@taamvan said in Game 192; Whoops Dave Does it Again:
For game 192, I made Dave play the Axis. We agreed that they need a bid to gain the upper hand before the Allied economy comes to bear, so we decided to put 1 extra infantry on Japan, 1 on Manchuria, and 1 on France.
I think technically this is not a bid but an adjusted setup :)
But thanks for posting!
Question: how did you come to deceide on the location of these three ‘extra’ Axis units?
Is a typical bid around 9 IPCs?
Talking Technology here…
Air D.O.T.s:
Somebody already brought this up. This does technology imply that you may initiate (start) a combat without any land units on your side and then have that extra round of combat? Or does this technology only apply if you start combat while having land units present?
If it is the former (you can start combat with no land units on your side) then this technology seems to be rather powerful… What do others think? Any official word on this?
ZIBRA and Chainsaw seem to be the ‘best’ technologies, yes. Especially ZIBRA: everyone got some infantry units. ‘Richer’ countries will have some armor here and there. But please mind that the ‘artillery-technology’ Z-4 Explosives gives you stronger artillery units for the whole of the combat. Chainsaw gives you only one extra attack. As this is before normal combat these Zs that were hit do not take part in the actual combat that follows.
Personally I like that these technologies differ a bit on details like this. Then again: it might turn out that some of the technologies are really too strong and thus unbalancing the game of AAZ.
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
(4) 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.
taamvan, can you please rephrashe (4) ?
@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 :)
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?
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
taamvan,
I guess you mean: Japan cannot fill the transports it already has… ?
(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?
(2) … but Decoy Team card ‘too strong’
I tend to agree on this one. Again, more AAZ games are needed. But it seems a bit against the spirit of the rules too to let say Japan play this card on a Russian-controlled area at the Eastfront and thus moving Zs from this Russia controlled territory into a German controlled area.
(3) Tech to random
I guess this is part of the game. If it turns out that Axis are too week a fix might be to grant both Japan and Germany a free tech roll in ‘turn zero’.
Krieghund,
Can you tell us how these two cards should be played after each other?
Striker,
You played more games of AAZ? Any more thoughts on the five individual countries and the several cards and technologies?
@Striker said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
The problem with adjusting the techs themselves is that no matter what reasonable adjustments you make, some techs are still going to be MUCH more useful for certain countries then other.
IE: Any variation of Deadnapper convoys(transporting zombies) is always going to be useless for Russia, who is really hoping for zebra suits the entire game.
True of course. But then again: Germany and the US were the scientific powerhouses of the era. Russia was not. So Russia getting some useless technologies can in a way reflect just that.
Also, this was once mentioned in a set of house rules that was featured on my Axis and Allies site: communist bureaucracy could lead to useless results. So yes, I think in a way it is logical that Russia gets some useless technologies so now and then.
Really the two ground combat nations suffer from potentially getting worthless tech, where the other 3 can get at least some benefit from all of them.
Russia and Germany you refer to I guess?
Russia: Z.E.B.R.A suits >>>>>>>>>> everything else. Deadnapper and AIR dots are particularly useless.
Germany: Chainsaw tank>z4 explosive>Zebrasuits>>>>>>everything else.(even mind control, moving one zombie a turn is not really a big thing. Maybe change to move a dice worth of zombies of turn?)
I will post more on my views on this asap.
To all others: please share your ideas on Technology and the several countries involved.
@Striker said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
I agree that overall the cards/techs are good. On the other end I think some cards are so game changing as to risk making making a player think “Why’d I spend an hour(or more) setting up and playing out a strategy only for one random card to effectively decide the game.”
And that would essentially lead to a broken game…
If I was trying to reduce the “swinginess” of tech cards, I would either provide a non random way of getting tech, or perhaps more simply have each nation start off with one tech(either players choice or some pre-assigned tech that is useful but maybe not “the best” for current country.)
Interesting ideas.
Personally I would (for now) focus more on ‘fine-tuning’ some of the tech-cards. Reducing the power of some cards might be a good idea. Indeed, for instance: be more strict on when (and where) a card might be played. Some common sense approaches might do the job. Like ‘may only be played when you have units there’.
@Striker said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
The allies, having 1 more player, also gets an advantage(3:2 odds…) in drawing one of the most game altering cards “decoy team”. This always gets used on the eastern front, even if drew by the US or JPN player, so germany has to deal with a lot of zombies on its east territories. (IMO this card should be erratad to only be usable in territories you own and/or adjacent.)
If more people are posting their AAZ gaming experiences (here and in other forums and other places) we can get ourselves a clearer picture if this card (Decoy Team) is maybe too ‘strong’.
If so I think your fix might be a good one. You can only play this card on an area that contains Zs and:
Maybe add: a territory you own but you do not have units in.
On the other hand: you must send in a team. So it makes sense you must have units close to the area you want to send that team into.
On a personal note: I am tending to agree with you that this card might be too powerful. Indeed, if both UK and US can simply play this card on the Eastfront. Without having units there…
Sorry, Dave. We are brainstorming about House Rules once again just here :)
Very pleased to just read the breaking news:
https://www.axisandallies.org/p/announcing-axis-and-allies-online/
This is very good news. Curious how some of the specific rules turn out (OOL indeed).
And yes, I hope there will be an add-on for AAZ…
But for now: looking forward to this!
Thanks for posting, David!
BTW: Brief article about AAOL at TechRatpor:
https://techraptor.net/content/axis-and-allies-online-announced
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
I have the opposite opinion of you, but that’s only because I have a bias against event cards in war games. I do understand that several successful war games (Memoir 44, etc.) use cards as an integral part of their design, so I get where you’re coming from.
I did I know way mean a kind of ‘card-driven’ Axis and Allies game. Just event cards. To add some spice/chrome to the game. And yes, these can maybe unbalance the game a bit. But then again: I see events cards as something extra…
Yes, I know these Table Tactics expansions. I even own one (the NWO expanion). Nice new units. But the rules,… well, seem only there to make this a ‘game’ instead of just a package of new plastic playing pieces.
@taamvan said in Axis & Allies and Zombies Q+A:
No, it would mean half then half of half, if you moved the same stack.
That was indeed my first thought. Play first card, then play second card. But then this ‘general principle’ came to my mind. See post above: ** The principal is that “the state of the board at the
beginning of the present turn defines what is legal.” **
But I see your point of course. Any chance we will have official word on this?
(And other AAZ questions…)
Or: in a previous (test) version of AAZ there was actually a card called ‘Z Rise’.
I think this very card can be used handily for a house rule. I thought about making this card acutally a rather dramatic event.
My idea was (but this is just an idea so all ideas/criticisms are welcome):
The following neutral territories do not have a Z card:
Chili/Argentina
Eire (Ireland)
Afghanistan
Sahara and Himalaya are considered unpasseble territories.
Angola and Mozambique were Portuguese colonies.
So my idea for a house rule was:
If someone draws the ‘Z Rise’ card all truely neutral areas without an own card get a Z.
Still they do not get an IPC value.
But these areas can be entered. These areas are playable. And if you have the ZMCR tech (technology 6) you can move these units. And if you have technology 5 (DNC transports) you can move these units by transport. Well, not the Afghan one of course…
What do people think? Should Mozambique and Angola also be included. Or even Sahara and Himalaya: while players can still not enter these areas these Zs there can be moved (see above, technology 6 and in case of Sahara technology 5 too (yes, Sahara does have a coastline!)).
Maybe this is too harsh for the British player. On the other hand some say game is tilted towards the Allies. So this might actually balance the game a bit.
All your ideas are welcome.
David, if this must be moved to another section of the forum: just let me know.
OK, disclaimer first: maybe this is a very stupid question.
But my AAZ deck contains one ‘Z Rise’ card and five Escalation cards.
While the A&A 1942 deck included only has Escalation cards…
Why?