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) ?
@DoManMacgee said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
Even GW36-39 uses absolute colors, although they use softer shading
G36 is alot more like AAE40 and AAP40, than revised. Revised is in its own class, no other maps were remotely based on the black ocean idea…and for good reason.
The reason is because nobody liked that look, sake a few who probably don’t own or play any AA game past 2005.
@Imperious-Leader I disagree with you. Aside from the visible topography on the GW36 map, there’s not much similarity between the GW36 map and G40. The colors are opaque on the GW36 map, not transparent. As I said in my last post, it’s closer to Classic/Europe 99/ Pacific 01, than AA50 and later.
The only differences between Revised and GW36 are the Black Seas (as you pointed out) and that Revised uses a darker color palate than GW36-39. I can understand not liking the Revised Map because of the black seas/darker shading, though. The abstract, video game-esque look isn’t for everyone.
Aesthetics aside, the board is too small. West Russia and Ukraine in particular. That’s the case with most of the smaller A&A maps, though.
@Striker said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
“Godzilla 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.
Japan becomes pretty monstrous in G40 too thanks to their NOs and massive starting Navy. Not sure about BM though.
@taamvan said in Thoughts on the Scott Van Essen (Lead Developer for AAZ) Interviews:
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.
I guess that’s a contributing factor I didn’t think to write down before. Both Axis Powers are effectively on the defensive (initiative-wise, anyway) from the onset, despite being at a serious economic disadvantage. They can’t really swing their TUV into key locations quickly enough, and ironically, it’s due to the Zombies, the mechanic that was meant to speed the game up.
A couple of artifacts from previous games show up here
- the Game Designers love to hide the value of a risky Allied opener, whereas my first game I played vs. a team being coached by Charles M., an 8 time national champion and he attacked everywhere—Russia all in, Manchuria, FIC, all destroyed. That open is alot like 42.2/42.3. Unsurprisingly, on his first view of the game, Dave did the same thing even though he wasn’t at Gencon that year and didn’t see my game v. Charles+Family
If you read my other thread on this game’s balance issues, my playgroup figured out the value of being hyper-aggressive with the Allies almost immediately as well. No one is disagreeing with the basic premise that the Allies are stronger.
- the designers are married to certain territory values and relative values (SVE admits this) from previous iterations that would have to be distorted in order for the game to be balanced
Certain territories need certain values to keep the game at least vaguely historical, though. If France/India/the Money Islands weren’t worth higher IPC Values no one would go for them.
Agree with your other two points, though (and I basically agree with Point #1 as well).
The more I think about it actually, the more I realize that the Zombies slow the game down more than they speed it up. Turning territories into meat grinders dissuades players from committing forces to said territories before they have stacks that are large enough to:
I think someone in another thread made a note about refraining from building INF to keep the Zombie Count under control. That might actually be a viable option for Germany (not so much for Japan, due to their lackluster income).
@DoManMacgee I’ve noticed too how the zombies can slow down play. At least, they slow down play until a player gets a tech or two. Simplifying other aspects of the rulebook obviously helps speed things up and mitigate the zombie slowdown, but yes the slowdown is apparent. I’ve found that ZIBRA Suits and Chainsaw Tanks especially help to “mow the lawn” more quickly and with less attrition when it comes to zombie infestation.
I’ve played enough games now and am comfortable enough with the rules to get through a game of AAZ in about 3 to 4 hours, which I think is on the shorter side of playtimes in the AA universe.
ZIBRA and Chainsaw seem to be the ‘best’ technologies, yes. Especially ZIBRA: everyone got some infantry units. ‘Richer’ countries will have some armor here and there. But please mind that the ‘artillery-technology’ Z-4 Explosives gives you stronger artillery units for the whole of the combat. Chainsaw gives you only one extra attack. As this is before normal combat these Zs that were hit do not take part in the actual combat that follows.
Personally I like that these technologies differ a bit on details like this. Then again: it might turn out that some of the technologies are really too strong and thus unbalancing the game of AAZ.
Talking Technology here…
Air D.O.T.s:
Somebody already brought this up. This does technology imply that you may initiate (start) a combat without any land units on your side and then have that extra round of combat? Or does this technology only apply if you start combat while having land units present?
If it is the former (you can start combat with no land units on your side) then this technology seems to be rather powerful… What do others think? Any official word on this?
