@Magro I can definitely agree with wanting an earlier start date. I’ve wanted a 1939 (or earlier, even) game for years.
GW36-39 is great, but it’s complexity is a bit extreme (in terms of unit types, deep tech tree, complicated rules for minors, etc.), which effectively means that I can only play that game solo (rest of my playgroup has a low tolerance for complex rules).
For having good taste and going with the Revised-style map instead of that atrociously ugly design they use in the actual 42SE game.
@Magro That’s not an entirely fair comparison. In G40 games there’s plenty of opportunities early on where one side or the other can get diced out of the game (Paris, Taranto, attacking the Yunnan stack, etc.) by taking more casualties than you statistically should as Axis.
The main perk for G40 over AA50 is that the massive size of the board allows you a bit more freedom in deciding your strategies (UK Factories in Middle East Vs. 100% of income into Fleet, trying to send Russians to various parts of the map to steal cheap NO points, etc.), but the big picture is still pretty static (European Axis can-open their way to Moscow, Russians turtle, Japan does either J1 or J3 and crushes Calcutta/Money islands to wrack up a huge IPC income, US/UK attempts to build a surface fleet to retake Africa/the Middle East + Pressure Germany).
AA50’s perks are that it has a lower bid than G40 (OOB, anyway) and the game is quick enough to be played in half a day or so.
I am aware of GW36-39, but thanks anyway. While I’m a fan of that line I’m looking for something a tad more basic (less reliant on tech, optional rules, etc.). You know, something that can be played in a day instead of a weekend.
I wasn’t aware of de Gaulle’s ruleset though. That’s some interesting stuff, there.
I doubt this community would take it well if they went after TripleA lol. That’d be essentially taking an ax to all of our leagues.
If we’re going to talk about the G40 line, I might as well throw out my personal wish. Give us a 1939 (or even 1936) scenario. I love the idea of having a few turns to prepare for the war in your own way, as opposed to being handed a largely predetermined set of units by the developers.
It would let you explore zany what-if scenarios to your heart’s content, too.
I’d like a map/scenario editor myself. I’ve tried for ages to get the one in TripleA working but I’ve never had much luck. Probably my own fault for being too lazy to look up a guide or ask for help, though.
I’m not sure if I agree on throwing a mandatory prompt in the user’s face. That’s an extra click the user potentially needs to deal with every round. It’d be different if this were a game that didn’t require much menu navigation/clicking, but for A&A we already have:
Purchase Units
Dealing with the UI to perform Combat/Non-Combat Movement (clicking, hitting “undo”, etc.)
Clicking through battles (one or more clicks for each round of combat (minimum one click to decide whether to press attack or retreat, possibly more for aesthetics)).
Unit placement
One extra click doesn’t seem like much, but keep in mind it’s for a feature that only dedicated/competitive players seriously care about. Most people just want to build tanks as Germany/Bombers as the USA and mess around in a WW2 Setting.
I’d vote for just allowing you to right-click a territory during your NCM Phase in order to set custom OOL for said territory. If you there’s a need to modify the default OOL I’d just bury that in a User Profile or Settings Tab somewhere. That way it’s easy to track down for people who care, but not in the way of the experience.
I’m at work at the moment, so I assume the Early Access is still not out.
Is there an alternative method to access the game at the moment, or is it invite-only (for folks like djensen and whoever else the Developers have given access to)?
Sorry, the post Panther alluded to is the one I was thinking of. I can’t believe so much time has gone by since then. My bad.
The more I think about it actually, the more I realize that the Zombies slow the game down more than they speed it up. Turning territories into meat grinders dissuades players from committing forces to said territories before they have stacks that are large enough to:
I think someone in another thread made a note about refraining from building INF to keep the Zombie Count under control. That might actually be a viable option for Germany (not so much for Japan, due to their lackluster income).
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
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.
I guess that’s a contributing factor I didn’t think to write down before. Both Axis Powers are effectively on the defensive (initiative-wise, anyway) from the onset, despite being at a serious economic disadvantage. They can’t really swing their TUV into key locations quickly enough, and ironically, it’s due to the Zombies, the mechanic that was meant to speed the game up.
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
If you read my other thread on this game’s balance issues, my playgroup figured out the value of being hyper-aggressive with the Allies almost immediately as well. No one is disagreeing with the basic premise that the Allies are stronger.
- 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
Certain territories need certain values to keep the game at least vaguely historical, though. If France/India/the Money Islands weren’t worth higher IPC Values no one would go for them.
Agree with your other two points, though (and I basically agree with Point #1 as well).
@Striker said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
“Godzilla 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.
Japan becomes pretty monstrous in G40 too thanks to their NOs and massive starting Navy. Not sure about BM though.
@Imperious-Leader I disagree with you. Aside from the visible topography on the GW36 map, there’s not much similarity between the GW36 map and G40. The colors are opaque on the GW36 map, not transparent. As I said in my last post, it’s closer to Classic/Europe 99/ Pacific 01, than AA50 and later.
The only differences between Revised and GW36 are the Black Seas (as you pointed out) and that Revised uses a darker color palate than GW36-39. I can understand not liking the Revised Map because of the black seas/darker shading, though. The abstract, video game-esque look isn’t for everyone.
Aesthetics aside, the board is too small. West Russia and Ukraine in particular. That’s the case with most of the smaller A&A maps, though.
@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:
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:
@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:
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.
IMO the change in OOL does nothing to prevent the main sources of imbalance in 42SE, namely:
Germany’s starting forces are too powerful and will overwhelm the Soviets every time.
The Soviet IC in Karelia is more of a curse than a blessing, as Germany will always seize it G1 and gain access to a free IC two territories away from Moscow, and adjacent to the main Soviet stack (West Russia). The most the Allies can do to oppose this is SBR the factory, but 4 IPC/turn is a small price to pay for the huge benefit that having an IC deep in Soviet territory provides.
The UK IC in India is in a similar position, as UK is forced to spend 9-18 IPC a turn stacking land units there to deter Japan from seizing the territory. UK is forced into this position, because the moment Japan seizes the IC, they will be able to pump out 3 Tanks/turn from it. India is two territories away from Caucasus, a vital territory on the board, and Russia cannot possibly survive the pressure of a Japanese push on Caucasus AND the Germans stacking Karelia.
EDIT: Forgot the point of my rambling about the UK India IC. My point is that, because UK has to spend 1/3 - 1/2 of its income guarding India, its ability to send assistance to the USSR via re-assembling the Royal Navy is extremely impeded. This is especially troubling when you take into consideration the relative ease at which Germany destroys the Royal Navy on G1. It could take as many as 4-5 rounds for UK/US to just get into a position where they can start applying pressure to the periphery of the ETO (North Africa/Scandinavia), let alone actually do anything close to real damage. By G5 Germany will already have the Russians either dead or helplessly holed up in Moscow.
The only thing the OOL change impacts is naval battles (which is why I did not list the overwhelming power of the IJN as a problem) and fringe cases where Fighters/Bombers were left guarding key positions (France, West Russia, etc.)
tl;dr the key issues with 42SE’s setup arise from the land situation on the Russian Front, and land battles are generally unaffected by the OOL changes.
This was fun last time (AAZ), so I’ll throw my hat in the ring again:
How hard was it to get WOTC’s blessings.
Was Larry involved in any capacity?
Will there be online tournaments?
Is the setup the OOB setup or the LHTR (from ~ last year. The one with the Bomber in Ukraine, etc.)
If the setup was the OOB, is bidding or some similar system included to account for the massive imbalance towards the Axis?
If the setup is neither OOB or LHTR, what is it?
When is the bloody Early Access starting? It’s been like 10 days since the announcement.
Are there plans to adapt other versions (Classic, Revised, Anniversary, Global, Zombies, 1914, etc.) a la TripleA? TripleA has no support for 1914 and Zombies so I’d kill to be able to play either of those against AI or online.
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.