Hello everyone, I’m new to this forum.

Let me introduce myself: I’m Oliviero, I’m 53 years old, I’m Italian and I’m a teacher in a school for foreign adults. I played the very first edition of A&A a long time ago; I stopped because I didn’t have people to play with in my area, but I remember how I studied the strategies of both sides in depth to “theorize” the best “initial openings” (I’m a chess player, so I’m “deformed” in that sense). Now I’ve picked up that edition again (which has remained in my heart), but I’ve bought practically all the best A&A games released in recent years: Europe 40, Pacific 40, WWI, Anniversary edition … and North Africa (tell me if I’ve forgotten something worth buying). I can’t wait to start playing with all these games, but for now I’ve started with North Africa (perhaps the most complex, or in any case the most different from the others in the A&A series). I would like to have (if there are people available) advice from experienced players about the strategy to adopt as UK (and Allies in general) because I think I will play the first games on that side of the deployment, especially in the Rommel Last Push scenario. I would also like to have an overview of the various units (utility, best use, purchasing strategies), obviously not what concerns the rules found in the rulebook, but advice on which are the most effective in attack and defense based on the cost/effectiveness ratio.

I thank in advance those who will want to respond.

@Witt I am a history enthusiast (like all wargamers I think) and I have taught it for many years.

I wanted to know how exactly the German anti-tank works, i.e. whether, in the same turn, it can shoot both as an anti-aircraft and as an anti-tank (i.e., shooting 2 times). For example, if a territory that also contains a German anti-tank is attacked by 2 infantry, 2 tanks and 2 planes, should the anti-tank first shoot as an AAA (this happens before the attack begins), then, shoot again as a defensive unit (choosing, among other things, the tank target of its shot for the first combat turn)?

A&A North Africa - RLP game 1 - ITA3.pdf Ok, I’m exposing myself to public ridicule by posting the situation of my first ever game. We started and stopped the game at the beginning of Italy’s third turn (we’ll continue from Phase 1 of ITA3), I took pictures of the various areas and then uploaded the setup to the file I’m attaching. I’ll try to give you a brief account of the first few turns (from what I remember), to report mostly my impressions. I’m the UK, as I anticipated. Gross errors are evident on the map, errors due to not knowing the map accurately, not being able to create deep strategic plans yet, not being able to predict the long-term consequences of the various maneuvers having to, in these first games, take into account all the rules, the peculiarities of the new units and the combat/supply/convoy mechanisms. For example, I did not mine the border between Tobruck and Bir Hacheim, concentrating only on the Tobruck-Benghazi border and thus allowing the Germans to enter from the South undisturbed, or like the gross error by the Axis to leave Tripoli undefended for the English Scout Car (which was in the Sahara Desert J). The Axis took away my RPs from Malta by bombing it, but I took it back by purchasing Destroyers and submarines and by converging the English fleet of Gibraltar and Egypt around Malta, protecting the English convoy of Malta and managing to attack the German convoy (3 inf and 1 tank will arrive in Benghazi, the rest were eliminated along with the Italian escort). I imagine I will continue to invest in the Navy and any Aircraft for Malta, hoping to be able to slow down the Axis on the mainland and Mersa Metruch to resist as long as possible in Cairo. The point is that, as I have said several times, I still can’t figure out what the most effective combination of troops is both for the attack and, especially in the case of the UK, for the defense. However, it seems clear to me (but this is my first impression) that the only chance of victory for the Allies is (as happened historically) to have control of the Mediterranean to block the convoys and therefore the supplies of the Axis, otherwise holding Cairo I think becomes impossible, perhaps even after the entry into the war of the USA. I imagine Italy will try to overcome the problem and I think it will focus on the restoration of its Navy to counter the English one and try to remove Malta’s support from the UK. This, however, will inevitably take away troops for Africa and I don’t know if the German, (almost) alone will be able to take Cairo (every turn gained works against the Axis due to the entry into play of the USA which will open the second front). I imagine we will replay a few turns in the next few days and eventually, if you want, I will update you. In the meantime, I hope to receive some of your considerations.

@Witt Yes, if you read my previous post (but I also posted one today where I report yesterday’s game), you know what I think: I am an International Chess Master and strategy games have always been my passion; I played the very first edition of A&A many years ago (and for many years), then I gave up because I had no one to play with. Now I have bought practically everything that has come out (Europe and Pacific 40 SE, Anniversary, WWI and Nord Africa. My son (20 years old) is also passionate about wargames and so we often play together and with some of his friends). We started with Nord Africa (and I think we will continue to play it for a while because I really like how it is made), even if we will start Europe 40 soon.

@Matt-Hyra Ok, after a week in bed with fever, last night, finally, I was able to resume and finish the first game of A&A North Africa (from the situation I posted above). At the end of the sixth turn (so just before the arrival of the United States in Africa), the Axis surrendered since the situation was actually very compromised. I’m not here to say that the allies are advantaged (or that the Axis is): one game is too little to be able to express judgments. And it must be considered that it was the first game for everyone, so with many involuntary violations of the rules on both sides and many strategic and tactical errors. However, as I said, I will try (for what it’s worth) to summarize what happened (thereby expressing some of my considerations). The Axis managed to take Mersa Metruh quite easily (as expected), but the assault on Cairo was difficult, also given the lack of supplies available. This was the result of the strong English presence in the Mediterranean and the aircraft stationed in Malta (supplied thanks to the presence of the English fleet), which significantly reduced everything that the convoys should have brought from Italy to Africa. At that point (perhaps belatedly), both Italy and Germany began to invest heavily in the fleet in order to revitalize their convoys, but this gave the English time to organize a heavy counteroffensive right at Mersa Metruh which drastically reduced the Axis supplies, paralyzing it, in fact. The English therefore also had the time and resources to rebuild their fleet, Cairo being “safe”. This was the situation immediately before the Americans entered. At that point the Axis players decided to sign the surrender.

Considerations: as I said, one game (and the first game with all the errors included) is not enough to give a definitive judgment on the game or the strategy, but it allows me to make a very first assessment and share some considerations with you (for what they are worth and that will have to be tested in the following games anyway). First of all, I like the game a lot, I find it very deep strategically and I am convinced that I will spend several hours playing it.
I do not know what exactly happens when the United States enters the game (the next game will be on Operation Torch and I will try to understand), but I have the feeling that in RLP, if the Axis does not manage to break through and seriously threaten Cairo by turn 5-6, the game is decided in favor of the Allies. The problem for the Axis is to be able to balance the escort to the convoys with the purchase of troops to attack Cairo. The supplies (navy) take time and resources away from the ground troops intended for the attack on Cairo, but if this aspect is neglected, the Axis risks (as happened in my game … and in 1942 …) to remain bogged down at the gates of Cairo without sufficient supplies and therefore exposed to the English counteroffensive. Germany has a formidable army (the German troops are all much superior to the English ones) and this is an important factor to keep in mind and that can represent a point in favor of the Axis (if exploited) and the 1-2 game with Italy for the attacks can, in some cases, make the difference … but …
… However I have the feeling that in the end the Allies are to be considered slightly preferable (and I repeat, I do not know what will happen when the Americans enter the game). The English must have nerves of steel and resist, retreat, raid even single supplies if necessary with scout cars or bombers, heavily mine the Cairo-Mersa Metruh border (turn by turn, starting from the first turn) and resist. The Axis blanket (as in other games of the A&A series) always seems to be too short (but history has taught us this): if you defend the convoys, you allow the English to breathe and organize the defense of Cairo, if you attack head on, but you can’t break through to Cairo, you risk getting stuck in Mersa Metruh (except for dice rolls that tip the scales in their favor) waiting for the English counteroffensive. Obviously I would be happy to have the opinion of others, especially experienced players and/or with many games behind them.

I certainly have to compliment Matt Hyra for the splendid game he created.

@Matt-Hyra Thanks, that’s what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

A&A North Africa - TO I8.pdf Hello everyone, I propose the position on the board at the beginning of the eighth turn of Italy in the “Operation Torch” scenario to have your opinions on the strategy of the game in practice (often “abstract” considerations are made, before playing, which then “clash” with what actually happens on the board). In this game I was assigned the American (we decided to draw by lot at the beginning of each game the power with which we will play in order to be able to experiment and try the game under various aspects). This is only the third game we play and the first ever with “Operation Torch” (so there may again be involuntary errors in the rules, but games also serve this purpose: to clarify doubts and avoid errors for the future). The English have (as I think is obvious) heavily attacked MM in the first turn and took Tobruck in the second, wiping out all Axis resistance, but they lost Malta (this also seems to me an almost inevitable thing if the Axis decides to concentrate on it) and a good part of the fleet has sunk due to the mines around the Mediterranean Channel (very lucky shots by the Axis) and the action of the Italian air force, managing however to eliminate some German supplies. The Axis has destroyed a good part of the American convoy with its 3 U-boats (it sank the 2 destroyers and part of the cargo) and is preparing for an offensive to the West towards Casablanca. The Italians I imagine will try to create a front around Tripoli, waiting to be able to organize a counteroffensive against the English if the latter “stretches too far” without due preparation. As an American I plan to invest in the very first turn in planes (forbidden in turn 7) that can serve as escorts to convoys against the terrible German U-boats, but also as attack/defense units; I will also take destroyers and some ground troops (in addition to the fixed 10 supply) trying to contain the German initiative in Algiers to try to organize a counteroffensive as soon as there are enough troops. I also have to understand which convoy to use and which is more convenient (considering that in the seventh turn I could not choose being forced to use the one in Casablanca). It is the first time that we play this scenario which, however, gives me the impression of being a bit unbalanced in favor of the Allies (maybe it will have depended on the initial moves, on strategic and tactical errors, I don’t know). However, it seems clear to me that only the Allies can, in this scenario, aim for a total victory (since Tunis is a concrete and achievable objective, if everything goes well), while Cairo seems to me really a utopia for the Axis. But I would like your considerations as experienced players. Eventually I will update you on the continuation of the match (I think we will resume it on Saturday).

A&A North Africa - TO I8.pdf Hello everyone, I propose the position on the board at the beginning of the eighth turn of Italy in the “Operation Torch” scenario to have your opinions on the strategy of the game in practice (often “abstract” considerations are made, before playing, which then “clash” with what actually happens on the board). In this game I was assigned the American (we decided to draw by lot at the beginning of each game the power with which we will play in order to be able to experiment and try the game under various aspects). This is only the third game we play and the first ever with “Operation Torch” (so there may again be involuntary errors in the rules, but games also serve this purpose: to clarify doubts and avoid errors for the future). The English have (as I think is obvious) heavily attacked MM in the first turn and took Tobruck in the second, wiping out all Axis resistance, but they lost Malta (this also seems to me an almost inevitable thing if the Axis decides to concentrate on it) and a good part of the fleet has sunk due to the mines around the Mediterranean Channel (very lucky shots by the Axis) and the action of the Italian air force, managing however to eliminate some German supplies. The Axis has destroyed a good part of the American convoy with its 3 U-boats (it sank the 2 destroyers and part of the cargo) and is preparing for an offensive to the West towards Casablanca. The Italians I imagine will try to create a front around Tripoli, waiting to be able to organize a counteroffensive against the English if the latter “stretches too far” without due preparation. As an American I plan to invest in the very first turn in planes (forbidden in turn 7) that can serve as escorts to convoys against the terrible German U-boats, but also as attack/defense units; I will also take destroyers and some ground troops (in addition to the fixed 10 supply) trying to contain the German initiative in Algiers to try to organize a counteroffensive as soon as there are enough troops. I also have to understand which convoy to use and which is more convenient (considering that in the seventh turn I could not choose being forced to use the one in Casablanca). It is the first time that we play this scenario which, however, gives me the impression of being a bit unbalanced in favor of the Allies (maybe it will have depended on the initial moves, on strategic and tactical errors, I don’t know). However, it seems clear to me that only the Allies can, in this scenario, aim for a total victory (since Tunis is a concrete and achievable objective, if everything goes well), while Cairo seems to me really a utopia for the Axis. But I would like your considerations as experienced players. Eventually I will update you on the continuation of the match (I think we will resume it on Saturday).

@Matt-Hyra Thanks, that’s what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

I wanted to know how exactly the German anti-tank works, i.e. whether, in the same turn, it can shoot both as an anti-aircraft and as an anti-tank (i.e., shooting 2 times). For example, if a territory that also contains a German anti-tank is attacked by 2 infantry, 2 tanks and 2 planes, should the anti-tank first shoot as an AAA (this happens before the attack begins), then, shoot again as a defensive unit (choosing, among other things, the tank target of its shot for the first combat turn)?

@Witt I am a history enthusiast (like all wargamers I think) and I have taught it for many years.

@Witt Yes, if you read my previous post (but I also posted one today where I report yesterday’s game), you know what I think: I am an International Chess Master and strategy games have always been my passion; I played the very first edition of A&A many years ago (and for many years), then I gave up because I had no one to play with. Now I have bought practically everything that has come out (Europe and Pacific 40 SE, Anniversary, WWI and Nord Africa. My son (20 years old) is also passionate about wargames and so we often play together and with some of his friends). We started with Nord Africa (and I think we will continue to play it for a while because I really like how it is made), even if we will start Europe 40 soon.

@Witt thanks for the explanation and the answer; the doubt (but it was only to be sure) is that the presence of the destroyer (to allow the planes to hit the subs) was necessary ONLY in the first round of combat and the planes could continue to hit the subs even after the sinking of the destroyer because this mechanism had been triggered at the BEGINNING of combat. However, the situation that was created in the first edition of A&A would have occurred where the planes could hit the subs with impunity without fearing any response from them (a problem that I believe has been largely overcome in subsequent editions of A&A). However, I am from Ragusa, Sicily, I am 53 years old and I am a teacher.

I need a clarification (I already know that the question will be stupid for most people): in an air-naval battle, does the presence of a destroyer make it possible for the planes to hit the submarines for the entire duration of the combat or until the destroyer participates in the combat? I’ll give a practical example to try to be clearer: 3 German submarines and an Italian one are attacked by 1 English submarine, 1 destroyer, 2 fighters and 1 bomber. Given the presence of the English destroyer AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COMBAT, the Axis submarines cannot submerge, they have no surprise attack and CAN BE targeted by English planes (if I understood the rules correctly). The English score 2 hits in the first round of combat and the Axis submarines 3. My doubt is: will the losses for the English be 3? That is, will the third hit of the German submarine hit an English plane or will it be lost? Continuing with the question: if the English (with 2 or 3 hits suffered and in any case WITHOUT HAVING the destroyer) can continue to attack the German submarines (without, I believe, being hit in turn, as happened in the first edition of A&A) or does the sinking of the destroyer restore the rule according to which submarines and air units cannot hit each other? I hope I was clear.

@Matt-Hyra Ok, after a week in bed with fever, last night, finally, I was able to resume and finish the first game of A&A North Africa (from the situation I posted above). At the end of the sixth turn (so just before the arrival of the United States in Africa), the Axis surrendered since the situation was actually very compromised. I’m not here to say that the allies are advantaged (or that the Axis is): one game is too little to be able to express judgments. And it must be considered that it was the first game for everyone, so with many involuntary violations of the rules on both sides and many strategic and tactical errors. However, as I said, I will try (for what it’s worth) to summarize what happened (thereby expressing some of my considerations). The Axis managed to take Mersa Metruh quite easily (as expected), but the assault on Cairo was difficult, also given the lack of supplies available. This was the result of the strong English presence in the Mediterranean and the aircraft stationed in Malta (supplied thanks to the presence of the English fleet), which significantly reduced everything that the convoys should have brought from Italy to Africa. At that point (perhaps belatedly), both Italy and Germany began to invest heavily in the fleet in order to revitalize their convoys, but this gave the English time to organize a heavy counteroffensive right at Mersa Metruh which drastically reduced the Axis supplies, paralyzing it, in fact. The English therefore also had the time and resources to rebuild their fleet, Cairo being “safe”. This was the situation immediately before the Americans entered. At that point the Axis players decided to sign the surrender.

Considerations: as I said, one game (and the first game with all the errors included) is not enough to give a definitive judgment on the game or the strategy, but it allows me to make a very first assessment and share some considerations with you (for what they are worth and that will have to be tested in the following games anyway). First of all, I like the game a lot, I find it very deep strategically and I am convinced that I will spend several hours playing it.
I do not know what exactly happens when the United States enters the game (the next game will be on Operation Torch and I will try to understand), but I have the feeling that in RLP, if the Axis does not manage to break through and seriously threaten Cairo by turn 5-6, the game is decided in favor of the Allies. The problem for the Axis is to be able to balance the escort to the convoys with the purchase of troops to attack Cairo. The supplies (navy) take time and resources away from the ground troops intended for the attack on Cairo, but if this aspect is neglected, the Axis risks (as happened in my game … and in 1942 …) to remain bogged down at the gates of Cairo without sufficient supplies and therefore exposed to the English counteroffensive. Germany has a formidable army (the German troops are all much superior to the English ones) and this is an important factor to keep in mind and that can represent a point in favor of the Axis (if exploited) and the 1-2 game with Italy for the attacks can, in some cases, make the difference … but …
… However I have the feeling that in the end the Allies are to be considered slightly preferable (and I repeat, I do not know what will happen when the Americans enter the game). The English must have nerves of steel and resist, retreat, raid even single supplies if necessary with scout cars or bombers, heavily mine the Cairo-Mersa Metruh border (turn by turn, starting from the first turn) and resist. The Axis blanket (as in other games of the A&A series) always seems to be too short (but history has taught us this): if you defend the convoys, you allow the English to breathe and organize the defense of Cairo, if you attack head on, but you can’t break through to Cairo, you risk getting stuck in Mersa Metruh (except for dice rolls that tip the scales in their favor) waiting for the English counteroffensive. Obviously I would be happy to have the opinion of others, especially experienced players and/or with many games behind them.

I certainly have to compliment Matt Hyra for the splendid game he created.

@Matt-Hyra
Thank you so much for the corrections and advice, when the game continues maybe I’ll update you (if you want) to be able to continue the discussion on the rules (for me) and on the strategy (I think for everyone).

A&A North Africa - RLP game 1 - ITA3.pdf Ok, I’m exposing myself to public ridicule by posting the situation of my first ever game. We started and stopped the game at the beginning of Italy’s third turn (we’ll continue from Phase 1 of ITA3), I took pictures of the various areas and then uploaded the setup to the file I’m attaching. I’ll try to give you a brief account of the first few turns (from what I remember), to report mostly my impressions. I’m the UK, as I anticipated. Gross errors are evident on the map, errors due to not knowing the map accurately, not being able to create deep strategic plans yet, not being able to predict the long-term consequences of the various maneuvers having to, in these first games, take into account all the rules, the peculiarities of the new units and the combat/supply/convoy mechanisms. For example, I did not mine the border between Tobruck and Bir Hacheim, concentrating only on the Tobruck-Benghazi border and thus allowing the Germans to enter from the South undisturbed, or like the gross error by the Axis to leave Tripoli undefended for the English Scout Car (which was in the Sahara Desert J). The Axis took away my RPs from Malta by bombing it, but I took it back by purchasing Destroyers and submarines and by converging the English fleet of Gibraltar and Egypt around Malta, protecting the English convoy of Malta and managing to attack the German convoy (3 inf and 1 tank will arrive in Benghazi, the rest were eliminated along with the Italian escort). I imagine I will continue to invest in the Navy and any Aircraft for Malta, hoping to be able to slow down the Axis on the mainland and Mersa Metruch to resist as long as possible in Cairo. The point is that, as I have said several times, I still can’t figure out what the most effective combination of troops is both for the attack and, especially in the case of the UK, for the defense. However, it seems clear to me (but this is my first impression) that the only chance of victory for the Allies is (as happened historically) to have control of the Mediterranean to block the convoys and therefore the supplies of the Axis, otherwise holding Cairo I think becomes impossible, perhaps even after the entry into the war of the USA. I imagine Italy will try to overcome the problem and I think it will focus on the restoration of its Navy to counter the English one and try to remove Malta’s support from the UK. This, however, will inevitably take away troops for Africa and I don’t know if the German, (almost) alone will be able to take Cairo (every turn gained works against the Axis due to the entry into play of the USA which will open the second front). I imagine we will replay a few turns in the next few days and eventually, if you want, I will update you. In the meantime, I hope to receive some of your considerations.