@Caesar:
The entire reasoning for AnAZ is ironically a reboot, that’s the hint I took from Wizards during their meeting with the players. This version of the game they know and understand does not appeal to the hard core fans…
Haven’t heard this one before. Were you able to make it out to one of the Launch Events?
Did the WOTC reps clarify whether they’d be making another entry for “hardcore” players at some point in the future?
@Caesar:
I’d rather have had the Zombie Apocalypse trigger a draw (or double-loss) than have it trigger a final turn. I get that the intention is to speed up the game, but Allies will win the IPC race 90% of the time unless the Axis were already well on their way to victory anyway.
The Zombie Apocalype trigger is way different than you think. Each nation fights for itself and the nation with the most ICP without a zombie in it wins.
That’s… Strange, to say the least. Reminds me of those old “6-Nation-Free-for-All” maps on TripleA.
@DouchemanMacgee:
I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, (…)
I do not agree. If these rules are hardly used then they are not problematic. Personally I sometime see it happen: US and UK using each other’s transports in West Pacific area… Mostly late game…
Those obscure rules have a place in the more advanced games, like G40/AA50/etc. But as taamvan pointed out this game is intended as an introductory-level game that is supposed to be easy to digest. The more nuanced rules of A&A (sub interactions with transports, sharing transports/carriers, etc.) are not easy to digest. You don’t have to look any further than the constant rules clarifications threads on the G40 and 42SE boards to see my point.
Heck, I can’t claim that I know every rule for A&A 100%. I think only like Panther and Krieghund do.
Agreed.
I would have also preferred that collect income/purchase/place all occurred at the start of your turn Vs. the end. That way you’re rewarded for holding territory through enemy turns rather than making quick, indefensible cash grabs.
Not sure if that’d slow the game down or speed it up, though. On the one hand there’s less money going around, but on the other hand players would be encouraged to turtle more than they already are.
CWO Mark sums up my feelings on this more-or-less.
I’ve been willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt and defend it because I’m confident that this is a one-time cash-grab that likely won’t become the norm. However, if WOTC continues down the road of “out-there” spin-offs I’ll gladly pick up my pitchfork, admit I was wrong to give WOTC that benefit-of-the-doubt and cry foul.
But like I said, I’m confident that due to the genuine concerns/anger people have displayed over this over the last several months (someone at Wizards probably has the PR job of gauging fan interest in their products, I would hope) WOTC won’t try this again unless the sales are astronomically high (which they probably won’t be, given how niche A&A and wargaming in general are). I’ve been wrong before, though…
I’ll be enjoying both it and A&A Mummies, thanks.
@SS:
@DouchemanMacgee:
Questions that weren’t answered previously:
Oh, and you should look into finding a way to harvest the tears and internet rage of half the users on this site into some sort of renewable energy. You’d solve the energy crisis for sure.
Funny coming from a non donor to site.
I literally just bought gold membership for the year just to discredit/spite you. Not sure how long it’ll take for my badge to show up, so here’s a picture as proof (if it loads, anyway, I’m not sure if 100 posts is enough to let me upload pictures).
But please, keep derailing threads and complaining. That’s constructive behavior.
I find the simplification/removal of rules no one ever made use of refreshing (Using TTs/CVs other than your own, etc.) refreshing, but I’m still conflicted on the Zombie Rules. I’ll need to playtest before making a judgement, though.
I’d rather have had the Zombie Apocalypse trigger a draw (or double-loss) than have it trigger a final turn. I get that the intention is to speed up the game, but Allies will win the IPC race 90% of the time unless the Axis were already well on their way to victory anyway.
When does this drop? I’m too lazy to look it up myself.
Questions that weren’t answered previously:
After AAZ, should we expect to see more Axis & Allies games in the future? Will they be serious, “zany,” or a combination?
Do you surrender your IPCs if Zombies seize your capital?
I understand that the map itself is bigger than 1914. But what are the dimension of the map? The 1941 board is pretty small, which causes it to be cluttered
What steps (if any) were taken regarding game balance? Or is this just seen as a “party game”?
Any update about the “1939 Setup” that was alluded to in the last article https://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis-allies-zombies-questions-answered/?
Any update on the “tablet” version of A&A that was hinted at in this rolling stone article from last year
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/how-the-company-behind-dd-magic-and-avalon-hill-innovate-w514703?
Oh, and you should look into finding a way to harvest the tears and internet rage of half the users on this site into some sort of renewable energy. You’d solve the energy crisis for sure.
I heard if you play this game Larry Harris himself will come to your house and beat you up for daring to play a game with zombies in it.
Sometimes I feel like some members of this forum were traumatized by zombies as small children.
I know this is a bit late, but I can give you a general overview of what to do. I’ll go into nitty gritty details if you want but you seem like a newer player so I’ll only do that if you want me to.
Anyway, general strategies (and I mean “general”):
Germany:
1. HINT: You can easily overpower and capture Egypt on turn 1. Doing this helps immensely by hurting UK’s income and boosting your own (until the Allies invade Africa later, anyway). From Egypt you can easily capture the rest of Africa to boost Germany’s income even further, or opt to march your troops through the Middle East with the ultimate objective of either capturing Caucasus or helping Japan seize India from the UK.
2. Play defensively (Buy mostly INF, like 10/turn at minimum). Yes, defensively. More often than not all three Allies are going to be spending the majority of their money against Germany, so buying lots of Tanks/Bombers/etc. is a bad idea. Your goal is mostly to hold out until Japan wins the game for you, only attacking if the Allies focus on the Pacific or if the Soviets make a serious over-extension.
3. If you want to ignore point #2 and attack Russia, try buying an Aircraft Carrier turn 1 and landing two of your Fighters on it. An Aircraft Carrier Turn 1 will bolster the Baltic Fleet, which will help you hold off the UK/US for a good while, giving you more time to do what you have to do on the Ost Front.
4. Watch out for UK. If the UK Player is smart their transports can start tearing your economy apart once they get into the Baltic Sea. From there, they can attack Norway (3 IPC), Karelia (2 IPC), East Europe (3 IPC), West Europe (6 IPC) and, most importantly, Berlin (your capital). Defending all of these points simultaneously is impossible, so don’t try. Just focus on keeping Germany, West Europe and East Europe in German hands.
Japan:
1. Don’t attack the Americans at Pearl Harbor. They can just replace their losses with their massive economy, while any expensive naval units/planes you lose are basically gone forever (or until very late in the game, if the Axis are winning).
2. Instead, assume a defensive position with your Navy. The Philippines SZ is perfect for this, because it can reach all of the Money Islands, Australia, India, the Solomon Islands (where the Americans will likely base their fleet) and even retreat to Japan if needed.
3. If the Americans attempt to move out with their weak starting fleet and don’t have a second fleet in-position to counterattack, feel free to destroy them.
4. Since the navy won’t be your main focus, spend most of your attention on mainland Asia. Your real objectives are:
a. Capture India to cripple India’s economy.
b. Capture Siberia to cripple the USSR’s economy.
c. Capture China to annoy the US.
d. Aggressively attack the USSR from the East, while attempting to link up with the Germans at Caucasus.
If you do these 4 things, Japan will be making a monstrous 42+ IPC/turn, and you’ll start breaking into the 50s if your fight against the Soviets goes well for you. Once this happens, the game will basically be over for the Allies, if Moscow doesn’t outright fall.
5. To focus on the mainland, build an IC turn 1 and put it in French Indo-China. From that Factory, build 3 Tanks every turn. This, paired with your airforce, starting units, and navy, will let you steamroll the Allies’ starting units, and out-produce them if the Allies try building factories in China/India to stop you.
6. You may want to build a second IC later in the game, so that you can produce 6 Tanks every turn instead of 3. Do this once you’ve established yourself on the mainland.
7. Only build additional ships in two cases:
a. You need more transports.
b. The Americans are building a fleet and you need to keep up with them.
Hope this helps and I’m not too late.
…and the woman zombie take your cash…
Dying.
To answer your actual question, I doubt they have any special values between them, but I’d house rule them as:
INF Zombie - Minor Neutral Countries/Partisans/Deserters - Act like normal INF. Dissidents spawn as a consequence of attrition, just like the “zombies” in the actual game. They can occupy a territory to generate 1 INF/IPC of the territory at the start of each round (not turn, round).
Worker Zombie - On-Strike Workers - Spawn on IC territories. Each on-strike worker lowers the amount of units you can produce from that factory by 1.
Women Zombie - Political Dissidents - Spawn anywhere. Each political dissident lowers them IPC gained from a territory by 1.
On-strike workers and political dissidents can be optionally attacked to clear them out. They defend on “1” to reflect their lack of military training/equipment.
Just thought I’d have a bit of fun with some ideas.
Four points I guess:
1. I usually stack Ukraine with Russia. Trying to attack the Central Powers will lead to what actually happened in World War 1, Russia getting steamrolled and politically collapsing.
2. It seems to me like your France isn’t playing aggressively enough in the face of Germany focusing on Russia. You didn’t mention the French once if your report, when it seems to me like you could have made a serious push for Ruhr, which would have either crippled the German economy or forced it to actually send units West.
3. If Russia is proving a challenge for you, you can always march troops from India -> Persia -> Sevastapol to keep the Russians alive. Even under tournament rules there’s nothing stopping the UK from dumping it’s entire income in India and rampaging across the Middle East. The Ottomans shouldn’t be able to put up too much of a fight unless you’ve got a really strong Ottoman player. This gives you free reign to either wipe out the Ottomans or prop up the Russians long enough for the Americans to win the game for you.
4. If the Italian front is stalling and Americans aren’t needed in France, you can send the Yanks to Italy instead. If you’ve established Allied naval dominance and the Austrians aren’t putting up any serious fight in the Trieste/Venice region, a steady line of Americans will probably be enough to ruin Austria’s day, or at least force them to divert troops away from Russia.
@Doucheman
@DouchemanMacgee:
Minor imperfections but you have the gist of the strategy down. Good job.
I forgot to mention in the post that Japan did take out the Flying Tiger squadron.
What else would you change in Japan’s turn one?
Let’s see.
You did the following:
Japan - Built a bomber and 2 subs and a transport. Took out the American fleet around Hawaii, took out the British fleet around India, and landed all his fighters and bomber in Burma and prepared to take India the next turn.
I would have bought a factory (instead of the bomber + swap out 1 SUB for an INF to make up the 15 IPCs) and placed it in either FIC or Manchuria depending on what the rest of the powers were doing.
Other main thing I would have done differently would have been to avoid Hawaii altogether, instead consolidating my IJN in and around the Philippines/FIC SZs (SZ 50, 36, or 37, take your pick) to further increase the odds of taking out India J2. This also allows you to bring the FTR from the CV near the Solomon Islands to Burma to join the rest of the air force (SZ51 -> SZ50 -> SZ36 -> FIC -> Burma). Letting the starting US Fleet go is annoying later but your goal is to get as much of your starting forces to Russia as quickly as you possibly can to overwhelm the Soviets before the Western Allies can do anything to stop you.
Historical accuracy has never been A&A’s strong suit… A common complaint from the traditional wargame crowd over the years.
At least in AA50 rules it mentions that the Dardanelles being open/closed is something you can toggle, if memory serves.
I might as well take some time to reply to the guy who wrote a match report, too.
I just played the game as the Axis against a skilled opponent who frequently bests me. In a compromise, we played with open naval passage at Dardanelle but also with national objectives.
Not much of a compromise, NOs on and Dardanelles open are both majorly advantageous to the Axis.
Round one:
Japan buys a factory and a transport. They ignore the US fleet at Pearl Harbour and China on the mainland. Japan does attack the British fleet in the Indian Ocean.
The factory goes in Burma and 3 fighters + a bomber land there. Two more fighters are on a carrier next to Calcutta (all within range of Eastern Ukraine).
Minor imperfections but you have the gist of the strategy down. Good job.
The USSR buys an assortment of land units and a fighter. They attempt to take back Eastern Ukraine and Ukraine. They conquer the latter but get unlucky in Eastern Ukraine.
This already sounds like its boding badly for the Soviets. They needed to focus on East Ukraine to save themselves later…
Germany buys mostly tanks and a battleship. They conquer Karelia and the Ukraine. At sea they take out the British fleet off Ireland. They also take 2 guys from Morocco and ferry them over to the Ukraine. Finally they reinforce the tank that survived in Eastern Ukraine.
While I’m not fond of the Dardanelles being open, in this case I don’t think it made a terrible impact on the game one way or the other, at least not yet. A Battleship buy, though?
In their opening round the UK buys a factory and some ships. They take out the German fleet in the Black Sea. Facing pressure from the Japanese in Burma they decide to consolidate in Trans Jordan and leave 3 men + the AA gun in India. Their factory goes to South Africa.
I guess a “middle Earth” kind of strategy (the one that’s used in G40 to control the Middle East with UK Europe/Pacific coordinating heavily) could be valuable here to get the Japanese out of India, but it would take a dedicated effort from the UK/USA.
The US opts for a Pacific purchase; a carrier, fighters and a transport and rallies at Wake Island. On the European front they regroup off the coast of Brazil.
I don’t have an AA50 map in front of me (I’m at work), but wouldn’t the Solomon Islands be a better staging point for the USN, so it can threaten the money islands?
Round two:
This is the time to move the Japanese fighters to Europe. Japan tries to kill two birds with one stone by giving air support to secure India (en route to Eastern Ukraine). The AA gun rolls snake eyes; both planes crash and burn, leaving only four planes to secure the front near Moscow.
The USSR reacts with a defensive purchase but goes on to attack the Japanese fighters and German land units in Eastern Ukraine. They take heavy casualties but manage to capture the territory. There are no more Japanese fighters in Europe.
Soviets are dead with that mistake. They overextended too heavily.
While I’m an advocate for a more aggressive Soviet game plan than most others (who prefer to just have the Russians sit in Moscow and wait to die), that attack on East Ukraine would probably have gone better if it were a strafe (clearing out the land units and maybe a few FTRs, specifically) than an outright attempt to take the clay. The result of that attack just left the USSR totally hollow in terms of available troops, which plays perfectly into the Axis game plan that this thread is all about.
–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the game is just mopping up by the Axis at this point.
Thanks for the report! It was an interesting illustration of how the Japanese FTR presence in Russia can cause Allied players to panic and lead themselves to ruin.
OK, I see now that there’s an “intro scenario” in the back of the Rulebook that’s only 6 rounds long, but there’s no round limit on the standard game.
Are you allowed to share the contents of the rulebook with the rest of us, or are you prevented from doing so by a pre-existing agreement with WOTC. If you’re not allowed to comment on that due to a NDA that’s fine too, I’ll just accept silence as a substitute for “can’t share that info.”
Honestly I think capping the game at 6 turns, with victory determined by the Axis reaching a certain economic threshold by the end of the time limit, is a much better victory condition than anything we’ve ever seen before, “Intro Scenario” aside. It finally actually puts a time cap on games and allows for interesting plays by encouraging something other than stacking. I hated on the Zombies earlier for encouraging super defensive play, but if Germany has to play aggressively to reach an income threshold that changes the entire dynamic of the game by forcing the Soviets to play differently to deal with German aggression + zombies spawning on their front lawn.
Thanks for the clarifications on my other questions, taamvan, I’m more excited (wouldn’t quite call it “hyped” though) for this game than I was before. Will definitely give it a spin in October/November/whenever it drops.
Your account seems different than the accounts given by the people who were at Origins. Have they changed the game since then?
New things I noticed are:
You say Axis (Germany in particular) seems weaker, people at Origins said Axis were extremely overpowered.
The “Zombie Dice” were said to just be aesthetic before, but you’re saying they have something to them that makes them mandatory. Are they not 6-sided?
Finally an answer on the dimensions of the board! If the board’s as big as 42SE I don’t think anyone would complain. Spring 42 and 1941 (and possible Revised/Classic) are the only games I’d consider “too small”
What’s this about not having to kill all Zombies on a territory to take it?
The 6 Turn Limit is something that was not mentioned by the reports from Origins (those reports claimed the victory conditions were total Allied/Axis victory, or Zombies win if they get 25IPCs). This limit sounds interesting to me. How is the winner determined once 6 turns have passed?
A China/Asia Theater of Operations game could work, as a different take on the usual PTO game.
Factions:
Axis: Japan
Allies: Nationalist China/UK-India
Communist: Communist Chinese
Idea would be that Allies and Communists are fighting Japan as their primary objective, but can also fight each other. Once time expires, whichever Chinese faction holds more IPC/Victory Points/whatever in China wins. Japan wins if they can take certain objectives and hold them until time expires.
It always sort of bothered me that China in A&A is portrayed as this perfectly unified anti-Japan fighting force when in reality the Chinese were led by two main competing factions (along with several local warlords that I’m not going to bother getting into) that had only begrudgingly put their Civil War on hold to deal with the Japanese invasion.