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:
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
@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) ?
