3 players

hi,

if you are still interested i am willing to introduce you to triplea lobby play in real time?

bye
ole

Personally, I think that both options have their advantages.
Sure, playing one on one has something ‘chessy’(and I mean the game :lol:) about it. It’s like you’re trying to get inside the mind of your opponent, deducting his strategy as he/she makes moves and try to make his plans part of your masterplan. It’s fun, it takes a lot of mental work but it’s worth it.
Then again, playing 2 vs 2(I’ve never played with 5 people, and for this I apologize  :wink:) has a lot of good features too. Two minds see and think of more than just one. Putting your ideas together will often result in a better plan than either of you thought of, and defeating 2 of your friends(who are your intellectual equals, at least concerning A&A :roll:) gives an enormous satisfaction. Beating two people who think together to defeat you is something special, at least to me.

To sum up. There will always be people who prefer one or the other, but I believe that each has its charm, and therefor such discussions are a bit pointless. And to end with a golden oldie: “Live and let live”(Unless your opponents are playing on the Allied side, in which case, kill the bastards :evil:)

There are numerous errors in the rule book that comes with the game.  You may want to check out Larry Harris Tournament Rules (which are available from a link on the main page of this website).

The only “opening fire” that repeats after the first round of combat is Submarine Sneak Attack.

BB Shore Bombardment and AA fire are limited to only opening fire of the first round of combat.

I’ve seen fast carriers help in 2 specific situations:

1)  Japan forgets that the Pearl Harbor Carrier and fighters can get to SZ 61 resulting in the loss of all of Japan’s unprotected transports.
2)  America builds one last carrier and two fighters for that assault on SZ 60 (SZ 55 to SZ 60 is 3 spaces.) Or even just buys two fast carriers so the 4 fighters in W. Canada can reach SZ 60.

But how often does that happen?

How much better off would naval warfare in the Pacific be if America had 3 fighters on the flight deck of a carrier, or could recover a bomber on an empty carrier?

No bid, with equally skilled players and no major mistakes, and no bid…

Axis win from 30% to 40% of games.

There’s a factor no-one considered though. When 3 people play, we usually set it up with 1 axis vs. 2 allies, with each allied player picking a country, and sharing the third. That way coordination is forced, and most importantly: everyone gets 2 turns a round, instead of one player getting three and the other two getting one each.

My opening German move to attack UK fleet is ussually kinda like this (the availability of my fighters depends on russian player of course…)

Sub z8 attacks z2 along with Bomber from germany, fighter norway.  (a bit risky move i know…)

Battleship z14 to z 13 along fighter from france

Transport z 14 to z 15 along fighter from balkans,

What i buy is situated to the actions of the russian player, but either i go a battle ship and 3 tanks, or 8 tanks or 6 tanks and a transport to put in italy…  Option on 4 tanks and a transport (italy) and a destroyer (baltic sea) have crosed my mind…

Any thoughts?

i like 5 since i dont get to play very often and this makes it more of a social event where we can all talk friendly trash to each other.  we also avoid blatant suggestions “buy 3 transports and two infantry, move these pieces here and these there” because then they become nothing but a dice roller.  it is more like “hey jap buddy, get your butt into asia as fast as you can, i’ll meet you in moscow!”