at first, then survive safer (land German fighters too), then with the full 4 waves, attack !
Some little questions are what about the Western threat in the meantime, and what about the ‘hollow’ following the ‘cumulative charge’ if changing back to build inf, slow to reach the front.

A further complication on calculating the required German defense of France vs the UK 1 - US 2. Do Germans need to count the ‘US 2’ as one normal transport wave (say 4 transports), or two cumulated waves (if US redirects the ‘shuck’ from Africa) with a pause next turn ? It resumes to the question: would US dare that ? or have interest ?

Also, if US shuttles to Africa, is it well for Germany to defend Italy with full force to hold it, or a similar wait and counterattack policy ?

Even if Germany holds Ukraine early, better build 5 more inf instead in Germany/Italy and march them east. 2 turns later, they arrive (compared to 6 inf Ukraine could have built by then).
It’s more flexible so, because the 3 inf in Germany and 3 in EEU or Balkans are adding to the defense of their ‘pipeline’ and can reverse at any time if needed.

My preferred 1G build is 12inf 1arty = 40 IPC. Tanks are good to add later or replace the slow flow, creating a ‘cumulative charge’ in which 4 turns of production arrive over 2 turns to overwhelm Ukr/Caucasus/Moscow.

@Cmdr:

And, as Switch said, if you put your fleet in SZ 5, just buy a submarine.  8 IPC can save you hundreds of IPC!

8 IPC gone each turn saves hundreds of IPC. One should calculate if the ‘interest paid’ on that ‘loan’ is worth it…