Viewpoints about Operation Z

[The Great Santini]

I am interested in conclusions people who play Operation Z have about the scenario. 1) Do they feel it is a balanced scenario? 2) If not, which side has a more difficult time winning the scenario?. 3) What are the challenges the weaker side has in winning the scenario?. 4) From what I observed the newest patch seems to have strengthened the Japanese side. Was this a good idea? If so, why and if not why not? Thank you.

[Timskorn]

Good questions. I have only played one game in 1.02 and it's my current game, so I can't make any final conclusions yet. So far it feels like it's slightly more balanced towards Japan but I still have to see how it all plays out. It definitely hasn't changed my typical playing style yet anyway.

As to the first questions, Op Z is unquestionably in favor of the Allies. This is not meant to be a balanced scenario. Japan starts in a position of power and has roughly two solid years, maximum, to take advantage of their numerical superiority. Their #1 strength is her navy so it becomes paramount to utilize it to its maximum effectiveness before the US can pummel you with numbers and tech.

The challenge for Japan is that you are effectively split between three fronts. Burma (vs. Britain), China and the outer islands (or wherever you engage the US). You have vulnerable supply lines and not enough MPP's to not only support your military, but also advance your tech and create extra units. This is what I love about playing as Axis in Fall Weiss (although it's more 'balanced' overall in that scenario) and Japan in OpZ. Having limited MPP's and limited units forces you to make crucial decisions every single turn. You can't afford to waste them, so whenever and wherever victory comes it's well earned.

Ultimately, in Op Z though, your moves as Japan are all to buy one thing: time. Unlike in Fall Weiss where Germany has a good chance of pushing over the "threshold" so to speak, and capturing enough capitals to get a victory screen at the end, for Japan it's about holding on long enough to get a minor victory. The faster you lose your military units and the longer you take to destroy your opponents, the faster your demise will be.

Just my take on it, anyway!

[SeaMonkey]

This is not a balanced scenario, gameplay wise, but I think there is an equal chance for either player to win, like Tim said, Japan with a minor victory by holding on.

I really like the campaign, but I see where some players are not as attracted to playing a collapsing defense. It seems you need to have a sense of timing as Japan to begin your extraction from the mainland, most players, myself included, wait a little too long.

The Allies on the other hand can just bludgeon their way along, pretty much playing haphazardly as the Abombs can pull them out with the enormous damage to the garrisoning units of the cities that are hit. That feature allows an Allied player the opportunity to land and take those cities if he has some amphibs strategically positioned.

Summarily, the Japanese have some exciting play early and face a good struggle with China, Burma's really tough, India impossible, but Australia....well things can happen down under. Late game, its easy to get distracted and want to move along to another game.

For the Allies its pretty much a fun game throughout. Like I've said earlier, PTO was necessary to examine the features for the Global version and test the mechanics.