Showing posts with label Axis and Allies series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Axis and Allies series. Show all posts

Friday, 10 October 2025

boardgaming in photos: Axis & Allies & Zombies, Pinocchio, Money Laundering

In recent months my blog has been so full of screenshots of digital implementations of boardgames that it is looking more like a computer games blog than a boardgame blog. So I need to post some photos of physical boardgames to balance that and make me feel more like a boardgamer. 


Han was in town, and we met up to play. This time it was only the two of us. We wanted to ask Allen to join us, but he wasn't back in town that weekend. I suggested Axis & Allies & Zombies. I quite like the Axis and Allies series. It's one of my nostalgia games, and I haven't played the series for quite a while. I have only played this zombie version once, and I didn't even manage to complete the game then. This time, the first place where zombies (white) appeared was Sweden. 


This is World War 2 with zombies, so don't expect history accuracy. This is fantasy, not history. Germany (black) attacked Egypt. Although the battle went well for them, they decided to retreat because there were too many zombies. In this game, whenever an infantry unit dies, it turns into a zombie. This is quite a scary thing. Germany basically left the zombies for the Brits to manage. Later the zombies killed the remaining British troops, and Egypt fell to the zombies. 


This was Asia before action started. This is a low unit count version of Axis & Allies, which means it is simpler, but also the swing of luck is bigger. Things can go in many different ways after the first round. 


UK sent troops from Australia and India to capture Malaya and Indochina. Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour and instead concentrated it's fleet to destroy the UK Pacific fleet. It also did an amphibious landing to attack and eventually capture Yunnan. 


Surprisingly our game ended in Round 2. Germany blitzed into Moscow and captured it. There was one territory before Moscow, but it was occupied only by zombies and not Soviet troops. This allowed Germany to blitz through it with all the tanks it had. There was some risk, since Germany infantry could not keep up and support by being cannon fodder. It would be an expensive offensive. If this failed, Germany would lose most of its tanks and the next offensive would take many rounds to be ready. Thankfully I managed to capture Moscow. 

In this version of Axis & Allies, victory is checked at the end of each round. If you capture an opponent capital while keeping all of your own, you win. USSR had an army just next door which could have easily recaptured Moscow, but USSR had taken its turn and the recapturing would need to be next round. Its other allies were too far away to help. So this game which I had expected to take the whole evening ended much earlier than anticipated. 

The funny thing about playing this game was sometimes we felt like cooperating to push back the zombies. This is a game in which both players can lose. If zombies capture territories worth $25 in total, they win. It is quite a horrifying experience watching infantries turn into zombies. 


We played Lost Cities. This two-player card game is a classic from Reiner Knizia. It was one of the game I bought when I just got into the hobby. I hadn't played it for quite some time, and playing it again reminded me of how wonderful this design is. 

We also did another Reiner Knizia classic Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation. I played the Light side, and the game was a slaughter. I lost horribly. We were not true to original story at all. 


28 Sep 2025. There was a boardgame event at Lolla Paluza cafe. Several local designers attended, and some local gamers too. I introduced my games Pinocchio and Dancing Queen. I also played some of Jon's (King & Peasant, Furmation of Rome) prototypes. I played a newer iteration of Foundations of Rome. This has similarities to Castle Combo, and I think it is a better game. The need to plan for buildings getting built over is challenging and interesting. The other prototype I tried was Money Laundering in this photo above. 


I find the theme hilarious. This is a bad boy game. Think Breaking Bad. The core game mechanism is interesting. You run illegal business like smuggled cigarettes, drugs and weapons, and you need to launder your dirty money before they are worth points. You can tip off the police and get everyone raided. Anyone who doesn't have enough hiding places for illegal goods and dirty money will lose them. That's very painful, even when it's crime money. It's not easy being a crime lord. 

This is a mid-weight strategy game and I hope to see it published. 


30 Sep 2025. My business community the BNI Lighthouse chapter had its annual teambuilding 2D1N trip. I brought Pinocchio to teach my friends, and they had great fun with it. I am glad I had the foresight to bring two copies, because I needed both. Of the four games I have published, this was the only one suitable for this occasion. This was a casual crowd and not the boardgame special interest group subset of friends who would be mentally prepared to learn a few more rules. It made me very happy to see my friends have so much fun with the game. 

Friday, 12 April 2024

boardgaming in photos: Ali Baba and Ra


The game I am planning to publish this year under Cili Padi Games is Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. It has gone through many rounds of playtesting, but I still needed to get it cold tested. I asked Julian and his gaming group to cold test for me, i.e. I hand them the game and the rulebook, and they learn to play by themselves without me guiding them or answering any questions. I was there, but they pretended I wasn't. The cold test is an important test for the rulebook and the game component design. I can't be there to teach every person who buys my game, so the rulebook and the components must be as fool proof and conducive to understanding the game as possible. 

Just to make sure I don't set wrong expectations - the game on the table is A Feast for Odin. Only what's in Julian's hand (left) is Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves

I observed and learned a lot by just watching them play. Which rules they were unsure about and how quickly they were able to clear it up by looking up the rules or by referring to the game components were all important information for me. In their first game, it took only one round for Arief to win. That was a short game. It has happened before. That particular round they made it to the higher rewards. It was a little sudden. Maybe it is a problem. I decided not to implement any unwieldy additional rules to eliminate the possibility of short games. Just let that be a possibility. 

The group quickly proceeded to start a new game. This time the length was more normal, about 6 to 7 rounds. As they played, they came up with suggestions on how to modify the components. They even started implementing some of their ideas. That copy of Ali Baba had no component to help keep track of the current sum of all face-up cards. Players have to keep track of it in their heads. It's just one number. If you forget, you have to count again. Julian's group took out a 12-sided die to do the tracking. However after a while they found it tedious to fiddle with the die to find the right number, and they abandoned it. After the game, they gave me more suggestions. This was a very fruitful playtest session. 


Once I got home I started making improvements. I added a yellow background colour to cards with sun and moon icons. This provides a much stronger visual reminder to players to check for the presence of both a sun and a moon. I also added the Cave card (bottom left) to help players keep track of the sum. Initially I was worried whether it would be tiresome. I tried playing with it, and it turned out okay. I may test this more with other groups. 

I asked younger daughter Chen Rui to help me test the various 2-player variants of Ali Baba. She was the one who did the most playtesting with me when I designed Dancing Queen. That's the convenience of designing 2-player games. It's easier to get playtesting done. At one point I planned to make Ali Baba a 3 to 6 player game. I felt it wouldn't be as much fun with 2 players. Later on I decided to tweak it to support 2 players. I knew with less than three some dynamics would be missing, so the game needed to offer something interesting for two. Adjustments were necessary. I came up with several ideas, and tried them all. Having now compared them, the variant I will go with is when drawing from the deck, you draw two and pick one to apply. If you draw the Boss, you must apply the Boss (i.e. you will lose that round). Using this variant, I give a bit more control to the players. In a two player game, you only have one opponent and thus only three face-down cards you can reveal. Your options are limited. Drawing two from the deck and picking one initially felt overpowered. However after some playtesting, I found it wasn't as overpowered as I thought. The Boss rule makes drawing from the deck riskier, balancing things out a little. 


Dancing Queen is going to Hungary. This couple is gamers from Hungary visiting Malaysia. They bought some games from BoardGameCafe.biz including my Dancing Queen. I am always excited to see Dancing Queen reach new countries. 


Ra is a game I played a lot of when I first became a boardgamer. Julian has a copy of the latest deluxe version, with art by Ian O Toole. The Ra marker is huge. I should have put my hand in the photo for scale. 


The tiles in the game are not cardboard but wood. Red in this game means something bad. The first tile is a Ra tile, i.e. the countdown mechanism in the game. The other three are disaster tiles - drought, war and earthquake. 


The tiles in the first row are not Ra tiles, although they do look like the Ra tiles in previous editions of the game. These are actually the backs of the tiles. Yes, this edition has art on the backs. Previous editions have blank backs. The tiles in the next two rows are the monuments. 


First row, from left to right - pharaoh, god, gold, flood and Nile. Second row is the five different civilisation tiles. 


The Axis & Allies series will have a North Africa game! I call myself an Axis & Allies fan, but I have not been playing it for a long time. I still own many games in the series. I'm still a supporter because nostalgia. When I eventually get this, it will probably get one play and then sit on the shelf for a long time. I still haven't played Rommel in the Desert again. #firstworldproblem #toomanygames

Saturday, 7 January 2023

War Room


The Game

War Room is a wargame from Larry Harris, designer of the Axis & Allies series of games. The setting is World War 2. It has a complexity level higher than Axis & Allies, but the granularity is the same. Quite a few core mechanisms are different, so this is certainly not an Axis & Allies variant. 


The map is round and huge. It takes up a lot of space. The game contains a number of scenarios, and the global war is just one of them. There are 7 countries, which can be played by up to 6 players. The same player would control both the USA and China. Other scenarios include the European war, the Pacific war, North Africa and the Eastern Front. These smaller scenarios use only certain sections of the map. When broken up, the map pieces have very odd shapes. 


The centre of the map is a tracker which indicates the political stability of each country in the game. All countries start off stable, but as casualties mount and territories are lost, stress builds up, and eventually leads to stability deteriorating. At different stages of instability, countries suffer different penalties, and these penalties are cumulative. In the worst case, the government collapses and that country is out of the game. If you manage to capture enemy territories, you can reduce stress for your country. Good news cheer people up. 

Every country has a little planning booklet.


This is what the inside of the planning booklet looks like. Every page is a planning sheet. You need to use one planning sheet per game round. These sheets will get used up quickly. 


The left half of the planning sheet is for you to plan which command stack to go where. This is your movement planning and all players do this simultaneously every round. You won't know how your opponents are planning to march their troops. Units on the board come in three types - land, sea and air. Every command stack has at most 8 units. You can issue at most 9 orders. So every round at most 9 stacks of units of yours can move. 

One important thing you do with this planning sheet is to bid for turn order by spending oil. Turn order affects the execution of your orders. If you have units which are trying to avoid battle, you will need to fight for an earlier turn order. Else if they get attacked and pinned down by enemy units, it would be too late for you. You might not be able to execute all the orders you issue. Sometimes you may not want to execute them all. 

The right half of the planning sheet is for planning your new unit purchases. There are three resource types in the game - oil, iron and other strategic resources (OSR, and I will just call it "stuff"). You need different combinations of resources to buy different units. Not all territories produce resources. It is possible to trade with neutral nations. 


Units are stacked to form command stacks. Square units are land units. Round units are air units. The elongated hex units are naval units. All command stacks are topped with a command token, indicating the command number and the country. The command number is used when you plan movement. Every territory and sea zone on the map is numbered, and these are used for planning movement. The sea zone to the north of Australia is P-17. P series sea zones are in the Pacific Ocean area. The Australian territories range from B21 to B24, B series representing British territories. 


At the start of the game there are already some American units in the UK. UK has a factory, which means the British player can produce units here. The 8 chimneys mean UK can produce up to 8 units per round. 

Game setup is time consuming. Thankfully the command pieces are designed to make this process slightly easier. Command pieces used during setup have their starting locations and compositions specified on the pieces themselves. For example that British 7th fleet in the photo above starts in sea zone A-7, and it has a blue cruiser and a red battleship. 


Every country has a tracker for resources. Red is oil, blue is iron and yellow is stuff. There is a territory card for every land territory on the board, which indicates resources produced. You need to align your territory cards this way so that you can see easily how many of each resource you produce in total. 


Information on the territory cards include the serial number (black background), the strategic value (white background) and the production value of the three resource types. The strategic value affects stress and stability. Losing territories with strategic value causes stress. 


When you capture an enemy territory, claim the corresponding territory card from your opponent. E.g. here Japan has conquered a Soviet territory.


In War Room battles are only fought for one round, as opposed to as many rounds as the attacker wishes in Axis & Allies. If both sides still survive after a battle round, that battle would continue in the next game round, and the territory would remain in an embattled state. The territory owner uses the embattled side of the territory card, which has lower resource production. See that card with a red and white border. 


There are only 9 unit types in the game. You have bombers and fighters in the air. You have tanks, artillery and infantry on land. You have battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers and submarines at sea. 


Battle resolution is done using a battle board like this. Both combatants place all their units on the board. Axis on the left and Allies on the right. There is no different strengths based on whether you are attacking or defending. Instead, you can pick stances for some troop types. The stance you pick affects the abilities of the units. E.g. a cruiser in a defensive stance fights more effectively against air units and can take hits for other capital ships. 

Battles are conducted in two stages - air then surface. During the air stage, only planes can be damaged. Surviving planes then participate in the surface battle. Different unit types have different strengths against air and surface units. Strength is defined as the number of dice you get to roll. 


The dice are 12-sided. The sides include black, white, red, yellow, blue and green, and the distribution is not even. Yellow appears the most. The colour you roll determines the unit type you hit. This is of course subject to the presence of that unit type. If there is no such unit type, your hit is wasted. Normally a unit is only damaged upon the first hit, and is destroyed on the second hit. White die rolls can be applied to damaged units. Black die rolls are jokers and can be treated as any colour. 


One side of the battle board is for sea battles, and the other side is for land battles. This photo above shows the start of a battle. You get to roll at most 30 dice. If your strength is above 30, the surplus is wasted.  


This is the aftermath of the same battle. The units pushed to the edges are dead units. They are not removed immediately because you need to keep records of your casualties.


This is the morale board. This is where you place casualties from battles. At the end of the game round, your casualties determine the stress your country takes, which may in turn worsen your political stability. Different countries have different stress tolerances. Japan has a high tolerance and only worsens its stability at 7 stress. USA already worsens at 5 stress. 

The standard victory condition is to capture two enemy capitals. For the Axis this normally means Moscow and London (Washington is rather unrealistic). For the Allies it's Tokyo and Berlin. I think it would usually be unnecessary to get to this point. Well before the fall of two capitals, the imbalance in strength would have been obvious. The losing side should just surrender rather than stretch the game on when the outcome is inevitable. 

There is another way of ending the game which I quite like. You play a set number of rounds, and then compare scores based on political stability. Political stability is actually a good measure of how well each country is doing. 

The Play

I did a 2-player game with Allen. We were both new to the game. We had played Axis & Allies before, but War Room differs in many ways. We needed to relearn most of the systems. I was in charge of reading rules and teaching. Although it was just the two of us, I suggested to go for the full global game, because I wanted to experience the game in full. I knew we likely wouldn't finish the game, despite allocating almost a full day for it. We played from about 10am to 6pm. I had hoped to play about 6 rounds and then determine victory by comparing country stability. In the end we only managed to complete 2 rounds. It isn't as big a gap as it sounds, because the first two rounds in the game tend to be long with many hotspots to resolve. As the dust settles after the initial flurry of activities, the situation becomes cleaner and simpler. I certainly didn't regret having experienced the full worldwide war. 


I asked Allen to play the Axis. I think the Axis being the aggressors is more fun to play. The point in history at the start of War Room is already after Pearl Harbour (unlike in Axis & Allies). The Americans and the Japanese are already fighting in Guadalcanal. 

China (yellow with red star) has only land armies. No aircraft and no ships. 

The Solomon Islands are already embattled at the start of the game, thus the embattled marker. 


Naval battles in the Pacific were intense, involving the Japanese, the Americans and the British. There are no transport ships in War Room. The mechanism for transport ships is streamlined and abstracted. Land units are allowed to enter sea zones, and when they do, they are considered to be loaded onto transports. They become defenseless and need to be protected by friendly naval units.  


The British (me) decided to produce troops in India and coordinate with China (also me) to fight the Japanese (Allen). That stack of units under the red factory token are under production. When you buy (i.e. start producing) units, you need to wait for a full game round before you can deploy them. In case the territory producing these units gets captured, you lose your units to the invader. 

I like the simultaneous and secret movement planning in War Room. It creates a double guessing game. It offers opportunities for smart play for the weaker parties. In Axis & Allies players take turns moving units and resolving the resulting battles. Movement orders are absolute. You can't run and you can't hide. In War Room there are opportunities for weaker parties to avoid battle or to attack where the opponent least expects it. This makes movement interesting and less predictable. It opens up more possibilities. There is a cost though. The whole process takes more time. 
 

On the left, the Americans (me) unexpectedly took control of the Solomon Islands. The islands were embattled right from the start. However both Japan (Allen) and USA (me) had few troops, so it wouldn't be easy for either party to kill off the other. We didn't have many dice to roll. I imagine this as both of us being lost in deep jungle and shooting randomly under low visibility. However the Americans got lucky and scored enough hits to kill off the Japanese soldiers. 


China (me) inadvertently took advantage of the Japanese (Allen). In our first round, Allen mistook the Chinese troops as Japanese troops, and issued commands to them. Imagine the confusion of both the Chinese soldiers and the Japanese generals shouting orders at them, in Japanese some more. Naturally, all his orders were wasted and he didn't manage to get anything done in China in the first round. As China, I tried guerilla warfare, trying to focus the units I had on Japanese weak points and where he wouldn't expect an attack. The secret order mechanism in War Room allowed me to do this. 

I headed south and managed to capture Vietnam (photo above). The Japanese had to send reinforcements from Malaya to Thailand to fight with me. Peiping (north east of China) is an important territory for China which is already under Japanese control when the game starts. It is the only Chinese factory on the map and China needs to recapture that in order to be able to produce artillery and tanks. Without it, China can only produce infantry. 

One crippling weakness of China is it cannot bid for turn order. As long as Japan is willing to spend one oil, it can guarantee an earlier turn order than China. If Japan doesn't want to spend even one oil, then the turn order is left to chance. If Japan is determined to exterminate China, there is not much China can do to stop it. It is just a matter of how long China can last, buying time for its allies. 


The Solomon Islands were captured by USA (me), thus the USA token placed on it. The Solomon Islands had strategic value (number on white background), so Japan received stress from losing the territory. 


Fighting broke out all over China. My Chinese solders got cocky and strutted about like they owned the place, just because of Allen's wrong footing in Round 1. I caught Allen off guard and managed to take down Peiping. That allowed me to steal his units under development, which was a huge bonus for China. Japan (Allen) headed north to attack the Soviets (me), which surprised me. There was a Russo-Japanese treaty, the breaking of which entailed a heavy stress penalty. I think Allen forgot about it. I hadn't expected him to attack. Japan's diversion into Soviet territory was what allowed China to be more daring. 


At the bottom right a huge naval force had assembled. A huge sea battle was imminent. The British had captured Burma. More troops would be supplied from India to reinforce Burma and the British push against the Japanese Empire. 


In Europe, Germany (Allen) was a juggernaut. Compared to them, the British and American land forces (me) were paltry. Invading the European continent looked impossible. The Allies would need a lot of patience and discipline to plan and coordinate an effective Normandy Invasion. There are railroad tracks in War Room, which allows troops to be transported quickly to the front lines (compared to Axis & Allies). However train tracks can be damaged by strategic bombing. This is an aspect to consider. 


In the Mediterranean, Italy (Allen) started off stronger than the British (me). The British had troops in Egypt and the Middle East, but their production centres were far away, in India and in South Africa. Replenishing troops was going to be difficult. 


Italy and Germany didn't do well in their attempt to take Egypt. The British lost many units too, but managed to hold on. However the Italian navy dominated the Mediterranean Sea now. 

The Axis powers - Japan, Germany and Italy. 


On the eastern front both Germany and the Soviet Union started with tons of land troops. It was going to be bloody and brutal. 


Turn order can be crucial. It can determine whether the orders you want to execute can be executed at all. 


This was our Ukraine War in the game. Italy came to help Germany. A command stack has at most 8 units, so when the scale of the battle is more than 8 units, you need 2 or more command stacks. Air units are separate stacks from land units so if you want combined arms you need even more command stacks. 


The Soviets (me) were aggressive and took the fighting to Germany. I left many of my territories behind the front lines ungarrisoned. 


The Americans (me) couldn't do much at the start of the game. They were far away and didn't have many units yet. However they had a large production capacity. Playing USA was all about planning and building up a pipeline to supply troops to the front lines, to help its allies before it was too late. 

War Room has one similar problem as Axis & Allies - for USA to build troops and ship them across the Atlantic or the Pacific to the front lines takes too long! I call this a problem, but perhaps this should be called a feature instead of a problem. Expect a long lead time for American troops to reach the action. That means you have to do planning far ahead. 

As America, I decided to put more effort into the European theatre, thus the concentration of troops on the eastern seaboard of USA in the photo above. For American units to cross the Atlantic and get to UK it takes 3 rounds. We played a whole day and only completed 2 rounds. I guess once the pipeline of units was set up from USA to Europe this would no longer be an issue. I just needed some patience. 

Similar to Axis & Allies, War Room is at its core an economic game. When you have a higher production capacity, you will have more units and in the long run you will overwhelm your opponents. You need to take the long-term view. What new units will you buy? How are you deploying them? How do you steadily secure a stronger economic base than your opponents?


Japan was first to have its political stability drop, mainly because it broke the treaty with the Soviet Union. We placed the conflict tokens (explosions) and flight tokens (arrows) at the centre because they were used frequently. 


Two game rounds taking a full day sounds scary. It was partly because we were new to the systems. Also one big factor was we did this 2-player. The game speeds up with more players, because everyone can do movement planning at the same time. Allen and I had to do this one country at a time. Thus we needed at least triple the time, and suffered some split personality disorder. 

There were some features we hadn't explored, e.g. bombing factories and railroads, trading with neutral countries, attacking convoys and invading neutral countries. The game was large and complex, and the core rules already took a fair bit of effort to digest. We didn't want to get into the minor and secondary game mechanisms. Allen (as Germany) almost invaded Spain, but there was an error with the orders so the invasion was delayed. 
 

Having played the first two rounds, I felt the units being produced were far from enough to replenish what was lost. I imagine the countries would become more and more frugal as the war wore on. As the Soviet Union I was aggressive in counter-attacking the Germans, but after two rounds I realised my attrition was too high and my position was probably not sustainable. The Germans still had many units they could transport to the eastern front. The Americans and the British were nowhere near ready to put pressure on the western front. 

The Thoughts

War Room is certainly a gamer's game. It's the kind of ceremonial game which you allocate a full day for. It is difficult for me to not compare it against Axis & Allies. Same designer, same historical background, same granularity. War Room is more complex. Many mechanisms differ. They may feel similar in many ways, but they are quite different in execution. One analogy is the various Batman movies by different directors. 

If you are not into Axis & Allies and similar games, War Room will not be your thing. It is still a heavy game based on World War 2. It is medium-light compared to the typical serious wargame, but compared to the average Eurogame it is pretty heavy and complex. 

I like the secret orders. It allows interesting tactics and it is a challenge for the combatants. There is uncertainty and psychological play. I like the concepts of stress and political stability. In war, we are not machines which fight to the death. We are human beings of flesh and blood which fight till our spirits are broken. I like the battle resolution mechanism. It is logical yet at the same time can produce unexpected results. You know good positioning and combined arms will help you, but sometimes you can still get unusually lucky or unlucky. That's war. 

I don't like the three different resources in the game. It adds some complexity but I don't find it much more fun. Perhaps I haven't played enough to better appreciate it. 

Is War Room an advanced version of Axis & Allies? I would argue they are different games. A more complex game is not necessarily an improved or better game. I see these two games as different ways World War 2 is being presented. Yes, they are from the same designer, but they are independent games. 

War Room is that kind of game that you schedule once a year to play with a group of close buddies. Something commemorative and anticipated. I know this sounds weak. Only once in a year?! Gotta pump up those numbers, rookie!