Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews

@Midnight_Reaper

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:

• contain one or more of your units
• is adjacent to such an area

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.

@Striker

(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’.

@thrasher1 said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:

@Striker

(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.

1. Agree
2. 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)
3. 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…

They cant fuel the transports they already have