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


  • @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.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    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…

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    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.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    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.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    @thrasher1

    No. It can fill them, it cannot fuel them (fill them turn after turn with fresh units).


  • @taamvan

    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?

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    @thrasher1

    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

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    @thrasher1

    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:

    @thrasher1

    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:

    • Force UK to waste money guarding Australia.
    • Seize/threaten unoccupied territories (Africa and Indonesia, mostly).

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

30

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts