@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
It’s a shame they didn’t study the “core rules” more, because they could have saved themselves a lot of grief by basing the Zombies off the Convoy Rules from G40. Something like having each Zombie in a territory lower its IPC value by 1, up to the value of the territory.
Personally I think this had also be a good approach. But this means each player must count the number of Zs. And even more: check if the number of Zs is bigger than the IPC value of that area.
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
The other aborted ideas here make me think that the finished product is so much better than what we could have wound up with.
Which ideas you refer to? And why you think this is the case?
OK, this is a bit what-if-y but:
Scott van Essen said:
“In the case of the rules that let you share carriers and transports with your allies, we found that removing them saved more than half a page out of the rulebook and it made multiple sections that had been riddled with special cases and exceptions flow much more clearly. The clincher when I was weighing whether to cut those rules was when I realized that in the dozens upon dozens of playtest games I had played in and observed, I had never seen either of those rules used. That being said, since the majority of the cost of including those rules is in learning complexity, we included a note in the quick start rules inviting people to bring them back in if they so desire.”
OK, so say you will play with this ‘using allies transports’ rule. Then what about Technology 5: transporting Zs with your transport ?
I think the important thing to notice here is: who has this transport techology? That player can MOVE these Zs during its turn I would say. The other player (which does not have to have this technology) can load and unload these Zs during its own turn.
So I suggest that the player moving these Zs onto a transport does not have to have this technology. While the player moving his or her transport must have this technology.
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
DJ: If and when new versions of A&A are released (I think Axis & Allies 1942 3rd Edition would be awesome), would some of the new rules be introduced? Recruitment centers? Combined purchase & deployment? No friendly fighters on your carriers? No friendly units on your transports? Event cards?
Regarding Event Cards: I personally would like to see an Events Cards expansion for the standard version of Axis and Allies. For now this is A&A 1942 Second Edition of course.
My friends and I thought about this in the early days (1990s) a lot. Why not simply add a deck of cards to the game. Would be rather cheap to produce by MB/Hasbro.
Even more off-topic: I never understond MB/Hasbro never came up with a simple ‘cruisers and artillery’ expansion. Just adding cruisers (or destroyers or escorts) and artillery to the Axis and Allies Classic game. Rather cheap to produce and I am sure many people would be willing to purchase such an expansion in the late 1980s or 1990s.
Good questions, I’m going to give them a shot.
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
- Did WOTC know/care/acknowledge that releasing AAZ has caused a rift in the community?
I didn’t see any acknowledgement of this in the interview. I’m speculating that they knew and didn’t care.
- Did the game actually sell well (I doubt we’ll ever get a true answer to this)?
The closest thing I can find is on Amazon dot com, where as of today 2/9/19, AAZ is rated #616 in the top selling board games category. By comparison, here are rankings for other AA games:
AA50 reissue is currently ranked #314 in the top selling board games category.
AA Europe 1940 2nd edition is #1,059.
AA 1942 2nd edition is #1,102.
So Zombies seems to be about the middle of the pack right now. It was probably selling faster when it was first released. I’m not surprised AA50 reissue is still selling more, that one’s the best.
- Did WOTC just make the Zombie theme to be trendy?
Totally yes, and to sell more copies. They seem proud of it, and I think they should be. Having a variety of options within a franchise is a good strategy to maximize market penetration and of course revenue.
Zombies are hot right now and consumers want zombie content. Also, you can attract more people into the wargame genre this way. Personally I think it was a good move. AAZ renewed my interest in the AA franchise, and after receiving and enjoying AAZ, I decided to purchase my first AAG 1940 2nd edition set. I even started spending money at HBG for the first time ever, so my money bled all the way from casual AAZ to HBG upgrades and addons. Even HBG made zombie and Atlantis fantasy expansions for Global War 1939, so the hardcore developers seem to want a piece of the pie, too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the release of AAZ pumped up the sales of other AA sets, particularly AA50 reissue. I can’t be the only one who got sucked in.
- Is A&A dead?
I bet sales are up right now across the entire AA franchise thanks to AAZ. More importantly, wargaming in general seems to be alive and kicking. The hardcore wargaming crowd has more options than ever from what I can see. The internet is making niche and deep wargames more available to the hardcore consumer. Even 3D printed sets are now available that are compatible across multiple games, including AAG 1940.
- Is A&A condemned to exist only in the form gimmick-laden and/or “casual-friendly” editions forever?
Remember that AA50 reissue is the hottest selling AA game right now, and that’s hardly a gimmicky/casual version.
I doubt Avalon Hill will try to compete with the depth and complexity of Global War 1939, But after releasing AAZ they will probably revisit a more complex/traditional game in the lineup, maybe do an AA1942 3rd edition, or maybe an AAG 1940 3rd edition.
I also read somewhere that Avalon Hill wants to publish a new AA console/computer video game. I’m guessing it would be simpler than AAG 1940. Would an AA game on the Xbox/PS be embraced or rejected by the hardcore wargamer crowd? Would it be popular with the casual console gamer crowd and maybe bring some of them deeper into the wargaming scene?
- How did WOTC balance the game?
They claim to have done lots of playtesting but I think the Axis have an advantage thanks to the rule that only 1 capital needs to be captured to win.
The rules say that 1 captured capital ends the game, and Moscow is usually captured easily. I quickly implemented a house rule that says 2 capitals need to be captured to win. This gives more balance and the allies are more likely to win this way (it also gives the zombies a bigger chance to win), but it increases the game time by at least a few hours. I think Avalon Hill did the 1 capital wins rule to keep it light, short, and accessible. The AAZ rulebook invites bringing in rules from other games in the AA franchise so I think a 2 capitals wins house rule is a good way for more experienced players to go.
@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
Even more off-topic: I never understond MB/Hasbro never came up with a simple ‘cruisers and artillery’ expansion. Just adding cruisers (or destroyers or escorts) and artillery to the Axis and Allies Classic game. Rather cheap to produce and I am sure many people would be willing to purchase such an expansion in the late 1980s or 1990s.
Many people did buy that expansion. It was called Central Powers and was produced by a company called Table Tactics. To be fair, there were more than cruisers/destroyers and arty in that expansion, but those pieces were the reason a lot of people bought Central Powers.
-Midnight_Reaper
@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
It’s a shame they didn’t study the “core rules” more, because they could have saved themselves a lot of grief by basing the Zombies off the Convoy Rules from G40. Something like having each Zombie in a territory lower its IPC value by 1, up to the value of the territory.
Personally I think this had also be a good approach. But this means each player must count the number of Zs. And even more: check if the number of Zs is bigger than the IPC value of that area.
That’s a fair point. I’d find it easier to count Zombies than learning an entire extra set of combat rules and adding 2 phases (Zombie Cards + Zombie Attrition) to the game. Arguably, the Zombie Cards phase would probably have been kept anyway, but they were allegedly going for a more accessible experience and (correctly) noting that the core A&A rules are difficult to newcomers. It just makes me question why their attempt to lower the complexity of the game involved adding several new rules.
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
The other aborted ideas here make me think that the finished product is so much better than what we could have wound up with.
Which ideas you refer to? And why you think this is the case?
I will list a few of them:
Scott Van Essen said:
- Dark Magic Zombies coming from portals from the underworld.
- The intention of the factions needing to “work together” to defeat Zombies (it’s a bloody WW2 game).
- The “outbreak model,” which would have greatly sped up the spread of Zombies on the main fronts, as Scott notes in the interview.
- The “Zombie Rage” card, which increased the punching power of the zombies. This one wasn’t that bad, honestly, but was a bit much.
@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
Regarding Event Cards: I personally would like to see an Events Cards expansion for the standard version of Axis and Allies. For now this is A&A 1942 Second Edition of course.
My friends and I thought about this in the early days (1990s) a lot. Why not simply add a deck of cards to the game. Would be rather cheap to produce by MB/Hasbro.
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.
@655321 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
Good questions, I’m going to give them a shot.
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
- Did WOTC know/care/acknowledge that releasing AAZ has caused a rift in the community?
I didn’t see any acknowledgement of this in the interview. I’m speculating that they knew and didn’t care.
Sadly, this is my take as well. All “we” got was a slight nod at the end of the interview. Something about a “focus test group” or whatever. I imagine that was the party that DJensen and others attended a while back.
The attitude for this makes sense, though. Casual buyers make up a far greater portion of the sales figures for these games than the dedicated crowd.
- Did the game actually sell well (I doubt we’ll ever get a true answer to this)?
The closest thing I can find is on Amazon dot com, where as of today 2/9/19, AAZ is rated #616 in the top selling board games category. By comparison, here are rankings for other AA games:
AA50 reissue is currently ranked #314 in the top selling board games category.
AA Europe 1940 2nd edition is #1,059.
AA 1942 2nd edition is #1,102.So Zombies seems to be about the middle of the pack right now. It was probably selling faster when it was first released. I’m not surprised AA50 reissue is still selling more, that one’s the best.
Are Amazon’s metric’s based on a time frame or on “all time” sales figures?
I was intrigued by these stats, so I took some of my own (for today, 2/11/2019):
41: “#243 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
AA50: “#367 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
AAZ: “#663 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
42SE: “#743 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
E402E: “#1,164 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
1914: "#1,178 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games "
421E: “#10,132 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
P401E: “#13,821 in Toys & Games > Games > Board Games”
I didn’t bother with the spin-offs or AAC/Revised (because all of them predate Amazon being a major player in shipping/eCommerce)
I also didn’t bother with P40 2E or E40 1E, as E40 2E and P40 1E outsold their counterparts and are thus the better representative of “G40/G402E” as a whole.
Depressingly, this shows that 41 is the king of the hill as far as pure sales numbers go. However, AA50 has amazing sales numbers (especially given that it’s a limited release item), so I’m hopeful that the next A&A edition will be a 42 3rd edition or something like that. On the scale of AA50.
- Is A&A dead?
I bet sales are up right now across the entire AA franchise thanks to AAZ.
Based on the sales figures from earlier, I don’t think you’re wrong.
- Is A&A condemned to exist only in the form gimmick-laden and/or “casual-friendly” editions forever?
Remember that AA50 reissue is the hottest selling AA game right now, and that’s hardly a gimmicky/casual version.
41 would like to have a word with you. AAZ may also surpass AA50 if it’s sales numbers continue to climb.
However, I think that comparing 41 and AAZ to the other A&A games is partially unfair. Those two benefit from:
AFAIK, no other (recent) game in the franchise has has presence in major retailers, instead being condemned to hobby shops.
I doubt Avalon Hill will try to compete with the depth and complexity of Global War 1939, But after releasing AAZ they will probably revisit a more complex/traditional game in the lineup, maybe do an AA1942 3rd edition, or maybe an AAG 1940 3rd edition.
I feel that a 42TE is more likely. That or something ambitious like “A&A 39”. Who doesn’t want to relive the myth of German Tanks gunning down Polish Calvary (this obviously never happened but is perceived as fact by pop culture).
I don’t expect (or want) WOTC to attempt to compete with GW36/39. There’s just no point and no profit to be made from it.
I also read somewhere that Avalon Hill wants to publish a new AA console/computer video game. I’m guessing it would be simpler than AAG 1940. Would an AA game on the Xbox/PS be embraced or rejected by the hardcore wargamer crowd? Would it be popular with the casual console gamer crowd and maybe bring some of them deeper into the wargaming scene?
I read that it was a planned release for mobile/tablets. Not consoles.
- How did WOTC balance the game?
They claim to have done lots of playtesting but I think the Axis have an advantage thanks to the rule that only 1 capital needs to be captured to win.
The rules say that 1 captured capital ends the game, and Moscow is usually captured easily. I quickly implemented a house rule that says 2 capitals need to be captured to win. This gives more balance and the allies are more likely to win this way (it also gives the zombies a bigger chance to win), but it increases the game time by at least a few hours. I think Avalon Hill did the 1 capital wins rule to keep it light, short, and accessible. The AAZ rulebook invites bringing in rules from other games in the AA franchise so I think a 2 capitals wins house rule is a good way for more experienced players to go.
I disagree with your balance assessments based on games I’ve played, but I’ve only played about 15 games so far (and two of those were before I had a 100% grasp on the rules). That’s far from enough to make an assertion one way or the other.
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.
@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…
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
I disagree with your balance assessments based on games I’ve played, but I’ve only played about 15 games so far (and two of those were before I had a 100% grasp on the rules). That’s far from enough to make an assertion one way or the other.
In that case you’re probably more informed on balance than I am. I’ve played less than 10 games yet.
of the 4 games I’ve played I feel balance is tipped in favor of allies barring good axis card draws.
The most solid axis win was when Germany got chainsaw tanks before Russians got any useful techs.
The most solid allied win was when Russians got Zebra suits early while germany had no useful techs. (Try attacking multiple territories of 8 infantry and 8 zombies without chainsaw tanks or explosives!)
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.)
@Striker I like how you describe the cards and techs having such a big effect on the strength of a country. This mechanic is a lot of fun for me due to the fact that it keeps a player on their toes and makes the game less predictable.
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.”
The randomness reduces the effect of skill gap between players, which may be intended, but it can be frustrating. Frustration at randomness is not exclusive to experienced players, but to any player who is sitting down for a lengthy 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.)
@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 :)
@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’.
@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
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’.
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.
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: 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?)
The solution would best be adjusting the acquirement of techs themselves. Perhaps if a the random cards allowed you to reroll once for selection of tech.
Or next random idea #46.85: Everyone gets a free tech of choice turn 3*(or whatever number feels right)
@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,
You played more games of AAZ? Any more thoughts on the five individual countries and the several cards and technologies?
Haven’t been able to get people together for a game unfortunately. Most of my local gaming buds are stuck doing 60 hours/week of work and/or university recently, so I can’t make any new critiques with confidence yet. I’ll reiterate my 3 biggest concerns of the balance so far. The need for a slightly stronger Japan(every game see’s Japan struggle out of the gate so far), adjusting the decoy team card, and doing something about overly influential random technology.
