Posts made by DoManMacgee

@Striker said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

-Other comments:

Based on my data point of 1 game so far where, short version, germany successfully conquered moscow and won…

I feel like I would have achieved a similar result in my game had we gotten the rules straight. The Soviets overextended by failing their Ukraine attack R1 and I think that if I strafed West Russia a second time the Soviets would have had their army reduced to basically nothing. For reference, I still had basically all of the starting German Tanks/Artillery still on the board when the game ended (except for the ones from Ukraine/West Russia, obviously).

Japan
-I agree Japan seems to be in an odd spot. Its fairly hampered by a number of things.
-1941 setup but Russia+Britain goes first…

UK getting a free shot at FIC is the killer. With the setup UK must go before Japan though, or Japan walks into India for free J1.

-Somewhat lacking in units in asia, and with average luck on the russia/UK turns it’s only Asian territory will be just coastal china before it even has a turn, cutting off a lot of income. If it doesnt reinforce china it can lose it as well the american turn.

Our game didn’t go that poorly, but our Soviet Player didn’t suicide the Siberia Stack into Manchuria to flood it with Zombies. Had they known to do that, things probably would have gotten ugly for Japan.

-Can only really influence the game by doing the tired siberian express as it’s historical objectives don’t matter much.

Capturing India + the money islands at least effectively removes UK from the game income-wise (and is necessary to give Japan the economic base to pull off a march to Moscow). I agree with your point though.

Zombie warfare
I think indirectly screwing over your opponents with zombies is the most fun/novel thing about this new iteration. A lot of unique strategies present themselves.

I agree. As much as the OOB setup seems to favor the Allies, our group had a great deal of fun at the expense of other players when they dumped Zombies on their front lawn.

Current overall impressions:
Concept is great, zombies do add a unique and fun dimension to the game, but another pass at balancing the rules needed to be done and the game is somewhat let down due to that.

I would like to know how WOTC play-tested this, or if they even cared about the balance beyond turn 1. Given the presence of Zombie Cards and the emphasis on appealing to a casual audience, I wouldn’t be surprised if they only things they checked for were:

1. Assure neither side can win (or obtain an unstoppable position) on turn 1.
2. Assure no country can be totally wiped out (or put in an unwinnable position) on turn 1.
3. Assure that Zombies have a meaningful impact on the game that is felt by all players.

Short term, I’ll be houseruling my version to include victory cities so that Japan can achieve an axis win by completing the India/Australia/Hawaii triangle of influence. I’ll be keeping an eye out for slight changes in setup as well. I feel for Japan to be relevant against aggressive allied play their turn either needs to be changed to go first, or for a little extra units to be added in setup.(An 1-2 inf/art in asia and maybe a sub in the pacific would probably be all they need though).

I like the idea of Japan winning if they seize Aus/India/HW, but I’ve considered another approach while typing this.

“Modify the Zombie Deck by removing all cards that spawn Zombies in the territory of USSR, Japan and Germany.”

This effectively means that only the UK and US, the two countries most unaffected by the Zombies under conventional circumstances, will have to deal with random Zombies popping up. This also serves as a nerf to the Allies’ income advantage, as the UK/US are loaded with far-flung, low-value territories that are far removed from the actual conflict zones of Europe and Asia. Examples include:

• Brazil
• Sub-Saharan Africa
• random Pacific Islands like New Guinea
• North American territories other than East/West US
• etc.

If you actually force the US/UK to divert resources to these areas (with the threat of damaging their economy if they fail to act), it delays their 100% entry into the war against Germany and Japan, which gives them more time to make the gains they desperately need to be relevant.

Any imbalances after my proposed house rule could be dealt with using bids.

@vonLettowVorbeck1915 said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

It’d be interesting to see how much strategies would change if both Axis and Allies tried to avoid the apocalypse

Having the Apocalypse result in a draw makes more sense to me than the current rules. I’ll try that during one of my solitaire games (play group would just take the idea as me being sore over our last result, haha).

Now to reply to other comments that weren’t just rules clarifications:

@taamvan said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):
The zombie dynamic isn’t that they are particularly difficult to destroy, its that they are very risky to attack, which goes against the standard take/crush/push dynamic of Risk and AxA–a conservative strategy from game start might lack any goals except survival for several teams.

I don’t see this as a bad thing per-se, as A&A prides itself on forcing the Attacker to choose the right time to attack. The issue is that, due to the starting income gap, the Axis need to take the initiative to have a chance at winning, but the turn order (and the 3v2 element, not sure why they couldn’t sneak Italy into the game as a gimped power) explicitly gives the Allies the initiative at all times. This means that the larger Zombie Stacks caused by battle casualties will almost always be on Axis Property rather than Allied.

It can still be a fun game, but luck (the zombie camo and zombie move cards are very important, the techs really aren’t–they’re mostly for clearing out the later game developments) plays a bigger role than ever, and I don’t really understand why Japan has been left with not much else besides a fleet it cannot lose or add much to.

Your point on the luck being too important is what I agree with the most here. That’s why one of the experiments I’m going to try running is playing the game with the Zombie Deck removed altogether.

Japan’s situation is extremely challenging to be sure. After watching my teammate try/botch a mainland push, I’m convinced the main road forward for Japan is either an India Crush (the entire UK Pacific Fleet can be wiped out J1 unless they retreat to Australia B1) or a rush on the “money island” (as much as a 2 IPC Philippines, 2 IPC Borneo and 2 IPC DEI counts as “money”). From the income values, I’m convinced that the developers intended Japan to go the island hopping route, probably for historical purposes.

On that note, not being able to construct Factories is a interesting take on solving the problem of the infamous “Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow”. However, not having this option available makes Japan’s strategy static and predictable (Transport-Heavy Navy). This would be fine, except the lower income across the board makes this strategy terrible, as Japan can barely afford to pump out fresh troops to fill its transports, let alone expand its fleet to deal with the Americans.

I’ll try brainstorming some openings at some point. Personally I find the challenge of playing Japan in this version alluring. Maybe I’m just a masochist though…

No Part 3 today. Ran into some trouble at work so I did not have time to play out my solitaire rounds. I’ll probably get around to it over the weekend and have the post ready Monday (or Wednesday if New Year’s gets too busy).

However, it looks like a few people have helped out and clarified some rules for me. Thanks!

@taamvan said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

At least as I understand the rules, the zombies don’t take territory instantaneously, they only take it if they are present, alone, during that step of the next players turn. This is a check on every player turn, for every province. It seems odd that it is possible for you to reach the 25 total IPC so quickly, unless you were converting territories immediately. I think our highest by turn 4 was 12-15, and it consistently falls because there are rewards for clearing zombie held territory on the cards.

This is one of the things we seem to have misunderstood. Thanks.

The reason the Zombies spread so quickly, in my opinion, is due to this being everyone’s first time playing. No one really put in much effort to stamp out Zombies after they’d taken territories (The USSR and Germany used the Zombie-Occupied Territories to dead-zone each other, Japan tried but failed, and the US/UK were actively trying to trigger the Zombie Apocalypse to cheese out an easy win for the Allies.

@Striker said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

You asked so…

-It looks as if you interpreted two rules incorrectly which may have altered the outcome of the game significantly.

**> 1)“Zombie attrition” Zombies only attack the territories of whoever’s turn it is. Looks like you had,for example, zombies attack norway every player turn, when it should have only happened on the german player’s turn.

2)Zombies always die on a regular hit plus the zombie special hit. IE an infantry can kill a zombie on a 1 or skull on any combat round if there is only zombies left, not just during the “spillover” round.**

Playing another game with those corrections I’m sure you’ll find zombies easier to deal with, though still problematic.

---

These are huge points that probably would have allowed the game to continue longer than it actually did. Thanks for clarifying these. The first point is particularly impactful, as the Soviet stack in West Russia certainly would have survived for far longer than it did in our game. Thanks for clarifying!

@Midnight_Reaper said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

@DoManMacgee

Overall an interesting post. I look forward to reading your next missive. I just want to point out one thing…

ZOMBIE EXPLANATION START

---

• If only Zombies exist in a territory, that territory loses its IPC value (and the Zombies “gain” its IPC value, more on that below).

There is a special case: when a territory that is overrun with zombies (has only zombies in the territory) is also home to an Industrial Complex (such as Germany or the Eastern US), the zombies don’t take over until there are more zombies in the territory than it’s worth. (e.g. The Eastern US is worth 8 IPCs - if there are no units other than zombies in the territory, that territory is still controlled by its last owning power (normally the US) until such time as the zombies there total 9 or more.)

Just a small nit, but there to be picked all the same.

-Midnight_Reaper

We did not realize this was a rule, but it so happens that the only territories where this applied were Australia and the Chinese INF-IC. Both of these happened to be overrun with enough zombies that the occupation would have triggered anyway. Will definitely keep this rule in mind going forward, though.

With these points in mind, I may have to play another round with Zombies enabled to see what kind of difference it makes. I believe the outcome will still be the same (Axis are virtually unable to catch up to the Allies’ IPC Income before drowning in Zombies), but the longer game (due to less Zombie Attrition) will give both sides more chances.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST WAS MADE GIVEN MY PLAYGROUP’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES OF AAZ. IF ANY OF THIS INFORMATION IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP SO I CAN CORRECT IT. THANK YOU

Yo (again),

Last night’s game was certainly an interesting experience, but it wrapped up far too late for me to write something immediately, so here I am now.

This is my second post of 3 I’ll be making on this topic, where I’ll cover Axis & Allies & Zombies from a gameplay perspective. I played this game the way I believed it was “”“meant”“” to be played by the designers (in a 5-player game with Zombies, the Zombie Cards, and the “Desperate Measures” features of the Zombie Cards (and technology, by extension) all enabled ). The intention here is not to evaluate balance necessarily (that’s certainly not something that can be determined from just one game anyway), but to get a “feel” for how the new game plays compared to other A&A titles. This is about fun-factor and play-ability for now, not necessarily design quality and game balance (although I may end up lightly touching on those points in this post).

One thing that bores me to tears when reading reviews of other board games is that the reviewer tends to attempt to explain the rules of the game to the reader. There are other posts and resources explaining how to play AAZ in varying levels of detail on this site, so I would direct any reader who is new to this game (or to Axis & Allies as a whole) to seek out those posts/resources.

However, I will explain the changes to this version in high-level details, to be fair to those of you who are like I was and have not played AAZ yet. Out of politeness, I am also going to mark where the rule-dump begins/ends, so you can get through this post faster if you’re already up-to-snuff on how Zombies work:

ZOMBIE EXPLANATION START

• Core Rule Set (unit set, costs, stats, etc.) is based on AA50. That being said, there are a few differences.

• No Cruisers or AA Guns.

• No SBRs.

• You can no longer use an ally’s TT or CV for your land units or FTRs.

• You buy/place units at the end of your turn, meaning you can better adapt your purchases based on how the turn went. This has strategic implications I’ll go into more in part 3, so stay tuned.

Zombies exist:

• Spawn every time an INF dies (1 INF -> 1 Zombies, 2 INF -> 2 Zombies, etc.)

• Spawn whenever directed to by a “Zombie Card” (more on those below).

• If only Zombies exist in a territory, that territory loses its IPC value (and the Zombies “gain” its IPC value, more on that below).

• If Zombie-Controlled territory (they even have their own roundels, printed on the back of the normal ones) reaches 25 IPC, the game ends and “the team with the highest IPC value wins”. This effectively means the Allies win, given the huge discrepancy in starting IPC values.

• Players can coexist with Zombie-Units in their territory or attempt to remove them (ask me if you need more details on this, the rules are a bit complex and I’d be here a while trying to explain it. Better yet, ask Panther or one of the other “rules guys”, as I’m liable to give you incorrect information).

• Zombies get a post-shot at the occupiers of any territory they exist in at the start of a turn. The controlling player doesn’t get to fire back.

• During combat in a territory where Zombies exist, all 6-rolls kill a Zombie, whether you want to or not.

• Also during combat, Zombies mindlessly attack at the start of every round of combat. The Zombies have their own special dice, but the breakdown of their attack is as follows:

• Roll 1 die per-zombie.

• 1 - Kill Defending Land Unit.

• 2,3 - Kill Attacking Land Unit.

• 4-6 - Miss.
  (Killed units are taken as casualties, but still get to fire for the combat round).

• After combat, if the attacker won, they may stay and continue fighting the zombies in an attempt to wipe them out before they can potentially become a problem later.

ZOMBIE EXPLANATION END

I apologize again for explaining all of that. Hopefully someone finds it useful.

Anyway, regarding the core gameplay changes, I’m sad to see AA Guns and SBRs go. The AA in particular was an extremely important unit for defense, but there are barely any air units in the starting setup so I guess I can let it slide (the rules for AA Guns were always a bit nebulous anyway, the changes they made in G40 only made them more nebulous, in my opinion).

I feel that they could have simply reverted to the old SBR rules from Classic/Revised (direct IPC Damage instead of “damaging facilities”) if they wanted to “simplify the A&A experience” or whatever Wizards was thinking (also; if they wanted to “simplify” things why did they make the Zombie rules so bloody complicated?).

I couldn’t care less about Cruisers though. Easily the most useless unit in all of A&A. Even the Battleship is a better purchase because at least it can soak up a hit.

The changes regarding sharing transports/carriers were just to clear up clutter in the rulebook, I think. This is fair, and I couldn’t spy any openings for either side where the rule would have helped if it still existed.

Again, I’ll hold off on commenting on the “purchase/mobilize units” changes until part 3.

I’m going to review the gameplay factor by briefly stepping through the game I played with my group last night. I’ll explain my thoughts as we go along, with a conclusion at the end. No, I do not have exact unit movements recorded. I figured there’d be no point in that, because:

• It was everyone’s first time playing the new game.

• There are huge gaps in player-skill in our group. Some players are competent, but others simply do not make moves that would be considered acceptable by most of the players on this site.

• This post is already getting a bit long the way it is.

Anyway, with that in mind, let’s dive in, shall we?
R1:
For starters, this map and setup are more-or-less based on 41, but with a few changes:

• IPC Values are buffed across the board.

• “Eastern Europe” has been split into “Eastern Europe” and “Balkans” to make the game feel more like Revised/42SE.

• “North China” has been split into two territories, the names of which I can’t recall. One is basically Sinkiang from Revised/AA50, a final barrier between China and Russia. The other is a buffer zone between the “Sinkiang-esque” territory and Japanese holdings.

• India and the “Sinkiang-esque” territory have special Industrial Complexes that can only build INF. I’ll talk about these more in part 3 but I wanted to note them here.

• A few extra SZs have been thrown about. US still can’t make it to UK in one move, which makes land bridges slower. The US and Japan can both make it to the Solomon Islands SZ in one move, which makes the prospect of setting up the USN difficult, given the huge disparity in starting forces.

• The setup is pretty close to 41 from what I remember, but Russia seems a bit stronger and Germany a bit weaker. This is probably to address the fact that OOB 41 was basically unwinnable for the Allies.

Anyway, on to the Soviet Player’s turn.

The first “Zombie Card” of the game went to FIC. One Zombie was more-or-less ineffective for the time being. We had a good laugh at the Soviet Player’s expense, as they were clearly not going to be able to kill 3 Zombies this turn to get their tech roll.

In a normal play for this scale game, the Russians hit Ukraine and West Russia with basically everything, leaving a blocker in Karelia (No IC there in this map). West Russia went well for them, but after 3 rounds of mediocre rolling on both sides in Ukraine the Soviets had to retreat. They bought 2 INF/2 ART, typical stuff.

Even at this early point, one of the nuances of this edition of A&A became very clear to us…

…The Zombies weren’t going to make land easy to hold. 4 Zombies were left behind in Ukraine due to the INF casualties. In a normal game, the surviving TANK would be in good shape to be reinforced by the other German starting units, and Germany would be on-track to securing a huge advantage due to the failed Russian attack. But in this game, things were different. In this game, Zombies were a thing.

G1: I was the German Player
And a thing they were… I didn’t even get to make my move before my TANK was killed off by Zombies, and my IPC value dipped. The Zombie of the turn took out Mexico, which immediately hurt the US Player’s income (no units start in Mexico). This prompted a few jokes, none of which I can share for obvious reasons.

I got a free roll on the tech chart for my troubles, and wound up with the “Zombie Mind Control Ray.” It moves Zombies in territory I control during NCM, but I never got a chance to use it.

Anyway, being the Germany player, I was immediately faced with two options:

1. Attempt to retake Ukraine and establish a stack (…that would be perilously in-range of the West Russia Stack + Caucasus reinforcements)

2. Hold the line.

After thinking back to the discussions I’ve had regarding the Zombie mechanics before the game launched, I thought of a more sinister plan…

3. Strafe West Russia until all of my INF die, leaving a mass of Zombies on Stalin’s front-porch.

Perfect.

To add insult to injury, I sailed 2 INF on a TT from Italy to Egypt on a suicide mission. The idea was to let Zombies pile up in hard-to-break territories and force the defenders out, then swoop in after the defenders die to get easy kills on the zombies. This turned out to be half of a good idea, but retaking Zombie-held land proved more difficult than I anticipated.

Naval combat is the same as ever in this game, so I wiped out the entire Royal Navy G1, even the Canadians. I lost most of my subs doing this though due to lucky die-rolling on the UK’s part.

I bought a mix of land units and passed play to UK.

UK1:
Sweden has joined the game
That’s right. The Zombie card for the UK Turn spawned a Zombie in Sweden, meaning they join the war and the Zombies gain more IPC Value.

The existing Zombies had a good run this turn. FIC Zombie got a hit, and the West Russia Zombies got 2, reducing the Soviet stack to 6 INF (the Soviet Player took non-INF units out first to try to slow the rate of new Zombie).

The UK Player quickly picked up on my tactic, and strafed the poor Japanese position in FIC just to kill their own INF and the surviving Japanese INF. Other than that, they weren’t able to do much except destroy the Japanese fleet off FIC (to establish a blocker for India) and pick off the German Battleship with the RAF. They blew all their money on INF for India and the beginning of a new fleet.

The tactic of indirectly crippling the enemy with the Zombies was proving powerful.

J1:
This turn’s card saw a Zombie show up in Finland-Norway, and with no starting German TT in the Baltic, the two units I had there were basically sentenced to death. Japan was also able to convert a Zombie in FIC into 3 IPC, which was helpful, but too little too late to save the territory.

The Zombie rolls continued, spelling doom for FIC and taking a bite out of the forces in Egypt and West Russia. The main Russian army was down to 5 INF at this point, looking great for my Germans.

The Soviet Player made the common mistake of stacking Siberia (literally called “Siberia” in this game instead of “Buryatia” like it usually is). The Japan player attempted to exploit this by landing in-force. Other than that, they committed to a China-centric attack while also dumping INF on the beaches of the Philippines to die intentionally (and so further damage the US economy).

Japan’s attacks in China went well, and they even stayed to ensure that the Zombies were cleared out afterwards. Sadly, Siberia did not go as smoothly. Only a TANK/ART/2 FTR remained after the Soviets (and Zombies) dished out some strong rolls during the battle. That means 6 Zombies (originally 7 but one died during the battle due to someone rolling a “6”) were set to prey on the TANK/ART that were left behind. Japan’s economy had been severely crippled due to the player’s bad decision to not retake FIC from the Zombies, but position-wise they were in good shape. The UK Pacific Fleet was 100% destroyed, there were no Soviet Forces in the East, and the main Japanese army was one move away from seizing the Chinese “INF-only IC”.

A1:
The Americans flipped over the next Zombie Card, which brought a Zombie to Australia. It also would have allowed the yanks to grab a tech if they killed enough Zombies this turn, but they were in no position to do so.

Zombie Rolls were merciful this turn, but an incredibly lucky roll killed one of the INF in Norway-Finland, meaning only 1 INF was left to deal with 2 Zombies.

The US started the process of cleaning up the Atlantic, but other than that they just amassed their forces and prepared for the rest of the game. They didn’t bother to retake Mexico, and led the Chinese on a suicidal march into Japanese China, successfully spawning a Zombie. Not a bad play.

R2:
“Why am I commenting on the entire game?” You’ll understand soon enough…

The Zombies continued, this time arriving in the Balkans. Fortunately, my main stack was there, and the Zombie wasn’t able to get a kill. However, Siberia fell to the Zombies, leaving Japan in a rough position. Meanwhile, the last remnants of the mighty Red Army died in West Russia before the Russia Player could even begin their turn, leaving them in a rough spot with basically no army.

Resigned to their fate, the Soviets sent a lone INF from Karelia into Eastern Europe, desperate to cause a diversion with a Zombie. To everyone’s surprise, the lone INF beat the INF blocker I had in-place there, completely cutting off my planned Tank Blitz into Karelia.

Now relatively safe, the Soviets sent the rest of their standing army into China to hold the INF-IC, and built as many units as they could manage.

G2:
I now faced a position that I believe the developers intended. The Soviet Army was totally crushed and defeated. but a White Wall of Zombies stood between me and victory. The Zombie Card dumped a Zombie into Borneo, threatening the UK Economy. My objective card was to kill 3 Zombies for a tech, which I barely failed.

The Attrition Rolls this turn were brutal. Norway-Finland died, Australia lost an INF (leaving a Tank to deal with the Zombies), Borneo fell to the new Zombie, Japan’s Chinese territory lost an INF to the Zombies, and Egypt was reduced to just 1 FTR (and 4 Zombies).

Figuring that Egypt was crippled, I decided to go for the kill on the FTR, and marched my troops in. I was ultimately horrified to learn that the Zombies were already more than I can handle, and my 2 TANK/FTR were all wiped out in the process of killing the UK FTR. That means Zombies ruled the day in Egypt.

Meanwhile, I cleaned up the Balkans and retook East Europe. Next turn, my death stack would be ready to hit Karelia, and from there my path to victory, around the Zombies, would be clear.

B2:
The UK got a truly terrifying “Desperate Measures” Zombie Card this turn:
“Choose a Zombie-Controlled Territory. Move half of the Zombies from that territory to an adjacent territory.”

4 of the 7 Zombies from Siberia were now in Manchuria (which was unoccupied), and Japan’s economy took a nose-dive. Scary stuff.

Attrition rolls were ineffective this turn, but the threat of losing Australia made the UK’s turn uneventful anyway, as they were delegated to cleaning up Australia, flying a FTR to Philippines, and stacking India. The Royal Navy was finally established, which threatened to liberate Europe in the coming turn…

J2:
Japan didn’t have much to offer this turn. Their Zombie Card took out New Guinea, and attrition rolls did nothing.

The Japanese Player attempted three objectives this turn, and failed all of them spectacularly:

1. Finish off the Chinese (2 INF/ART/2 FTR Vs. 2 INF/ART/FTR) - Result - All defenders destroyed, but no surviving attacking land units (Zombies Win, 4 Zombies on territory), Japan retreats 2 FTRs to Kwangtung (“Coastal China”)

2. Reclaim Manchuria from the Zombies - Result - A landing with 4 INF was attempted, but horrendous die-rolling saw the 4 Zombies roll 4 “As”, killing the entire Japanese landing party and leaving Manchuria in the hands of 8 Zombies.

3. Seize the Philippines from the weakened defenders - Result - 1 INF/1 TANK/3 FTR + Bombardment Vs. 1 FTR Vs. 3 Zombies somehow resulted in all of the land units, the British FTR and one of the Japanese FTRs dying. Attempts to strafe the Zombies failed spectacularly. 4 Zombies now lived in the Philippines due to not a single “6” being rolled.

The critical mistake here was that the Japan Player forgot that Zombies can’t hit air units. Let me elaborate a bit:

The Japanese player whiffed the bombardment and lost an INF to the Zombies. They got their hit on the UK FTR and the UK FTR got a hit back, killing a JPN FTR. Knowing that 1 TANK would likely not survive a full round of Zombie Attrition, the Japan Player tried to stay and fight the Zombies. Immediately, the Zombies rolled an “A” on their combat round. The Japan Player wanted to take a FTR as a casualty, but were reminded that Zombies can’t hit planes. Thus, the poor lad had to take his last land unit as a casualty, resulting in the Philippines going Zombie.

A2:
The USA Player laughed at our misfortune, as the game was already over.

“But how?” You may be wondering.
Two Words. Zombie. Apocalypse.

Yes, the alternate win condition that was mostly written off by my play group game into effect, ending the game in the Allies’ favor (their IPC count, naturally, greatly exceeded the Axis). 25 IPCs were really gone in just two rounds.

WINNER - ALLIES

So that was a game of AAZ. Our total playtime was about 2 and a half hours, and that includes the time it took to setup and review the new rules with everyone.

Honestly, everyone in my playgroup had a blast playing it. The Zombies add a chaotic factor to the game that is not normally present, and the quick result was greatly appreciated, even if it was probably a symptom of everyone’s unfamiliarity with the Zombie Mechanic.

However, I did find that the Zombie Cards added a degree of luck to the game that makes the thought of playing it competitively laughable. Our game was basically decided for us when the UK Player Top-Decked a card that transferred a horde of Zombies into Manchuria, which spelled disaster for Japan and triggered the “Zombie Apocalypse”.

Disclaimer (again): This bit on the zombies is based on how our group interpreted the rules. If I’m wrong on something please let me know ASAP so I can fix this. I do not want to have misinformation taint my image of the game

I also found that the attrition rolls for the Zombies consume a disproportionate amount of time that could better be spent playing. This could be sped up by just making the Zombies stronger during the attrition phase or by removing the attrition phase outright. I’ll give the attrition phase a pass though, because it was hilarious making people roll to see whether their troops would randomly keel over and die to the Zombies. Watching the invincible West Russia INF Stack, an icon of the series in my opinion, melt into nothing over the course of a round was extremely satisfying to watch.

If anything, it was way too hard to actually get rid of the pests. You have to roll a 6 to kill one Zombie (except in the case of spillover casualties, which are suffered by the Zombies). This means that, barring the one round of combat where you get spillover hits, you have the same odds of hitting the zombies as they have of hitting you. This makes attempting to seize Zombie-Controlled land effectively impossible unless you are bringing armies with 0 INF to clean-up, which becomes cost-ineffective when the enemy is just going to use the Zombie Stack as a Dead-Zone and kill your army for free once you’ve removed the Zombies for them.

All-in-All though, this game was great to play with friends who weren’t taking things seriously. Highly recommended for a late-night activity, for when there’s simply not enough time to play a larger A&A Game, or even for a time where everyone’s not quite in the mood for ultra-serious gameplay.

That being said, this game in its base form has no business being anywhere near a competition, and I hope that this game is not seen at Gen Con, Origins, WBC, etc., lest the reputation of the franchise as a competitive strategy game be damaged. At the bare minimum, the Zombie Cards cannot and should not be used in a tournament, and the “Zombie Apocalypse” victory condition should result in a draw rather than what is essentially a free win for the Allies. In its current state, the “Zombie Apocalypse” encourages suicidal play by the Allies to drown the Axis in Zombies and rush to 25 Zombie IPCs before the Axis can even have a prayer of reaching Moscow.

I mean, just look at the starting IPC values:
Allies: 68
USSR - 14
UK - 22
USA - 32

Axis: 38
Germany - 23
Japan - 15

That’s a 30 IPC difference (15 IPC swing). Yes, Japan will hopefully nab at least Philippines, Borneo and 2 Chinese territories (6 IPC Swing) J1, but the Soviets will trade West Russia and Ukraine (4 IPC total) for Karelia and Egypt (3 IPC total) between R1 and G1, which is an overall 1 IPC swing back to the Allies. That means the Axis only make up 5 IPC of the 15 they need to close the gap round 1, and that’s before factoring in territories that might arbitrarily fall to an inconveniently timed Zombie Card.

My point in explaining the IPC gap between the powers is to illustrate how easy it is for the Allies to win by forcing the Zombie Win Condition. Just march tons of INF into the Meatgrinder on the Eastern front and create a wall of Zombies. That effectively secures Moscow, as the Russians can easily punish any German Attempt at taking the clay by throwing more INF in their face and letting the Zombies do the rest. Japan is in a safer position to expand, but similar tactics can be used to slow them down by drowning FIC and the Chinese territories in Zombies. The Islands are probably a safe bet, but if the initial Zombies can’t be scrubbed from the islands quickly it will prove impossible for Japan to expand its income beyond its miserable starting value.

So that’s it. The game’s a blast for a fun time with friends, but competitively it’s a bloody mess. Stay tuned for part 3, which is a bit of a bonus part, where I’ll try the interesting experiment of playing this game Zombie-Free. I’ll also be running through the 1939 Scenario, which is an overly-glorified tutorial where Germany crushes Poland, France, etc., to see if has anything exciting to bring to the plate. Finally, I’ll share my thoughts on AAZ as a whole, and what elements of it I’d like to see in future A&A Installments.

If you actually read all this, way to go.
If you actually read this and the last part, double way to go.

“It Depends” is the best answer I can give you.

If we’re talking strictly OOB, no bids, Anniversary is the more balanced game any way you split it.

However, far more work has gone into developing G40 into its current state than has gone into AA50. AA50 is balanced by the community simply by adding bids for the Allies (varying by scenario and whether you play with NOs turned on/off). G40 is balanced by the community by developing entirely new rulesets and altering entire mechanics to create what is essentially a completely different game to what you buy in a store. Despite these efforts, the Axis still are seen as having a massive advantage in G40, and most ways to play AA50 see the Axis in a similarly dominant position, with the Allies needing large bids to compete.

NOTE: Take what I said above about G40 with a grain of salt though, I don’t play G40 competitively. However, most members of the community would probably agree with me. Just because a game is more or less balanced than another does not speak to the amount of fun you can have playing said game. G40 is the most popular version of A&A for a reason.

In my opinion, if you want a balanced scenario, play the 41 Scenario of AA50 without National Objectives. This should give a fair challenge to both sides, as the Axis need to make the most of their massively superior starting forces to narrow the absolutely massive gap in production between the two sides (Axis: 58 (G: 31, J: 17, I: 10) Vs. Allies: 113 + “7” (R: 30, B: 43, A: 40, C : “7” (recall AA50’s odd rules for placing new Chinese Units))). The Axis might have twice the starting punch of the Allies, but without NOs its going to take quite a bit for them to make up the 50+ IPC difference (that’s ~25 IPC of territory they need to capture).

Yo.

Apologies for not being active lately, Christmas season was extremely busy in my line of work, so I had to put A&A on hold to juggle work/family (as I’m sure most of you had to do as well).

Anyway, I finally got my hands on AAZ, undeniably the most controversial game that the franchise has ever seen, and I would like to take the next few days to share my thoughts on it.

To anyone reading this, know that I was originally supportive of this game in the face of the massive backlash it received from the community when it was originally unveiled a few months ago. I’m not bringing this up to re-fight any flame wars. I just want to make it clear that if I end up criticizing or disliking this game it is not because I believe that “Wizards of the Coast ruined my childhood” or “They made fun of veterans” or whatever. Some people have those opinions and that’s fine, but I’m going to look at this game from a more objective standpoint (or at lease from as objective of an standpoint as an opinion about a dice-rolling abstract wargame can be).

Anyway, this is my first post of 3 on this topic, a quick discussion of the components of the game. I’ll try to be brief, as components are relatively unimportant to me in these games (I own almost every edition of A&A at this point, and I just kind of keep all my unit sculpts, dice, etc. together in one massive collection). However, most members of this community highly value the sculpts that come in these games (for customization purposes, historical reasons, or otherwise), so I am going to take the time to address the quality of the product.

The Units themselves aren’t much to write home about. They’re just reprints of sculpts from other games (1942SE and possibly G40 I think, but I’m not an expert on this so someone correct me if I’m wrong). Other people can detail this much better than I. One odd note is that my British Units came out a darker shade of tan than I’m used to seeing. Not sure if that was a printing error or if it was intentional.

The Zombie units look fine. Their color being pale is probably why the British Units were made a darker shade. They’re relatively generic-looking too, which is a bonus if you want to use the sculpts in other games (HBG Global War, house rules for your G40 setup, etc.) as Partisan/Resistance/Civilian Units. I certainly plan on doing so.

I was disappointed to see that they cheaped out and didn’t print Industrial Complexes/AA Guns, but we are finally seeing the triumphant return of Paper Money to the A&A Series, so I’ll take what I can get on this front.

Anyway, on to the last bit for this part, the map.

The map quality was honestly my biggest fear coming into this edition of A&A. One of the first things we learned about AAZ is that it was going to be targeting mass audiences (simpler ruleset, 40 USD price tag, zombies added for flavor, etc.). The last edition of A&A that “targeted mass audiences” was 1941, which has the most abysmal map quality in the franchise bar none (except maybe the Nova Games version but honestly that doesn’t count). My obvious fear is that the map for this game would be hopelessly scrunched on an impossibly small board, making the game virtually unplayable.

I’m glad to report that I was wrong to be afraid on this point. The map isn’t perfect, but they’re pitfalls that most A&A games fall in to (lots of dead space in the ocean, Africa is too big, Russian chokepoints like West Russia and Ukraine are too small, etc.). The territories on the map are easy to distinguish from one another, and where one country’s territory ends and another’s begins is clear. This is due to the stylistic change they made with regards to the map design. The territories are no longer given the “terrain” style they’ve had since AA50 (which featured in AA50, 41, 42, 42SE, and G40), but are given sharp colors (more akin to what was in Classic, Revised, and 1914). In my opinion, this is an improvement, as my play group and I had difficulty distinguishing territories from one another when attempting to setup games with the former style for the first time.

The clutter of the board is not that bad, as the board was made reasonably large. Still, the map is not fantastic. It’s pretty small, and suffers from the clutter issues I mentioned previously. Because of this, I’d put AAZ’s components quality somewhere in the middle, better than abominations like 41 and 42 First Edition, on-par with the likes of 42SE and Revised, but below masterpieces like AA50 and G40. Yes, I called the maps of AA50 and G40 masterpieces. Regardless of my opinions on the art style of the map, AA50 and G40 have well-crafted maps that are big enough to actually play the game on, even if you need a special table for it in most cases. Is it fair to compare the quality of the components of AAZ, a game that retails for 40 USD, to games that retail for over 100? Probably not, but I did it anyway.

I would also like to address the design and structure of the map from a gameplay/balance perspective and compare it to other games in the franchise, but I’ll cover that more in a later part (or an entirely separate topic).

Stay tuned for part 2, where I post a review of the gameplay of this edition. I’m going to be meeting with my group tonight to play a game with Zombies enabled. My feedback will address the overall “feel” of the game, and whether I believe the Zombies actually have anything worthwhile to contribute to the series. That part will be out tomorrow probably. Thursday at the latest.

Part 3 I will upload later this week, and will cover a solitaire run or two I plan on completing after my initial play with others. I’ll be aiming to compare how this game runs with and without the Zombie Mechanic, to see if this game as a whole has anything worthwhile to contribute to the series. As a bonus, I’ll also be trying the “introductory scenario” that is in the rulebook. I haven’t reviewed it yet, but the concept of a 1939 start date is probably the single thing I was most excited for in this game, tutorial or otherwise.

If you actually read all this, way to go.

@Topmat Ah, you’re a much stronger player than I am, then. My Classical is like 1400 (the 1350 score was blitz).

I don’t know if you’ve ever attended an IRL A&A Tournament (or a tournament for any other competitive game), but I can give you some basic general advice for enduring the tournament:

DISCLAIMER: This is general advice. It may not be suitable for the tournament you are going to.

• Stay hydrated - Your body is the main thing that’s going to be giving out during a tournament. You’ll probably be allowed a glass of water or some other sort of beverage at your table. Personally, I’d avoid sugary drinks like soda, but more on that in my next point.

• Stay well-fed, but avoid overly-sugary foods like the plague - You need to last through 8-10 rounds of play, probably. If you’re playing on Classical Time control that means your games are going to last ~3-4 hours, slightly shorter than the length of your average A&A tournament game (~5 hours). My point here is that you’ll need some sort of nutrients between games, or you’re liable to see a lapse in your play due to fatigue. Make sure to pack food accordingly, as it’s not guaranteed that the venue will offer food that’s to your liking, if they offer food at all. Be sure to stay away from greasy or sugary food, I forget the exact science, but from what I remember, it has something to do with your body burning sugars faster than it burns other types of energy. Instead, load up on carbs, nuts, etc. More natural sugars, like fruits, are also okay.

• Stay calm - Losing 1 game will probably keep you off the podium, but this is your first tournament, so don’t worry about it. Online ratings apparently do not mesh with IRL ratings for chess, so take all of your matches seriously. Unlike online play, you can’t just stop and call it a night if you don’t play well in one game in particular, so unwind by playing for a draw in your next round or something similar.

• Get good sleep leading up to the tournament - Self-explanatory. If you’re not at 100%, your brain will let you down when you need it most.

I can’t really offer any gameplay tips, as my rating doesn’t even begin to compare to yours, so just do what you do best and try to avoid getting sucked into other players’ play styles. I imagine you’ll run into a bizarre opening line or two, seeing as it’s an amateur division, so you might want to read up on some common opening traps and how to avoid them.

This is the exact type of “gaming the zombie mechanic” type of strategy that I believe gives this game considerable depth, despite the low economy and smaller map size (compared to G40 standards, anyway).

Denying your opponent IPCs is just as important as taking them for yourself, IMO. One just has to be wary of triggering the “Zombie Apocalypse” endgame condition, as that will almost certainly result in an automatic Allied Victory give the way I understand the rules to be written.

@Topmat
I don’t play in person because I’m nowhere near good enough to even bother competing in a serious tournament.

I tried attending one tournament in my area several years ago, but it ended up being an open tournament, so I was utterly crushed by 2000+ ELO players in every round (I’m something like a 1350, and that’s online, so my IRL rating is probably significantly lower than that). Not a fun day.

If you’re attending a larger tournament, those are typically structured in such a way that you’ll play others who are around your skill level. Good luck.

@Seadog Not a problem! Glad to hear you found the advice helpful.

I don’t want to go into too much detail on what you did for AA50, as that game has its own sub-forum, but I’m glad you were able to find my advice generic enough to apply to multiple A&A titles.

However, for the Anniversary game, playing a more aggressive Germany is usually favored in the 1941 Scenario (due to how weak the Soviets are at the start of the game), and even somewhat in the 1942 Scenario (If Germany can make a foothold in Eastern Ukraine early, Japan can reach the territory with almost its entire airforce on J2, there is a thread on this strategy I’ve posted in quite a bit called “Unstoppable Axis Strategy”, if you’re interested).

@COJOH said in German mass tank build - how to counter?:

@taamvan / Hello, I’ve played with some friends sevaral times Axis 1942 Revised and we also find the game inbalanced in favour of the Axis. Could you please tell me were I can find the patch “42.3” from Larry Harris ? I searched the internet but cannot find it. Regards,
JC from Belgium

Not taamvan, but I notice you used the world “Revised” in describing the game you’re playing. This is the board for A&A 1942: Second Edition, released in 2012. You may be referring to A&A: Revised Edition, released in 2004. You can tell the difference between them easily, as 1942: Second Edition has a brown box, while Revised Edition has a blue box.

Just making sure you’re asking about the correct game, as several of the Axis and Allies games have similar names, which can make it difficult to distinguish them from one another.

I guess you can try using the wall of zombies to your own advantage, as a means of keeping the Soviets away from you while you go for an IPC grab in Africa. I know it’s not a lot but it’s at least something plus you have the potential to link up with Japan in India.

Sounds like Japan is going to be the one doing the heavy lifting for the Axis, just like in Revised/Classic.

I can’t because of work commitments, but here’s a quick outline of how I imagine one of these would look:

1. Overview of the Zombie Mechanic + Example.

2. Possible Applications of Zombies
  a. Fighting a losing battle just to wrack up causalities (so Zombies will appear on top of the defender).
  b. Purposely Triggering the Zombie Apocalypse Condition to bring the game to a swift conclusion.
  c. Using Zombie-infested territories to create a buffer between you and a stronger opponent (mostly thinking of the Eastern Front here).
  d. Using Zombie Cards to turn the tables on opponents who abuse Zombies.

3. General Strategies
  a. USSR - Build 100% land units, focus on holding West Russia and trading Ukraine
  (not sure if that’s going to be the go-to strategy in this edition as I haven’t played it yet, but that’s how Russia usually operates in non-G40 A&A Games).

i. Zombies can be used offensively to further deplete the German ranks after a failed Soviet attack.

b. Germany - Decide whether to:
      i. Concentrate on defeating Russia 100%.
        1. Note that the Zombies will definitely slow progress in the East.
      ii. Attempt a “Sea Lion” invasion of London.
      iii. Concentrate on Africa, so to increase the German economy and deplete the UK economy.
        1. Zombies can be employed as a buffer between German lands and an aggressive Russian army.
      iv. Some combination of the above.

c. UK - Decide whether to:
      i. Devote 100% of income to dealing with Germany
      ii. Try a delicate balancing act of containing Germany while defending India from Japan.
        1. Note that the new Recruitment Centers might make holding India a bit of a challenge.

d. Japan - Decide whether to:
      i. Wage a naval war against the US, with the ultimate objective of sinking the entire US Fleet before concentrating on Asia.
      ii. Focus 100% on Asia, taking India and China before ultimately moving of to assault the Soviets from their “back door”.
        1. May be more difficult than usual because of the Zombies.
      iii. Some combination of the above, trying to keep the US at bay while making steady progress in Asia.

e. USA - Decide whether to:
      i. Transport land forces to Europe to accelerate Germany’s defeat.
      ii. Build up the Pacific Navy and cripple Japan’s economy by taking the Money Islands (Indonesia + Philippines).
        1. Note that taking the Money Islands may become more of a chore than usual due to the Zombies.
        2. That being said, it may be sufficient to let the Zombies have the Islands, which still accomplishes the task of crippling Japan’s economy.

iii. Keep up a delicate balancing act, containing both Axis Powers.

I know a lot of this is your typical A&A high-level strategy talk, but newer players are usually in the mindset of:

• “Build all tanks with Germany!  Blitzkreig!  Hahaha!!!”

• Actually building Battleships, Bombers (in a non-“Dark Skies” sort of way), etc.

• Generally feeling lost with countries like the UK/US/Japan, who start pretty far from the action.

With that in mind, it might also be worth going over some of the basic tactics of A&A like:

• Defense beats offense on land.

• Low-cost units (INF, SUBs) are the best.

• Threat Projection > Pointlessly attacking over and over again.

• Land-Bridging (Reusing Transports instead of constantly buying new ones)

Hopefully someone else can take it from here. I’d do it myself but with IRL responsibilities (and without having actually played the game for myself) I can’t do it yet.

…Maybe if no one else steps up their game I can expand on this more, provide some sample opening moves/builds, etc. But I can’t get it done this week (which is probably when you want it done by, seeing as the game’s just coming out).

@My:

Hello, everyone! I’ve commited some errors.
Can someone help me to resolve all. I’m playing for Axis

Take this with a grain of salt, because I am absolutely trash at G40 to the point where I don’t really bother playing League Games or anything.

However, you can do the following to buy yourself some more time, at least:
Germany:

• Take your remaining navy + all available air for (I spy 2 FTR, 1 TAC, 1 BOMB) and wipe out SZ112. You should be able to win while only losing naval units.

• Take the subs from SZ93(? Can’t tell because of the glare, but the one off Southern France) and take out the lone French Destroyer off Egypt. The subs have 3 movement range because of Italy’s naval base in South France, so you can reach.

• Take as many land units as you think you need (no air units) and retake West Germany

• Consolidate your troops on the Eastern front and gradually fall back. You’re probably going to lose this game unless the Soviets make a mistake, but you might as well retreat and consolidate your forces instead of just giving up.  Who knows! Maybe your opponent will get scared when you destroy the Royal Navy and either make a mistake or concede.

• Build mostly INF/ART and get ready for a defensive slugfest on the Russian Front.

Italy:

• Build another TT or two ASAP. You need to get troops to Africa as its too late in the game to bother with the “can opener” strategy.

• If the UK keeps that Bomber on Malta after you’ve built your Transports, take Malta (for the sole purpose of getting the UK Bomber out of the Mediterranean).

• Alternatively, take the Bomber and everything else from Africa and make a play for Egypt.  Odds aren’t amazing (IT: 7 INF/2 ART/1 MECH/1 TANK/1 FTR/1 BOMB Vs. UK: 7 INF (6 UK+1 FR)/2 ART/1 MECH/2 TANK), but the Battle Calc gives you ~64% chance to win with Italy keeping a Tank + the air units.

My point here is that clearing the UK’s Atlantic Fleet AND taking Egypt AND building a fleet to consolidate Italy’s hold on Africa will force the UK to choose between continuing with their harassment of Germany in Europe Vs. building up in Africa to deal with Italy. No matter which choice UK makes, it will give one of the Axis countries some breathing room. If UK focuses on Africa, Germany can commit 100% to fighting the Soviets, and possibly regain the initiative. If UK focuses on Germany, Italy can gobble up IPCs in Africa and become a monster in its own right.

Hopefully you didn’t already surrender, there’s still a small sliver of life left in this game for the Axis.

@zooooma:

@DoManMacgee:

What are the rules for placing units at a recruitment center? Is it tied to the IPC value of the territory like it is for ICs (haven’t got my copy of AAZ yet or I’d check for myself).

Exactly like regular ICs except they cost 10 IPCs and only spawn infantry.

Bummer. I don’t see that being very helpful in 42SE’s China then. Aren’t all those territories worth only 1 IPC each? I doubt 1 INF/turn is going to do much in the face of the Japanese onslaught.

Thanks for the clarifications, P@nther. I never knew that bombardments were limited by the number of combatants before. It’s not something that typically comes up in a game, since Battleships and Cruisers are rarely if ever actually purchased.

@Striker:

@DoManMacgee:

Honestly I think the Recruitment Centers are going to be the one thing from this game that breathes new life into the franchise, especially if they become purchase-able in future editions as cheaper ICs.

That certainly seems hinted in the rulebook.  Looking at the rules for porting zombies to 1942, you can buy recruitment centers for 10ipcs AND one of the chinese territories starts with one. In fact, I’m interested in using the ported setup(Edit: As soon as they errata the American scuba soldiers out!) as a zombieless “patched” setup for the current 1942.  Tougher china, british navy/australia may be a positive change.

That’s a different take on re-balancing 42SE that I’d be willing to try. Having a Recruitment Center spawn in China would go a decent amount towards slowing Japan down in Asia (currently there’s basically nothing stopping them from running over the Allies in China and driving straight to Moscow).

What are the rules for placing units at a recruitment center? Is it tied to the IPC value of the territory like it is for ICs (haven’t got my copy of AAZ yet or I’d check for myself).

Honestly I think the Recruitment Centers are going to be the one thing from this game that breathes new life into the franchise, especially if they become purchase-able in future editions as cheaper ICs.

Imagine a game of G40 where Ukraine and Novgorod were Recruitment Centers instead of ICs. That wouldn’t be enough to turn the balance in the Allies’ favor but it would definitely stop scenarios where Germany rolls into those territories and starts pumping out Tanks 2-3 territories away from Moscow the very next turn unless the Soviets resort to gamey tactics (purposely not repairing the ICs when Germany bombs them, etc.).

For a tournament setting, I would toss the “individual victory” clause of the zombie apocalypse completely. A&A is best played 1 Vs. 1 or with preset teams and allowing for situations where team members could betray one another could create some really nasty situations.

I forget how Zombie Apocalypse rules work but aren’t they just “whoever has the most uncontested (i.e. Zombie-free and under their control) territories wins”? If so, wouldn’t that just mean Allies win every game without a lot of lucky zombie cards?

IPC Swing is a perfectly fine method of determining a winner once time expires, unless you want to go for something crazy like what WBC does for Revised:

Tl;dr version of WBC Ruleset:

-Strategically important locations on the map (Not always the OOB “victory cities” but they could be) are determined by the TO/community in advance. These are called “Victory Territories”. The Victory Territories are selected in such a way that both factions have an equal number of them at the start of the game (ex. 6 for GER/JPN = 12 total for axis, 4 for USA/UK/USSR = 12 total for allies)

-The Victory Territories are explained to all players, and counters indicating where they are location are placed on the map (these can be homemade for next to 0 cost, or can even be taken from other games, like AA50’s Victory City Tokens).

-Once time expires, whoever holds more VTs win. If VTs are tied fall-back to IPC Swing.