@thrasher1 said in Negative effects of AAZ cards for the active player?:
In general: must you play a card? Answer: Yes.
But are there any ‘buts’ here? Any gray areas in the rules?
There are none. You must play a card.
Subjective Complaints about AAZ (Zombies are stupid thread)
-
Although I personally dislike the AAZ concept and although I can understand why it might provoke a visceral negative reaction in devoted fans of the game (I had pretty much the same reaction myself when I first heard about the game), I think that its place in the developmental history of A&A shouldn’t be overblown at this stage. Depending on what happens to A&A over the next decade or so, we’ll eventually be able to look back on AAZ and make an informed assessment of its significance (or lack thereof). At the moment, there’s no way of telling whether AAZ will ultimately prove to be a misguided one-off statistical blip (which is my hope) or the first manifestation of the decline and fall of the A&A empire (to paraphrase Edward Gibbon).
CdG mentioned that AAZ has smashed his hopes of A&A being continued without Larry Harris. My own feeling is that, at this stage, it would be giving AAZ too much credit to conclude that this game will singlehandedly ruin the entire A&A franchise and its 30+ years of history. If WotC, from this point onward, publishes only “a whole string of wacky reconceptualizations of A&A” (as I described the concept in an earlier post), and abandons the mainstream version of the game altogether, then yes I think it will be fair to see such a development as a franchise-ruining debacle. If, on the other hand, AAZ ends up being just an oddball exception, then in retrospect it won’t deserve to be regarded as a zombie apocalypse (pun intended) for the overall franchise. Instead, we’ll simply be in a situation similar to the one that exists for two other iconic board games published by Hasbro: Monopoly and Risk. Those game have seen all kinds of variant editions produced (including, in the case of Risk, versions based on several sci-fi and fantasy franchises), but the important point to keep in mind is that the mainstream basic version of each game have remained in production right up to the present and continue to be bought and played; it’s actually the variants that have come and gone over the years. The basic mainstream versions haven’t remained completely static (for example the design gets tweaked / upgraded every now and then, as when Monopoly periodically retires – to great media fanfare – one of its tokens and introduces a new one), but they’re relatively stable and their survival doesn’t depend on maintaining the rapid evolution which is appropriate for the formative years of the game (as we saw with A&A, which originally didn’t even plastic sculpts). And you could argue that A&A currently has the luxury of having four mainstream versions of the basic game, i.e. four differently-scaled versions in terms of size and complexity: 1941, 1942 2nd ed., the recent Anniversary reprint, and Global 2nd ed. I see the AAZ game as being a non-mainstream variant, similarly to the WWI 1914 game and the periodically-reprinted D-Day game, not as conventional A&A game.
-
@CWO:
Although I personally dislike the AAZ concept and although I can understand why it might provoke a visceral negative reaction in devoted fans of the game (I had pretty much the same reaction myself when I first heard about the game), I think that its place in the developmental history of A&A shouldn’t be overblown at this stage. Depending on what happens to A&A over the next decade or so, we’ll eventually be able to look back on AAZ and make an informed assessment of its significance (or lack thereof). At the moment, there’s no way of telling whether AAZ will ultimately prove to be a misguided one-off statistical blip (which is my hope) or the first manifestation of the decline and fall of the A&A empire (to paraphrase Edward Gibbon).
To me, the main issue is whether the game is balanced. I think a designer actually should be “good” at the game. If you dont play the game at the highest level, how do you know whether the game you designed is properly balanced or not?
Throwing extra rules or zombies or whatever mashup because it “sounds fun” does not make for a good game. Not saying AAZ is or isnt this yet, because its hard to know after playing just a few rounds. Though years ago I did get to play a demo Buldge game with Larry and instantly disliked it, so there is that…
-
@Dauvio:
A&A gets monotonous after you get to a certain skill level.
This is true.
My league games this year have been very dull. Games with 20+ rounds and quite repetitive except for the occasional extreme dice. I honestly haven’t seen any new ideas in a very long time. No risk taking just endless grinding. Maybe if it gets fun again I will be back but for now I am out.
-
Here’s a radical thought… if you don’t like the premise of a game and think it will suck… don’t buy it or play it… crazier still… keep playing games you enjoy and love… if game-x sux, it shouldn’t make you love game-y any less.
-
Why make a game which will suck and everybody but you knows it will suck? The reason is future AA games will have no future, like a franchise killing movie that costs 200 million to make and sells 3 tickets…
The whole AA thing is being handled by monkeys who work at WOTC and have no idea what their doing because Larry Harris team was not involved and they have no Historical backgrounds. They just play fantasy, read fantasy, live fantasy and wear diapers for the most part.
-
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.
-
Iey Clutch Cargo is a history buff.
:-D -
@SS:
Iey Clutch Cargo is a history buff.
:-DWhile I agree with most of this, I do think BotB and D-Day were good games. It is a shame the line wasn’t extended more to say Stalingrad (urban fighting block by block) or North Africa.
-
@SS:
Iey Clutch Cargo is a history buff.
:-DWhile I agree with most of this, I do think BotB and D-Day were good games. It is a shame the line wasn’t extended more to say Stalingrad (urban fighting block by block) or North Africa.
I always like d-day. Just havent gotten around to it to add more small things to game like trucks for supplys, amo depots and something to that affect.
-
…but there’s a clear reason why the decision was made.
That decision comes from naked ignorance of what AA or wargames in general deliver and require some measure of knowledge of what WW2 was. The new cadre of WOTC are holdovers of D$D: they know nothing of what AA is about and i’ts not about zombies. They just took a 1941 board, made a few changes to that map and dropped “zombie” rules using Larry’s rules from past games ( 1941). Its pretty funny actually like when AA miniatures basically stole the AA name but has nothing to do with AA.
-
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.
-
@DouchemanMacgee:
Previous two posts
I would say something, but for berevity’s sake, I’m in 100% agreement with DouchemanMacgee’s last two posts.
He’s spot on with my own observations and take on this.
-
My thoughts are:
AA Zombies but STILL no AA Stalingrad! That’s just… ugh. Terrible.
-
It would be hard to replicate the urban fighting in Stal.
The river crossing could be easily abstracted with die rolls.
Germans would have tanks, art. and inf. while the Russians would just have inf and maybe a little art.
Not a great balance.
A game on the Med. would be great though.
Naval land and air units. Spain to Iraq Italy to Egypt.
Americans come in late like in 1914. Germans/Italians/British/ANZAC/Neutrals, hell even Russians and if the map stretches east a bit, the battle of Stalingrad :evil:
Maybe I’ll look at making a map this coming winter…
-
I’d love to see a combined Battle of Britain/Battle of the Atlantic A&A game.
Britain getting squeezed, needs to decide to invest in destroyers, planes, or transports/land units for an attempted invasion.
Germans need to decide to invest in subs, planes, or transports/land units for an attempted invasion.
America limited in its ability to support. Maybe a 3rd player.
Russian Front (or perhaps the tip of Africa) a wild card; as, if the Allies can successfully shift troops to either, the effect on Germany would be akin to an outsized Industrial Raid, simulating German forces pulled to other fronts.
First country to land troops on the other’s beach and hold for one round wins? Or maybe just if Britain holds out for x amount of turns? Maybe both?
-
Not sure that the A&A format really works well with the scale and vision of the game you propose… there’s only so much detail/focus that the A&A format works with.
-
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 ChineseIdea 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.
-
@DouchemanMacgee:
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.
Yes, that’s the reason I gave the ChiCom forces a roundel in Shensi on my customized G40 map (see the “8 Pacific Left Panel.jpg” picture here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32700.0). In fairness, however, I don’t think that Mao’s forces during the Japanese occupation of China were as strong (in either size or equipment) as they were during the Chinese civil war which followed WWII. They had taken greatly depleted during the Long March, and I think that biggest operation they managed to pull against Japan was the Hundred Regiments Offensive.
-
I think people are overeacting to this.
At it’s worst, it’s a hilariously out of touch bid to increase the game’s fanbase by WOTC (seriously, the zombie theme is roughly a decade old). From what we’ve seen, it looks like an updated version of 1941 with more playability (the inclusion of cruisers and artillery is welcome), and the awkward addition of Zombies. Having played '41, I doubt the game itself will be that interesting, but it’s compatability with 1942 2nd Edition is definitely promising should the zombie thing actually work. I’m waiting on feedback before I invest.
As for it’s ‘disrespect towards ww2 veterans’, I’ll risk riling people up by saying that’s nonsense. It’s obviously not done in any air of disrespect, and will undoubtedly get some kids otherwise uninterested in history an unconventional, but still informative look at the war. I’ve taught a few history lectures, and I always try and find ways of packaging the material in a way that will resonate with the targeted audience, whether it be maps, videos, memes, etc. Heck, even the government during the war got it, look at their partnership with the rapidly growing comic book industry, which created some truly bizarre stories involving Superheroes and villains fighting on the front lines. If you think the zombies thing is new… well, check out DC Comic’s biography on Adolph Hitler’s fictional history, it basically implies he was tricked into starting the Second World War by a supervillain looking to create zombies.
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_(New_Earth)
That aside, I’m definitely hoping this is a one time thing, and the creative heads at WOTC look towards different time periods for variety instead. I mean, come on, I would play A&A: 1861 to death.
-
This is all a bunch of reacting in a vacuum. You know that the person chosen to do this game would make their best attempt at making a fun new game. They did that, and its different and fun.
Buy it, try it, stop reacting to the concept in isolation without understanding that the axa franchise, ruleset, and decision tree is solid but tried and a bit tired, and needed a shakeup that will make this a legit use of your money, time, and strategizing.
Suggested Topics
