@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Grand Plans, 3rd Edition?:

This is very insightful, Black_Elk. I’ve passed your concerns to the development team.

Some other data that may be useful is the results of last years tournament at GENCON. The tournament used the new set up/“patch” created by Larry to help balance the game
Changes from the Out of the box setup are:

Added UK-DD to Sea zone 7

Moved UK-Cruiser from Sea Zone 14 to Sea Zone 13

German Bomber in Germany moved to Ukraine

Remove 1 German sub from Sea Zone 5

Added 2 UK Infantry to India (Total now 5).from

The tournament results with this setup are below
( from http://www.headlesshorseman2.com/gen-con.html)

1942 2nd Ed. Games (all games 4 :45 min in length)
Bid 8 to Allies, 4 turn game, Allies Victory = 9VC’s/Surrender
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory = 8 VC’s
Bid 11 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory = Surrender
Bid 8 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 7 to Allies, 5 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 6 to Allies, 5 turn game, Axis Victory 10 VC’s.
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory 7 VC’s
Bid 6 to Allies, 7 turn game, Allies Victory 9 VC’s
Bid 7 to Allies, 5 turn game, Allies Victory 7 VC’s
Bid 8 to Allies, 6 turn game, Allies Victory 9 VC’s
Bid 5 to Allies, 4 turn game, Allies Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 2 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities
Bid 6 to Allies, 4 turn game, Axis Victory +3 Victory Cities(Finals game)

The bid is how many IPCS worth of free units or extra income was given to the allied team.

42 is closer to even balance out OOB, and debatably a little quicker. It may be worth looking at that for the first game and try the more unique(compared standard games) 1941 scenario after.

Hello folks, I’m continuing my trend of creating alternate scenario’s to make A&A games quicker for face to face play. This is in part personally driven because most of my local players feel many A&A variants are about an hour too long. I’m pecking at most variants, but today I settled a modification for 1914.

1914 quick-mod
-Summary: Removes ottomamns/africa and modifies turn order to encourage quicker game especially, with multiplayer. Estimated to shave 1-2 hours off a 1914 game while maintaining the core experience.

-Balance was (attempted to be, play testing needed) maintained by examining the ratio of Axis/allied economy and TUV(Ground and sea), and maintaining those ratios fairly closely after mod. (See image at bottom)

Mod rules
-Mod is intended to be applied with the Official Tournament rules/setup as a base. (see http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=18335&sid=46c5a040ae6a0378950ae08747d6f942)
-In addition, apply the following changes.
-You may considor removing the “collapse/surrender” rules from the tournament setup, but I feel that defeats the purpose and I will be utilizing them still.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Setup changes:

-Remove units on from India and the continent of africa. Remove all ottoman units.
-All ottoman, African, and middle eastern territories+India are not part of the game and so do not give IPCs to any powers

Remove the following navies:
Russians in SZ 71
UK in SZ 19, 29

Remove the following units
Wales: 2 infantry
London: 2 infantry
Scotland: 1 infantry(empty)

-You may wish to simply fold the bottom third of 1914 map board underneath as with the exception of the two russian territories it is unused.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Summary of new starting IPCs by power:
AH:26
RU:25
GE:31
FR:18
UK:18
OT:N/A
IT:12
US:20
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Summary of timed events(including changes)

-UK gets bonus income of 2 multiplied by the turn number to a max of 10 IPCS(representing historical and typical standard game gains in africa/mideast and resources coming back to europe)
-Tanks buildable beginning turn 3
-US enters enters war and at beginning of turn 4

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Turn order changes(optional)

To encourage again quicker play (particulary in team games with 4-5 players), use this portion for an “axis go, allied go” game, allowing alliance players to perform all actions at once.

(In effect, every nation by russia is basically already doing this)

Turn order will be a 3 step process:

1)“special turn 0: Russia Only”
-Russia alone performs a turn.
2)- After this Russian turn, the turn order is now Axis powers.
3)- followed by all allied powers(including russia).

• All powers in an alliance build at same time, then perform there moves as a single turn, etc.
• However…
• To maintain balance in the combat phase, multinational attacks are still disallowed.
• To resolve these combats, attackers will perform their attacks one country at a time, using the order from the unmodified rules
  (Allies: Russia followed by France,UK, Italy, US)
  (Axis: Austria followed by Germany.)

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Numbers!

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Lazy way: Use the 1942 cards. Pull two(or 3) cards each time you would have pulled one card in AAZ. When you pull a card that has multiple territories contained within it(because global has more) randomly decide which territory the zombie goes in amongst those those that fit into the 1942 territory on the card.  (IE: Pull french indochina/thailand from the 1942 deck?  That has Malaya, french indochina and siam in it on the global board.  Roll a D6, 1-2 malaya ,3-4 FIC, 5-6 siam)

I think black_elk was referring to 1942 3rd edition, not a 1940 europe/pacific/global 3rd edition.

I a bit a of side rant, but I doubt updated French pieces will be a priority even if there is a 3rd edition for 1940. It would be cool purely for a collectors stand point, but only that, as from a game standpoint France falling is a forgone conclusion in Europe 1940 and feels more like busywork after the novelty of doing it the first time. The interesting strategy/decision making is everything else. The balance of destroying british navy/threatening sea lion/Blitz Russia/aiding Italy.

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.)

@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.

@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.

@squirecam said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.

That justification can apply to zombie aggroing too?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I find it equally eyerolling whether it’s one infantry halting the blitz of the entire opposing tank force or a single sacrificial lamb whipping the zombies into a frenzy against the territory owners. It’s very subjective to say one is fine and the other isn’t.

Depends on the intended audience.

For the more accessible games intended for 3+ in person playing(IE: 1941/1942SE), I would say late 1941 (not spring 41) would be the best time to start, for two reasons.

-The Japanese blitz/pearl harbor is a pretty dramatic start, and not having Japan start with a bunch of conquests paces their advance better.

-Russian winter counter offensive: Assuming it’s a multiplayer game, and someone is playing Russia alone, it’s more fun for Russia to have at least one turn on the offensive before defending for the rest of the relevant game time. Back and forth is more fun then defense only. The 1942 German setup is good from a game design point of view. Russia starts with positioning advantage vs superior German economy, which has superior might to the allies initially but inferior economy. It’s a double layer of asymmetric warfare.

For veteran players, the earlier the better really. An official game with a ~1936 start to provide for varied initial game states would be interesting, if nearly impossible to balance.

@taamvan said in AAZ: similar games for Axis and Allies?:

@thrasher1

nope. I don’t think this was a success, in terms of sales.

What makes you think that?

@Imperious-Leader said in Further Features and Ideas:

Why did they not make E40,P40,G40 game? 1942.2 is not exactly the most popular version out.

While I agree 1942 may not be the most popular amongst the veterans and competitive players that are predominant in this forum, I would its a different story when we look at the total player base. It is the flagship title that (along with 1941) is most likely to be present in stores and played by a greater majority of more casual players. I would guess significantly more boxes of 1942 have sold than any of the E40/P40/G40 combined, so from a marketing standpoint it makes sense to start with the base game.

@taamvan said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Imperious-Leader Dont play with pick up partners, play a whole side. I have 4-8 games going at once.

I don’t see anything “unsportmanslike” about choosing your version.

Not so much that, but in the screenshot showed with side by side games, don’t their intentions seem obvious?

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Imperious-Leader If an ally is quitting, you get control over their side.

I believe his issue is that the ally quits only after doing (intentionally?) an irrecoverable mistake.(Russian player buys a battleship and suicides charges his infantry into the nearest stack, exit game!)

Edit: Or, as just happened in my German game. My Japanese Ally suicide charged his fleet and lost all naval assets…turn 2. He forfeited afterward and left me with an irrecoverable disaster.

It is sometimes a blurry line between “forfeiting because an honest game is beyond hope” and “Trolling other players” but I really hope some communication/karma system is put in place.

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Striker While I now understand what you mean, I guess that’s not a big deal. Players can take part in the games they want, and forfeiting is their right (it counts as a loss).

Forfeiting is a right, but I fear poor community experiences could turn into a bigger deal to the point of endangering the health of the game.

Put yourself in the shoes of, for example, a player choosing USA. One night he joins a game. He waits patiently for his turn over the course of a day as other players go first, he expects his turn the next night. Some slightly bad rolls happen on the axis side, and axis forfeits before US gets a turn. The US player has now wasted a day, how likely is he to recommend this game to his friends after this experience?

I’ve noticed a small trend of standard setup games in the lobby with axis positions filled, waiting for allied players. I worry that as more players discover the axis bias in the out of the box setup we are going to see larger lists of games clogging the lobby that has axis positions filled waiting for some allied fodder to begin.

Some sort of reputation/karma system might encourage better behavior.(Though being able to filter setup types may help problem 2 as well.)

@JuliusBorisovBeamdog said in Further Features and Ideas:

@Striker What fun do you mean?

Maybe I’ll rephrase that as “calling out bad sportsmanship”:

1. people who quit before turn one is done because their country got even slightly bad rolls.
2. (in relationship to the screenshot): The same team made two games at the same time: Picking the axis side in the setup that is known to favor the axis and in there other game picking the allied side in the tournament setup that does not.

Certainly a general chatroom or equivalent would be nice. Would be nice to poke fun at those who forfeit just because dice didn’t favor them in risky attacks on their opening turn. I didn’t know how to feel about “winning” before I took my UK1. Have people noticed a lot of that happening?

Also I feel obliged to poke fun at people who do this

@thrasher1
Yes, and I still think you are comparing apples and oranges, as the standard world map games have japan in their 1942 setup, well after japan has entered the war and already made their economic gains.

@thrasher1
I don’t think it’s “hardcoded” as you say it is. Look at other games that start with Japan in their 1941 setup. Both pacifics, global,AA50 41…in each one Japan goes before Britain.
Both A&A1941 and zombies have this awkward situation where japan has a 1941 setup, before pearl harbor, yet…britain goes first? Japan doesn’t have the money islands yet to offset the alpha strikes.

I feel like it would be beneficial to the game to tweak the turn order first and adjust starting setup in response. As even with zombies there has been a feeling that “it takes too long” with some groups I’ve played with(meanwhile many of these same people liked how in D-Day both allied players move and collaborate together.) I like A&A and want it to succeed, but I feel we need to examine some of these “hard coded” aspects that may be outdated.