Posts made by DoManMacgee

@Nowhere:

So… why would people want AAZ without zombies? Easy… to get a playable map for 1941 and have a much better intro map for A&A that is very much like 1941’s map, just with more IPCs on it…

We’re 100% on the same page, Nowhere Man. What I quoted is exactly why I would want to Zombies to be optional (along with easier-to-obtain victory conditions). I have a need for a fast and relatively simple A&A title that isn’t as bare-bones as 41. Most of my attempts to expand my local A&A circle crash and burn because people get put off by either size/complexity of the map (even the small games like Revised and 42SE are too much for some of them, which is as bizarre for you as it is for me, trust me) and the length of the average game (I only get to see some of my friends 2-3 times a year and those friends aren’t too keen on dedicating an entire day to A&A). My only way out has been to house-rule in simpler win conditions (custom VCs with a hard turn time limit, similar to how tournaments are run), but I would have appreciated an official version of the game that did this for me.

@squirecam:

Q: Are the Zombies optional (can you play without them)?
A:Not officially, no. But whatever you do in the privacy of your own home is none of AH’s business. :)

Don’t ask, don’t tell  :wink:

@squirecam:

Q: Is there any way to interact with Neutral Countries (Spain, Sweeden, Turkey, etc.) without the Zombies (ex. in G40/1914 you can invade the Neutral countries and they will fight back with INF)

A: No, you can only attack them once zombies spawn in them.

meh/10.

@squirecam:

Q: I understand that the map itself is bigger than 1941. But what about the actual board you play on. The 1941 board is pretty small, which causes it to be cluttered

A: IIRC, its a bit larger.

Was hoping for something closer to 42SE’s size. I’m concerned about the size of the board in certain areas where large stacks of units tend to gather (Eastern Front, UK and surrounding Sea Zones). Was clutter an issue for your group when playing the game?

@squirecam:

Q: Can you explain the Zombie Dice in more detail than that? How does combat with Zombies work?
A: Zombie dice have 3 sides: Attacker, Defender and blank. Blanks hit no one but the other sides kill an infantry of that country.

Seems the Zombies are equal opportunity employers…

@squirecam:

Q: Do Zombies spawn from any combat involving INF casualties, or only casualties from Zombie attacks?
A: Every time an infantry dies. No matter who killed it.

Q: If Zombies can coexist with an army in a territory, what happens when another army enters that territory? Ex. My Soviet stack is in Ukraine alongside some Zombies. The Nazis attack Ukraine. Do the Germans attack the Zombies, the Russians, both, or do they get to choose?

A: Zombies attack first. Attacker hits Defender, but excess hits go to zombies. Also, Zombies get auto-killed when that certain # is rolled.

Follow-up question for these two. Are Attackers still allowed to retreat from battles? I ask because of the following situation:
Setup: German stack in Ukraine, Russian stack in West Russia.
1. USSR attacks Ukraine.
2. Fight begins, Russians lose most of their INF.
3. Russians retreat back to West Russia.
4. Zombies spawn.
5. Zombies wipe out Germans during the “Zombies Attack” phase of their turn.

This sort of scenario seems like a blatant way to abuse the Zombie mechanic. Is there something I said above that doesn’t jive with the rules for zombies?

@squirecam:

Q: Can Zombies coexist with an army in a territory, or does combat with Zombies last until one side or the other is wiped out?
A: Co-exist. This led to issues concerning “hostile” territories. Our group thought that such countries should be hostile and not controlled by anyone.

Neato. At least now I can pretend/house-rule that the “Zombies” are just “Attrition Casualties” (Russian Winter, Spanish Flu, whatever you want to call it).

@squirecam:

Q: You stated the victory condition for the Zombies (they infest 25 IPC’s worth of territories). What’s the victory condition for the Axis/Allies? Please tell me it’s not the tired old “control all enemy capitals” that never actually happens.

A: IIRC, its the standard.

Q: How long does one game take?
A: It says 1-3 hrs. But its based on 41, so I’d just add 30-45 minutes to whatever a 41 game takes.

meh/10. Why “streamline” the game if you’re not going to address the main issue for casual players (the length of the game). If WOTC is trying to appeal to “youngin’s” by adding Zombies they could have at least done something about needing to accomplish the neigh impossible task of occupying Berlin/Tokyo/London to “win”.

@squirecam:

Q: How balanced was the game, from your initial observations?
A: I think balance is an issue, but its being worked on.

Q: Can you compare the starting setup to any other game in the series?
A: More than 41 but less units then 42. Germany seems too strong and USSR hampered because they need infantry and they will be zombified.

meh/10. As for the balance, see my above follow-up question about how the zombie mechanics work. I’m convinced that dead INF can be flung at your opponent to gain an unfair advantage, but I could be wrong…

@squirecam:

Q: Was anything said about the “1939 Setup” that was alluded to in one of the early articles about this game? I was very interested in that concept but we’ve head nothing of it beyond that one article.

A: That I dont know.

Crap. I hope the 1939 setup makes it into the final game. Wouldn’t surprised if they scrapped it, though…

Thank for you taking the time to come here and answer all of my/our questions. I greatly appreciate it.

I have a number of questions, based on the conversations I’ve been having on the forums with other members who are justifiably concerned with the direction the game seems to be going:

• Are the Zombies optional (can you play without them)?

• Is there any way to interact with Neutral Countries (Spain, Sweeden, Turkey, etc.) without the Zombies (ex. in G40/1914 you can invade the Neutral countries and they will fight back with INF)

• Do you surrender your IPCs if Zombies seize your capital?

• I understand that the map itself is bigger than 1914. But what about the actual board you play on. The 1941 board is pretty small, which causes it to be cluttered

• Can you explain the Zombie Dice in more detail than that? How does combat with Zombies work?

• Do Zombies spawn from any combat involving INF casualties, or only casualties from Zombie attacks?

• Can Zombies coexist with an army in a territory, or does combat with Zombies last until one side or the other is wiped out?

• If Zombies can coexist with an army in a territory, what happens when another army enters that territory? Ex. My Soviet stack is in Ukraine alongside some Zombies. The Nazis attack Ukraine. Do the Germans attack the Zombies, the Russians, both, or do they get to choose?

• Is the game going to be sold in standard retail stores (like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.), or will it only be available in hobby shops/game stores?

• You stated the victory condition for the Zombies (they infest 25 IPC’s worth of territories). What’s the victory condition for the Axis/Allies? Please tell me it’s not the tired old “control all enemy capitals” that never actually happens.

• How long does one game take?

• How balanced was the game, from your initial observations?

• Can you compare the starting setup to any other game in the series?

• If you can’t, can you attempt to describe the starting setup?

• Was anything said about the “1939 Setup” that was alluded to in one of the early articles about this game? I was very interested in that concept but we’ve head nothing of it beyond that one article.

I’m sure other members of the forum have their own questions/comments/concerns, but these were the ones I personally see as most important.

Just focus on the “things that you must do to not immediately die.”

So things like:

• Killing UK Fleet/Paris G1

• Killing Italian Fleet UK1

But leave smaller things for the players to figure out on their own, otherwise they won’t feel like they have any control over anything. The rules of A&A are hard enough to remember for a beginner on their own, let alone minor things. I’d steer clear of nitpicky advice like:

• Specific build advice (Dark Skies, etc.)

• The entire concept of a “Can Opener”

The only advice you should really give in terms of builds is to focus on cheap units (INF/MECH/ART/SUB) and avoid more expensive ones (CRU/BB/TAC). If anything, that’ll help your players feel more comfortable in making decisions, since they’ll have a smaller subsection of the units to buy from.

@Nowhere:

Axis and Allies Napoleonic Wars already exists, it just wasn’t made by WotC and doesn’t have “A&A” in the title, but Worthington Games “War and Peace” IS 100% Axis and Allies in the Napoleonic setting… if this intrigues you, you should pick up a copy… there’s a discussion about it on the “other games” section at the bottom of this forum.

Not the person you were replying to, but thanks for the tip. The French Revolutionary Wars is my favorite war-related historical period other than the WW1-Interwar-WW2 era, so I’ll be sure to check it out.

As someone who isn’t as overly harsh on AAZ as most of the board, I have no idea why WOTC thought Zombies was a safer play than, say…

• Axis and Allies: Korea (bonus points for being a topical subject)

• Axis and Allies: Cold War goes Hot (Not that it would ever compare with Twilight Struggle, but some say A&A doesn’t compare with other WW2 Wargames, so whatever)

• Axis and Allies: Civil War (I think even Larry expressed interest in this at one point or another)

• Axis and Allies: Napoleon (Bonus Points for having multiple setups for different Coalition Wars)

• Axis and Allies: Rome (which I guess would just be Conquest of the Empire, if you really think about it)

They could even do a fictional, modern-day scenario similar to what HBG is doing with Meltdown: 2020 (or whatever it’s called I don’t remember).

Those card images just gave me a thought. Both of them are divided into a “desperate times” (spawns a Zombie(s)) and a “desperate measures” (provides some other bonus to the turn player). I wonder if we’ll get differently named cards…

Additionally, one of the cards mentions something about a “Infantry Reward” for “liberating a Zombie controlled territory.” Interested to know more details on that.

And another point. If a Territory is “Zombie-controlled,” does that mean neither player collects IPCs from it?

Side-note: I thought of an even more devious use of the Zombies’ spawning conditions.

Scenario: My Soviet Stack is next to my opponent’s Nazi Stack. At least one of our stacks is heavy in INF.

1. I attack the Nazi Stack.
2. After I’ve either lost all my INF or have dealt sufficient damage to the Germans, I withdraw the Soviets.
3. Zombies spawn in the territory where the battle took place.
4. I pass turn.
5. The rest of the Nazi Stack is wiped out by Zombies.

Might totally change the dynamics of when it’s considered “safe” to have your stack adjacent to an enemy stack.

However, all things considered, I’m glad the Zombies appear to be constrained in a way.

If they only show up as INF Casualties and as the result of the Zombie Cards (TM, Copyright Wizards of the Coast 2018, all rights reserved.), then you can easily remove them from the game with the following quick house rules:

House Rule 1.) Skip phases 1 (“Play a Zombie Card”) and 2 (“Zombies Attack”).

House Rule 2.) Zombie do not spawn when Infantry are killed.

Then you can make up some other fun house rule for the neutral countries with IPC Values/strategic importance, or just ignore them.

So to all the naysayers who panicked about the Zombies “ruining the game”, it turns out that it’s incredibly easy to get rid of them. I know that won’t sway people who take personal offense at the zombies being in a WW2 board game in the first place, but that’s your conscience and we already bogged down two other threads with those kinds of arguments.

I didn’t expect the Zombies to be so… “uninspired” I guess is the word I’m looking for.

What happened to all the talk of “Zombies will stop the stalling” that we’d heard previously? It sounds like they’re just a random factor (luck of the draw) thrown in for the sake of randomness.

In fact, if anything, the threat of zombies spawning due to INF casualties will only encourage EVEN MORE stalling, since the game is actively discouraging you from swapping minor territories (i.e. the 2 INF Vs. 1 INF or 1 INF/1FTR Vs. 1 INF fights that define the Eastern Front in smaller-scale A&A games).

Moreover, the threat of Zombie INF discourages any major engagement whatsoever, because even if I beat your 20 INF/5 TANK/5 FTR stack with my 30 INF/10 TANK stack, I’m probably just going to lose the rest of my army to the 40-45 Zombies that show up afterwards. And it’s not like anyone’s going to be capable of building less INF-heavy armies with the IPC incomes dramatically reduced, so things are just going to devolve into a stall war for fear of Zombies.

There has to be something else to the Zombie mechanic that they haven’t revealed yet, because from the sounds of it they’ve basically made the game unplayable.

But hey, paper money. Isn’t that what people on here have been rioting about for like the last 4-5 editions of A&A?

Others will say the puns for the tech (“Z-4” instead of “C-4”, etc.) are in bad taste, but I think they’re hilarious

@seancb:

after a few rides in the Mystery Machine with Scooby and the kids.

I think those responsible for the zombie idea ate too many Scooby Snacks, if you catch my drift…

1941 without NOs is more balanced than 1942 scenario.

People are saying 1941 scenario is broken because with NOs turned on Axis catch up to Allied economy extremely quickly while maintaining their huge advantage in starting forces. This is mainly because within the first two turns Axis will achieve most of their NOs while locking the Allies out of theirs.

When you play without NOs, the gap between the Axis and Allied economies becomes much larger, making it much more difficult for the Axis to catch up.

I’d noticed the higher income but did not notice the Artillery! Good catch and definitely positive news.

@robert:

The zombie map might be a good replacement for the 41 map if the size is right.

Has anyone actually found value in the 41 Map as a teaching tool?

I’ve had no problems starting people on 42SE/Revised and then moving up to AA50/G40 if they’re interested in spending an entire weekend fighting it out.

In my defense, I’m only planning on buying the game if it’s actually worth buying (which it likely won’t be, judging by the apparently miserable size of the map on the back of the box that was revealed a few days back).

Like I said in my previous posts, I can understand (but can’t relate to, it’s just a board game to me) people being offended by the shameless, quasi-disrespectful cash-grabby nature of the game, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you’d quit G40 (or any other edition of A&A, for that matter) over a separate game that should rise or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof).

@Nowhere:

Man, that board map looks REALLY small… I think it’s even smaller than 1941…

The board looks pathetically small, yes.

The scale looks bigger than 41 though. Some quick comparisons (I’ve attached the 41 map, for reference):

41:

• Sub-Saharan African and Siberian territories have no IPC value.

• Generally lower IPC values for territories.

• “Eastern Europe” is one territory.

• “Szechwan” is the southern Chinese territory, and is only one territory.

AAZ (box):

• Sub-Saharan African and Siberian territories have low IPC value.

• “Eastern Europe” and “Balkans” appear to be separate territories.

• Generally lower IPC values for territories (ex. Russia is 4 IPCs when it’s usually 8, East Indies is 2 when it’s usually 4, etc.), but not as low as 41.

• “Yunnan” and what appears to be “Sinkiang” are the southern Chinese territories, with the territory that is probably “Sinkiang” bordering Russia and “Yunnan” bordering Japanese-occupied Asia.

The AAZ map is definitely based on the 41 map though (look at the borders of the Russian/Chinese territories), which is probably a bad sign.

I’m curious/nervous about the die on the box image (the one with the letters “D” and “A” on the visible sides). Is it possible that WOTC took a hatchet to the combat system?

Also, I just realized something that no one’s caught yet:

Some of the Neutral territories (Turkey (2), Saudi Arabia (1) and Mongolia (1)) have IPC values. Could mean interesting game mechanics like violating neutrality might find their way into the game. Could be a sliver of hope that this game isn’t hot garbage.

Basically what Argothair said. Particularly:

@Argothair:

If there’s no house rule limiting my Indian production, then as the Allies I will drop 80-90% of Britain’s production into India for the first 6 rounds.

It cannot be overstated how one-sided the UK Vs. Ottoman fight goes in the OOB rules. You’ll completely demolish Ottomans in no time at all, and have a strong position in the Middle East that gives UK the option of either finishing off the Turks and opening a Baltic front or funneling reinforcements into Russia if it looks like the situation there can be salvaged.

If anything, you might want to look towards killing Italy first as the CP (you’ll need Germany’s help, often to the temporary deficit of the French front). Defeating Italy frees up Austria to move troops into Russia/keep the Ottomans alive, and removes one of USA’s possible landing sites in Europe, making the late game Allied assault slower.

@CWO:

To me, the worry isn’t the idea that AAZ somehow spoils the previous A&A games; the real worry is what this new game might potentially mean for the future of the A&A franchise.  If AAZ turns out to be a one-off anomaly, I can live with that.  Even better: if AAZ turns out to be the starting point of a new cycle of A&A games being published, and those games are more conventional in nature, then I’d even be prepared to give AAZ qualified credit for being that starting point, regardless of what I might think of the game itself.  But if AAZ turns out to be the first of a whole string of wacky reconceptualizations of A&A, then that would be another story entirely.

This is basically my stance, which is why I’ll continue to give the game the benefit of the doubt until we learn more.

However, the the low IPC incomes and small map size from the back of the box do worry me that this game might end up being nothing but…

@Imperious:

zombie crap and attack

We are talking about a game where you can win World War II as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Is that not disrespectful to the people (civilians and veterans alike) who suffered as a result of their tyranny and gave their lives to wipe them off the face of the earth?

As I said before, I can understand not wanting to buy AAZ or future A&A titles from WOTC over this, but don’t tie AAZ to the games that Larry made. Larry has demonstrated his respect for the veterans of WW2 countless times over the years and it’s absurd to blame him (or his creations) for a game that he likely had nothing to do with.

How does Zombies ruin G40? I can understand not buying Zombies, or even boycotting WOTC out of anger and swearing never to buy a new A&A ever again, but not quitting outright.

At the end of the day, your customized G40 setup that you’ve put countless hours/days into is still there, regardless of whether WOTC “ruins A&A forever” or not.

@SS:

HA HA HA  game aint out yet and already coming up with House Rules!
SWEET !
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

I cant wait to build 5 to 10 Zombie Inf per IC.

I was suggesting that the idea of a cheaper IC that only produces INF would be an interesting house rule the A&A games where the powers don’t start with many factories (e.g. Classic, Revised, 41, 42 1st Ed.)

But I have no doubt that this game will need to be heavily house-ruled to be playable.

@Narvik:

@Imperious:

yea sweet China is 3 areas total. These hobos must play 1941 AA and decided to add Walkers

No, no, China is 5 territories, but Japan occupy 2 of them…

Not sure what IL meant, but when I referred to three Chinese territories I was only counting the ones that start the game under U.S. control. There are only 3 visible on the board on the back of the box. Other games have had 2 (China/Sinkiang, in Classic/Revised/42 1st Ed.), 4 (Sinkiang/Yunnan/Szechwan/Anhwei 42SE), or many (AA50/G40), but never 3.