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)