@Krieghund Thanks again for all your fast replies. And seems I am getting most issues right.
Having said that: being VERY far removed from your level of (tacit) knowledge of all things A&A among some of the guys (sorry no ladies unfortunately) that I play with I am known as ‘the guy that is looking for rules issues and strange/improbably combinations of rules…’ - and in this case: cards :)
Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews
-
@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
(1) Japan not strong enough…
Of course more game are needed to determine if this is really the case. What changes would you suggest? Maybe some more infantry units in Asia to start with?
Japans starting position is poor and with aggressive allied play they will be neutered before they even get a turn barring extremes of luck:
Russia can attack manchuria(with 2inf,1art,1fighter) and japan will lose/“Draw”(also lose it to zombies likely) > 9/10 times.
Britain can attack indochina(w/inf,art, fighter) and coastal fleet(w/ 2DDs, 1SS), japan will lose both the territory and the fleet 9/10 times.
Before Japan gets it’s first turn it’s lost a lot of assets. If it uses it’s Transports go to phillipines/the money islands instead of reinforcing coastal china, the Chinese will drive out the last mainland Japanese 8/10 times. Mainland Asia is literally half of the Japanese income.
Their remaining IJN naval strength is now more or less on parity with the UK+US fleet, and the US has a far superior economy.
I know history isn’t the games focus, but where Japan’s setup represents it’s december 1941, pre-pearl harbor state, it feels very weird for the allies to be doing the “first strike” to japan.
Possible changes?: Lets categorize them with either adding units, removing units, or changing rules. (All of these changes would be probably overkill, pick one or two.)
Adding units
-Add an infantry to both manchuria and FIC. This makes these risky 50/50 attacks at the least.The coastal fleet Im not sure I would change, but I would maybe add a sub elsewhere so that Japan has subs to start with after the fleet is sunk.(preferably in range of the US BB to save a fighter on the attack.)
Removing units:
I would also considor removing a british destroyer, so that UK has to chose between committing its fighter to make an advantageous fleet attack OR an advantageous land attack.(Choices are good things!)Rules:
Referencing the ooooold “No Russia turn one attack” balancing mechanism of axis and allies classic, perhaps a similar restricion could be placed on turn 1 for Russia/UK vs Japan so Japan can get it’s first strike.Personal pick: Add a infantry to Manchuria to make Russia think twice about commiting it’s precious fighter to a 50/50 attack, and removing a british DD to make the UK player choose one advantageous attack, would be what I consider the bare minimum to make Japan into a more competent state. I would also still lean to adding another sub for Japan to use as a meatshield at pearl.
-
- Agree
- Something has to alter the zombie stalemate and since the cards all do different things, they cannot all be equal or compared to each other. Later in the game you’ll be wanting this card, but same with zombie camoflage (which I think is as good)
- the Techs don’t do anything in the early game. Striker makes a good point that some are less useful to some teams, but that’s why the one that is conditional gives you a choice.
Why are we appealing to what is or is not in the spirit of a WW2 game with zombies? If that were the goal, we’d add black magic and zombie wolves…
-
I disagree on taking units away from the Allies for the Japan problem.
I’d rather just buff Japan’s setup to give them more options/staying power out of the gate.
An ART (NOT INF, that would just lead to the Allies crashing into the territories on purpose to make more Zombies) each to Manchuria and FIC is probably enough to accomplish this. Either that or 2 INF to Japan + an extra TT to Japan SZ to give them more flexibility/counterpunch for J1.
-
They cant fuel the transports they already have
-
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
They cant fuel the transports they already have
taamvan,
I guess you mean: Japan cannot fill the transports it already has… ?
-
Another option might be (but I am just brainstorming here): give Japan the transports-technology (technology 5) at the very start of the game. But this just might be too much an advantage for Japan.
-
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
They cant fuel the transports they already have
Sorry, didn’t have a setup in front of me when I made my suggestion. I’d recommend throwing another INF (or two) on Japan to get those starting TTs filled.
-
No. It can fill them, it cannot fuel them (fill them turn after turn with fresh units).
-
OFF-TOPIC, but…
Is this an expression or boardgaming-slang? I never say the use of the verb ‘to fuel’ in this way…
Someting like: keep filling? -
Its a euphemism. Empty transports do nothing. Your economy must FUEL that war effort. The FUEL does not need to be gasoline or diesel it could be a euphemistic reference to the lives of your troops and tanks. You could give Japan 15 transports and with a 9$ income those do nothing (without tech).
It can “keep filling them” by picking up and transporting the same units back and forth. It can only FUEL them by providing fresh units each turn to replace the units CONSUMED by the war.
If you understood what I was saying why quibble with it?
-
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
I wasn’t aware I was quibbling. Did not know that word eitehr BTW :)
I only asked if this was boardgaming-slang. That’s all. No quibbling :) -
Revised had the worst aesthetic map of any AA game. Lets get real
-
No problem. Maybe I made it up. Now go FUEL your war!
-
@Imperious-Leader said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
Revised had the worst aesthetic map of any AA game. Lets get real
That’s your opinion. I’d take the slightly abstract, absolute colors than the lousy earthy look of AA50 and later any day.
Even GW36-39 uses absolute colors, although they use softer shading (more like Classic, Europe 99, Pacific 01).
-
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
No. It can fill them, it cannot fuel them (fill them turn after turn with fresh units).
Ah, got it. “Fuel” as in “produce enough troops to maintain a shuck”, like what USA/UK do.
I have to disagree with you on that, at least a bit. More Transports still means more threat projection, even if the Transports are only holding 1 INF, they can still:
- Force UK to waste money guarding Australia.
- Seize/threaten unoccupied territories (Africa and Indonesia, mostly).
-
While specifics differ, we seem to be all in agreement Japan needs something.
Heres hoping Japan gets some love when the faq comes around and they errata in some help like with russia in 1941.
(Hopefully Krieg’s been watching this thread and relays our thoughts…) -
The comment really isn’t about transports its about what you can and can’t actually accomplish when Japan’s income is so weak, subject to reduction from the game start with a good allied open, and the predation of the zombies.
Even if you spend all your money on ground units, infantry and artillery, you still dont have enough money to fill (FUEL!) the 3 transports they give you with anything except zombies, which you cannot necessarily do. In Global there is alot of money to grab while the other allies are weak. In this game, there are alot of $2 territories that would require you to, in many cases, sacrifice a transport and at least 1 man ($10) to take. More importantly, your adversary doesnt have a practical income of $9, he gets $32, which is subject to increase, not reduction.
In most of the games i’ve played, Japan doesn’t have ANY land forces left, after a few turns of attrition. To defend against a US invasion, last game I bought a grand total of 2 infantry. It didnt work.
-
@taamvan You’re assuming that US goes full 100% KJF. While I prefer that route myself in most A&A games, most players don’t go that route.
I think the larger culprit behind the issue you’re getting at (Japan doesn’t have enough income to fund a steady stream of land units to the mainland) is that it’s crippling for Japan to not be allowed to build a mainland IC. In basically every other A&A game, Japan builds an IC in either Manchuria or the equivalent of Kwangtung. That side-steps the issue of Japan needing to waste money on Transports.
If I had to make up a Japan strategy for AAZ on the fly, I’d gamble on an all-in after India. If Japan can take India it can use the Recruitment Center there to produce INF. 2 INF/Turn isn’t much, but it’s units you don’t have to waste transports on.
However, as @Striker points out, we are in agreement that Japan’s weak start is a major factor in the massive advantage the Allies have in this edition. I also agree with your notion that the Zombie Attrition decimates Japan’s starting forces in a few turns. That’s why I suggested giving ART to the Manchuria and FIC stacks. That would be enough to lower the Zombie count on Japan’s front yard (if the Japan player is willing to take the ART as casualties before the INF during strafe attempts on R1/B1). The lower initial Zombie count would in turn preserve Japan’s starting strength, which would give them more expansion routes in the opening rounds (a faster takedown of China or a takedown of India would help push their income into relevancy).
-
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
In Global there is alot of money to grab while the other allies are weak. In this game, there are alot of $2 territories that would require you to, in many cases, sacrifice a transport and at least 1 man ($10) to take. More importantly, your adversary doesnt have a practical income of $9, he gets $32, which is subject to increase, not reduction.
I think what sums up Japan in the version compared to others(and why they are much weaker) is:
-Japan starts with less relative income and units
-Has to conquer more territories that relative to other games is heavier defended and provide less reward
-Is the one being alpha struck, instead of the one alpha striking.“Gozilla japan” has been a problem in other versions(primarily OOB AA50 41 with NOs) but the pendulum swung to far the other way on this one.
-
I dont recall who brought it up, but the point about getting to draw 3 sweet game-changing rule-breaking cards vs 2 is a really good one.
And DMG; I didn’t allude to KJF only to the income disparity–I agree that KGF is also very effective in AAZ because Germany starts on the defensive. Heck, the US could spend $16 on each front, splitting the whole game and the Axis would still be in trouble.
A couple of artifacts from previous games show up here
- the Game Designers love to hide the value of a risky Allied opener, whereas my first game I played vs. a team being coached by Charles M., an 8 time national champion and he attacked everywhere—Russia all in, Manchuria, FIC, all destroyed. That open is alot like 42.2/42.3. Unsurprisingly, on his first view of the game, Dave did the same thing even though he wasn’t at Gencon that year and didn’t see my game v. Charles+Family
- the designers are married to certain territory values and relative values (SVE admits this) from previous iterations that would have to be distorted in order for the game to be balanced
- the cards are fun and random but we’re not used to that because it creates capricous and unfair outcomes (like Russia getting 3 free airplanes on 1 turn).
- in a more random game, balance is being derived not from pawn v. pawn type “analog/concrete” interactions, but from Nuke v. Cthulu “digital/abstract” interactions.
Suggested Topics
