Still in the middle of listening to it (about an hour and a half in).
I’m a fan of hardcore history, but it takes me forever to get through his podcasts because they’re just so long. I’d just have them on in the background as noise while I do other things, but what he says is interesting enough to demand my full attention most of the time.
Interesting read so far, although I have not gotten through the whole thing yet (the site is huge!). Thanks for sharing.
I’ll bite. Please bear with my sarcasm. If you need me to modify my post over jokes that may/may not go too far PM me about it.
My questions are based on my questions list in the other thread, which was directed at people who played the game at Origins earlier this year and were shilling on this board: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42227.msg1783600#msg1783600
also based on questions of mine that were unanswered last time we did this: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41546.msg1742432#msg1742432
After AAZ, should we expect to see more Axis & Allies games in the future? Will they be serious, “zany,” or a combination?
Are the Zombies optional (can you play without them)?
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
More details on combat with Zombies, particularly the “Zombie Dice” (TM, Copyright Wizards of the Coast 2018, all rights reserved)
These two I think were answered previously but I’d like an official explanation:
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?
What steps (if any) were taken regarding game balance?
Any update about the “1939 Setup” that was alluded to in the last article https://www.axisandallies.org/p/axis-allies-zombies-questions-answered/?
Are there other victory conditions than the currently known ones (total victory, Zombie Apocalypse)? I can’t honestly see how they can list a gameplay time of 3 hours if there are no other ways to win than these.
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?
Apologies for hurt feelings:
If you disagree with AA50 not being the most balanced of the games, please enlighten us why?
I am complete agreement with Squirecam…there is no OTB AA game that is more balanced…
To clear the air, AA50 42 with NOs turned on is a mess and Axis stomp every time. AA50 42 scenario without NOs is well balanced, and what I will be discussing.
Revised and possible Classic are more balanced than AA50 42 scenario w/o NOs. I say this for two reasons:
A: Japan’s starting position in the 42 scenario is incredibly powerful. You can stack Burma with enough force to take India whenever you want and constantly be threatening to dump your entire FTR Stack on East Ukraine if and when Germany decides to seriously stack it.
B: Italy’s starting fleet is strong enough that it can stick around for a few rounds. In a tournament setting, this will usually allow the European Axis to hold on long enough for Japan to sweep India/Australia and run out the clock.
Classic and Revised have their own issues as well, but I personally don’t see them being as much of an issue as the points I mention above.
I’ll stress that all three games (AA50 no NOs, Classic, Revised) are all very well balanced. It’s just my subjective opinion that Revised is the most balanced version overall.
@Imperious:
In my experience AA50.42 is pretty balanced, But Milton Bradley is probably more balanced… but that’s not practical as a tournament option with Germany getting a healthy bid
The problem with Classic compared to other versions is that you really don’t know who’s winning after just 5-6 hours, unless someone makes a huge mistake or both players are playing extremely quickly.
Germany is very smart for going the Italy route. You might have trouble there.
Generally, France can hold off Germany 1v1 long enough for the Americans to start shoveling reinforcements into Europe starting turn 4. France should survive as long as you don’t waste resources on unnecessary offensive adventures.
As for the UK, their best best would be to focus on destroying the Ottomans ASAP. It takes one of the CP Economies out of the game permanently, takes pressure off Russia, and gives the Allies a back-door into Austria and Germany via the Balkans, which will force them to divert resources from the Western Front, which will inevitably win the game for you.
If Germany is going all-in after France, I’d recommend Russia put pressure on Austria and the Ottomans. Their economies are relatively small, so the slightest bit of pressure on them may be enough to save Italy from Austria (because Austria will have to divert resources to dealing with Russia) and accelerate the destruction of the Ottomans by the British, as I mentioned above.
Basically, play France/Italy as if they were Russia in any other A&A game, and play the other Allies more aggressively, picking off the weaker Central Powers before taking on Germany.
I mean, you’re not wrong about the thing being a cash grab. I doubt anyone disagrees with you on that. I mean, Activision’s been putting “nazi zombies” into Call of Duty for like 10 years now.
I guess I just have thicker skin/care less. If I want to honor veterans I’ll volunteer at a VA center or watch a WW2 documentary. To me, A&A is just a board game set in a certain historical time period, not a means of honoring anything.
To be fair to WOTC 42 and 41 are trash, 42SE is mediocre, and 1914 is a disappointment from a purely gameplay perspective. Additionally, Larry didn’t have a ton to do with Revised, which is one of the better entries in the series. And that’s not even getting into the depressingly bad spin-offs from the early 2000s (Bulge, Revised, Guadalcanal).
That being said, he deserves most if not all of the credit for bringing us A&A (both Classic and the franchise as a whole), AA50, and G40 (which as I said a few posts up is basically his masterpiece, war room be damned).
Re: Sales. I have no sales data to back this up, but I seriously doubt A&A, other than the original Gamemaster Edition, has ever been a serious needle-mover in terms of sales figures. It falls into an unfortunate grey-area of being too complicated for casual gamers (think stupid young people who will only play on their phones, or folks who think Risk is “too hard to understand”), while being too abstract for the serious wargaming crowd (i.e. people who play A World at War, Advanced Third Reich, etc.). Additionally, other than the abysmal 1941 edition (and possibly the Gamemaster Edition, but I don’t remember 100% so don’t quote me), the game has only really been sold in dedicated hobby shops and online, which definitely limits its marketability.
A&As main niche is WW2 history buffs, which is a relatively small one in this day and age. I’m not making excuses for or defending the poorly thought out decision to put Zombies in the game, but there’s a clear reason why the decision was made. If you don’t like it, just don’t buy the game. There’s always War Room (Larry’s project, due out later this year, although I’m not sure you’ll be able to get a copy if you didn’t back the kickstarter) and the Global War line. Both of these have their own sub-forums.
42 will give you more of the “typical” A&A scenario (Germany starts deep in Russia, Japan is at its historical apex, etc.).
41 will give you a new experience, where the Axis haven’t really started expanding yet, but are tremendously strong compared to the Allies.
If you’re all around the same skill level, play 42. If you have a mix of stronger and poorer players, play 41 with Objectives Off and have the stronger players take the Axis. Axis are stronger in AA50 but harder to play, so the learning curve should be enough to keep the stronger players on their toes.
Good luck with your game!
@Charles:
I had a lot of hopes and dreams for the possibility of A&A being continued without its legendary creator, but those were smashed with bloody zombies. Although I won’t be quitting A&A anytime soon, the lack of fresh appeal in the franchise is slowly taking away my game players. Alternate setups and house rules help but take too long to perfect to keep the less interested crowd from leaving after they’ve tried every strategy they wanted to.
I don’t get angry often or use such foul language but�
���� you WotC. ���� you.
To be fair, G40 was Larry’s love letter to the fans and basically the peak of what Axis & Allies can be without becoming overly complicated (GW1936) or a proper War Game. I doubt the franchise is going to go in the “bigger and more in-depth” direction for a while, if ever again.
If bigger and more in-depth if what you want, we have an entire sub-forum for the Global War series, which is an evolution of A&A built to be more complex, with more nation-specific rules/details, special events (Spanish Civil War, US Entry into the war), etc. I’m not shilling or anything (I don’t own any GW products myself), but it might be the thing for you.
Personally, I think this game has gone as far as it can within the price and size restrictions of the market. Adding more types of units and enlarging the board bring it into the tabletop miniatures wargame sphere.
Didn’t they already try a line of A&A minis? I swear they did back in like the 2008-2012 time period and it did badly.
Look on page 23 of the manual. NO’s are optional. They are NOT part of the basic game balance.
I’ve never played with NOs in any A&A game, but I never knew they were optional in the rules, thanks. Do they even run tournaments for AA50 with NOs turned off?
I had this same issue with Greg when we previewed AAZ. He wanted to play with the “special” card text, which adds alot of special happenings. I did not. I wanted to see if the base game was balanced first.
If NO’s are not balanced (I dont play with them honestly), then its that issue that needs fixing, not the base game or changing setup, etc.
I’ll have to try playing a round of AAZ with the zombies, but given everything I’ve heard so far, I’ll probably house rule either them or the Zombie Cards out of the game completely. It’s mostly the cards I take issue with. A&A is already very luck-intensive (Yes I know LL exists), and I accept/appreciate that aspect of the game, but I feel like adding another layer of luck on top of that would be overkill.
I dont get this sentiment. By FAR the most popular COD modes have always been the nazi zombie modes. This isnt a new thing. Zombies have been added to WW2 since….forever…
I don’t understand the rage either, but if you spend 5 minutes going through this sub-board you’ll see endless waves of posts by thin-skinned folks complaining about the zombies, so I figured I’d throw them a bone.
Basic 1942 AA50 is balanced. If NO’s are a problem…then its the NO rules that are the issue, not the base AA50 game.
In either revised or AA50 42 (sans NO’s), the bid is still 1 unit, which is pretty damn good.
IIRC NOs are a built in part of AA50, and turning them off is a house-rule. I’ve argued that G40 would be more balanced if NOs were turned off there as well, but the community/metagame/balance mods have developed around NOs for like 6 years now, so there’s no sense trying to change things.
I disagree on you regarding AA50 42 scenario’s balance, but that’s pretty far off topic and we can both agree that AA50 42 is more balanced than the likes of 42SE and G40, so I’m willing to drop the issue.
Guys,
I see your point about a game that needs to be introduced between 41 and 42…I will pass the word along.
If you have any sway with WOTC, please advise them to not do an overly gimmicky game again for a while. At least not in the next A&A release (assuming we get a next release…). This whole Zombie thing, while I (and most others) personally don’t mind it, has been a huge “base-breaker” in our community, with several members of the forum threatening to boycott the game over it.
Their main gripe can basically summed up as “The game offends me because my relative was in WW2.” I imagine this can be smoothed over a bit by having someone involved with AH or WOTC either:
A: Do an interview with someone and explicitly state that they support veterans, and apologize for any perceived disrespect that may have resulted from the inclusion of Zombies in the game.
B: Have a statement in the instruction manual/box for the game that states something similar. For comparsion’s sake, refer to the passages Larry included in the manuals for just about every game he was involved with.
And IMO, there is no game as balanced as AA50…!
I consider Revised to be more balanced than AA50. AA50 (41 scenario, Axis are too strong in the 42 scenario OOB) only becomes balanced if you turn NOs off, otherwise Axis win easily without a pretty sizeable bid, in both scenarios.
Gripes aside, AA50 is still my favorite version to actually play on. Small enough to be finished in 4-5 hours, but big/optimized enough to not fall into stale, super dead-zone-heavy strategies after turn 1 (except in Russia, but that happens in just about every A&A game).
And after playing 2 more games than Squirecam, I am not so sure the Axis are favored. Here again, it all comes down to the level of players you are playing against. Once we get enough games in, we will know more about the game balance…
I think it will take more time for a meta to develop. IIRC people thought Allies were overpowered in G40 for a while before people figured out the Italian Can Opener -> unstoppable German drive to Moscow strategy.
As for the board, playing AA on the Zombie board might be the answer you guys are looking for, for a version between 41 and 42, and playing without the Zombies? But need to look at that as well… :?
What you said is what I personally am hoping for, at least for the more casual group of friends I’m trying to play with.
What I loved the most with A&A was you had to calculate and figure out what units you needed before next turn. To purchase the right units at the start of the turn is what separated the skilled player from the beginner. Now it gets too simple, you do combat and move units around, then have a look at the map and see what you need, and then you do purchases. Its getting too simple, man
If they had to change it, I would have had purchasing and placing both came at the beginning of your turn, to encourage holding territories Vs. being rewarded for making over-extensive land-grabs. The new system further encourages poor plays like sending a Tank to blitz through two enemy territories and leaving it to die, confident that the IPCs you gained from the briefly occupied territories will translate into a net IPC profit for you.
Way off-topic, but what you said, along with the apparent rule-change for turn order, reminded me of a house-rule system I tried creating one time.
Basically, instead of each country performing its turn in a vacuum, each country took a turn playing out a phase. So you had something like this:
1. USSR buys units.
2. German buys units, after seeing what USSR bought.
3. UK buys units, after seeing what Germany bought.
4. etc.
5. USSR Combat Move + Resolve Combat.
6. Germany Combat Move + Resolve Combat, after taking a beating from USSR.
7. UK Combat move, after seeing what Germany did.
8. etc.
9. Same deal for NCM and placing units. I made up these rules for Revised a long time ago, so I never accounted for things like the new Strategic Bombing Rules, convoying, etc.
My idea was to keep new players engaged by letting them play more frequently, and it sort of worked, since I now play normal A&A with them whenever we get the chance.
/endrant.
I’m not sure how balanced the game is. Taking out the zombies might make things worse.
You’d have to try pretty hard to make a game less balanced than 41.
Or 42SE OOB, for that matter.
Even G40 OOB is better than these two, and everyone on this forum should know the nightmare it took to get the game where it is today (which, after all this time, is STILL heavily Axis-favored).
@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.
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:
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.
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?
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…
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?
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).
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”.
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…
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.