AA Java

@ShadowHAwk:

@simon33:

@thespaceman:

But remember any destroyers built in japans turn are attacked in the US turn. Only 3 scrambles can join battle. Destroyers must be taken as casualties because subs cant hit planes. Once no destroyers left planes cannot attack.� �

Us can also add in planes flying out of Aleutian islands or russia in order to keep the seas clear of destroyers.

Unless you’re talking about bombers, they can’t fly out of the Aleutians. You can fly off CVs though.

Still, if the USA are dominant enough to pull this off, I feel like it’s a missed opportunity to not take Korea. Unless there’s tonne of units on it I suppose.

You build the destroyers slightly out of range, now the subs stay out of the convoy zones or you just kill them.
If you place only 1 sub in SZ6 i can ignore it if you place 2 then ill sink them at maby the cost of 1 destroyer

1. The deal with the subs vs destroyers. Its not going to be 1 or 2. If US commits to building 2-4 per round then by turn 3-5 when the attack goes in its going to be 5,10 or even 15 subs. 1-2 subs is a minor nuisance for Japan and can easily be defeated. 10 subs is another story.

2. If Japan is using its mainland factories to relieve its home Islands then this has already achieved the purpose of the blockade which is to shut off Japanese production of ground units and shift their focus north away from Anzac and UK Pac. It also has stopped transports shuttling troops between Japan and China.

3. The Korea factory as opposed to taking money islands allows US + Russia working together to start to rebuild China. Once China can start to regrow its units safely in the north Japan is now under attack from 5 directions

1. UK-Pac in Burma/Yunnan
2. China
3. Russia from west and north
4. US from North East
5. Anzac from South East.

Japan no longer has a safe area and the mainland factories will soon be under attack.

Ta you two, that was what i was assuming!

Bravehart

Indeed it was.  :-)    However I did not get to see the inside of the box.  :-(

If I recall triple a always had an option to view total # of rules and the # of times each result came up. I used to look at those things, fluctuation is like real life. I mean you flip a coin ten times, the odds of you getting 5 heads and 5 tails is 25%~ .  The odds of you getting exact average 1 2 3 4 5 6 rolls out of thousand of dice rolls… is pretty damn low. certain dice will show up more than others and it is different with every game, but over the course of thousands of games and millions of dice rolls, you get close to the average.

So you getting the results you got, is not exactly a surprise, but over two years I haven’t seen you play often so I don’t know how many games this is. Also keeping track of the unit being an AA gun, inf, fighter etc… is kind of silly since the dice server does not know what unit you are rolling, the program just takes the results from the dice server and uses that to tell you which units hit or miss… it is not trying to match 1 rolls with units that roll at 1.

normalized dice servers will increase the odds toward an exact average or they simply took a million rolls cut out strings of the same result and they follow a preset string.

I tend to stay away from dice server arguments, because I did not program them. Also a computer program can never truly mimic natural dice rolling, it can extremely close to it though, but I do understand why people only play in real life with the dice in their hands.
~
I have heard complaints of normalized dice results here. It all depends on the programming.

Ok, thanks

reverse ur countries. were talking about germ attacking a rus blocker stack.(or italy)

A long time ago, back when we just had the Classic MB version of A&A, I started working on an idea to break all territories into smaller sections so it wouldn’t just be one battle and you get the whole territory.  For example, the Eastern US territory would be broken down into all the different states so if an Axis attacked it, they would have to fight state to state in order to win that territory, and maybe some of the larger states could be split into two or three sections.  I thought this seemed more realistic than just one battle and you win the entire Eastern half of the United States.
However, many problems became apparent fairly quickly.  First of all, I couldn’t always find more detailed maps of some of the territories like those in central and eastern Russia, territories in Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. 
Also, going from the World map to a single territory map you would have to change all the units.  For example;  you have 10 infantry, 2 armor and 2 fighters defending Eastern USA.  If you shrink this down to just that territory broken up into many territories,  it would have to be something like 100 infantry, 20 armors and 20 fighters spread out amongst all those territories.  Plus you would have to figure out where to put them and it wouldn’t necessarily be an even amount.  You wouldn’t have the same amount of units defending Washington or New York as you would some empty space.  The same would hold true for the attackers.  How many units would you have attacking each territory?  Plus, I didn’t have a clue as to how to break it down like this for Naval warfare.  How many actual ships does 1 battleship on the World Map represent on the smaller maps?
Finally, it occurred to me that this would make just one game of A&A take literally MONTHS to complete.  Attacking a territory would be like opening up a whole new game.  Granted, there are a number of unoccupied territories that you could simply “blitz” and not have to refer to the smaller maps, but any substantial combat would take hours to complete as your forces move to take a territory a piece at a time.  Also, this would possibly mess up some attacks and leave a territory in a “contested” state for some time.  For example;  Germany invades Eastern US.  Germany has 20 Inf, 8 tanks, 2 fighters and 2 bombers.  The US has 10 inf, 2 tanks and 2 fighters plus the AA gun.  Now, depending on how the forces get laid out on the small scale map, and also depending on luck of the dice rolls, there are any number of outcomes.  On the World Map, it would be one big battle and over, likely with Germany winning .  However, on the small  map, it’s possible that say the Germans did well in the north.  However, in the south the US forces defeated the invader and still have good forces intact.  Also, on this scale, there will likely be more US forces farther inland as reserves.  So now the territory of Eastern USA is basically half German controlled and half US controlled.  This would drag this one battle out even longer.  Now, it’s possible that the triumphant German forces in the North could possibly get whittled down to nothing as they try to work their way south.
Anyway, my point is that doing a game like this would make it take way too long and I would imagine most people would lose intereste after a while.  It’s an interesting concept but if you get too detailed the game loses its fun.

A very good idea. As it is now I don’t think I wil, ever buy a new one. I usually don’t buy them anyway, except for coastal defense as Germany. But with them being operational in the invaders next turn would make them worth more, even compared to vanilla Global rules.