Well, this is the first that I have heard of this and as I understand it, it is a great idea. The fact that armies have to be centralized will create a different kind of strategy. Two opposing armies in the same zone can tear each other up without have to worry about another player stepping in and reaping the rewards of that battle. No more sweeper to come in at the end and clean every thing up. Just who ever wins that battle wins the zone. Perhaps a limit to the rolls could be a good idea as well. The attacker could only roll a maximum of 10 or 15 rolls and then decide to stand his ground or retreat.
This also makes for a tiny observation. The attacking army must close in first. So then the defending army has the option of assaulting the attacking army and retreating, keeping his army in tact while losing the region but being able to come back in bigger numbers (according to the spoils) another day. I am referring to really large number of troops here, say more then 30 troops. This is much more realistic to the real thing because to date, I have never heard of an army sweeping around the world to take it all.
But Seriously; Even Hitler in his Blitzkrieg war had limitations. He did not continue his sweeps into all of Europe and Russia as he did in most of Central Europe. It just does not happen like that. Hitler had to make an alliance with Mussolini and was not able to take Great Britain. So in that effect, the AA setting would provide a more realistic aspect in which actual alliances could be formed that could not be formed in normal CC games because it would not make any sense in a normal CC game, to make an alliance, only to break it in the next round because it is to your advantage to break it then.
There is so much that I am looking forward to figuring out about this setting but I am all for it. It seems to me that this setting would do especially well in Team Games. Also I think that we may have to write a whole new book of strategy for this type of Adjacent Attacks setting. It even got me thinking; What if Cannons could be brought into play or missiles that while they could not invade the Adjacent Territory with the rest of the army (that is to say the regions that they were assaulting), could how ever be used on those regions after the Adjacent territories to bring them down to one if they have enough cannon balls or rockets? Or something like that?
Maybe I am going too far with this but it is an interesting thought none the less. A fortified cannon position would require a regular infusion of troops (say 5 troops per turn) just to maintain it and the number of troops on the cannon position would not grow for the fortified cannon position. So anyone able to eliminate the cannon position would first have to mount a superior force that would survive the cannon fire, then get close enough on the next turn to be in position, to then assault the cannons on the third turn. Cannon positions could be originally set up according to the spoils trade in, once it reaches a certain number of spoils to trade in. You would then have the option of so many troops or a cannon position? Like wise a rocket position that could take out the cannons once the spoils get high enough? These are just thoughts running through my head now. Something to think about perhaps?