Axis and Allies and Zombies at Origins


  • @Narvik:

    @smo63:

    the turn continues on normally except for purchase units and placing units are at the end of the turn instead of the beginning…

    You purchase units at the end of the Turn ? What is the reason for that ?

    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

    When a major complaint of the game is that it’s too complicated, I expect Hasbro/WotC/AH to attempt to simplify it… And if you don’t like that rule, don’t play by that rule. The thing I love about board games is how easy it is to change how you play. Try modding a video game sometime to see the difference.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • @Nowhere:

    @squirecam:

    I’m not sure how balanced the game is. Taking out the zombies might make things worse.

    You seem as upset that people might take out the zombies as others have been about putting in zombies. Let folks play with it as they see fit!  :-D

    I am not upset about anything regarding the game.  Players can do what they want.  I am just offering my thoughts on my play of the game and what I experienced at ORIGINS.


  • @Narvik:

    @smo63:

    the turn continues on normally except for purchase units and placing units are at the end of the turn instead of the beginning…

    You purchase units at the end of the Turn ? What is the reason for that ?

    You need to ask the game designer that one…


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

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @smo63:

    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.

    @smo63:

    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).

    @smo63:

    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.

    @smo63:

    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.

    @Narvik:

    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.


  • @DouchemanMacgee:

    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.

    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 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.

    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. I do agree that revised was well balanced, but not actually due to Larry. His proposed carrier changes back in the day would have unbalanced it. The final LHTR worked though.

    In either revised or AA50 42 (sans NO’s), the bid is still 1 unit, which is pretty damn good.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @squirecam:

    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.

    @squirecam:

    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.


  • @Narvik:

    You purchase units at the end of the Turn ? What is the reason for that ?

    Its getting too simple, man

    Youre so right, man.


  • @DouchemanMacgee:

    @squirecam:

    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.

    @squirecam:

    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.

    Look on page 23 of the manual. NO’s are optional. They are NOT part of the basic game balance.

    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.


  • @Charles:

    @Narvik:

    You purchase units at the end of the Turn ? What is the reason for that ?

    Its getting too simple, man

    Youre so right, man.

    IMHO, the purchase order is an issue. You cannot “change” the phases in this way, and then try to add a 42Z expansion mode to 1942. Changing the phase order directly impacts the way the game plays. If I could change only one thing, this would be it.


  • seems simple enough to change the order of sequence. Doesn’t seem like a major house rule.

    I see why they did it. It simplifies the game by taking the guess work out of what you need since you can see what is now needed and where.

    This would go a long way to helping young players get into the game. Less bad choices/frustrations.

    This game is definitely shaping up to be a great intro game into A&A. Higher IPC numbers on the territories means more purchases/choices. A full line up of pieces. Money. Optional rules.

    An ability to transfer the rules to 1942.2 is very intriguing as once the AAZ gets stale/old, you can move up to a harder/ more complex version. Then finally do away with the zombie component altogether.

    Having been with A&A since 1987, gaps between version releases are no big issue. 15+ years between MB and Revised. Everyone got spoiled with revised/1942/G40 era. (technically the second editions should have been released as first as WOTC used us as play testers for those last 1st ed releases.)

    A&A shouldn’t see a major overhaul/remake until 2021 or so going by the release history and then only if something new can be added.

    MB second edition-1987 / Revised-2004 / 1942.2-2012. So 17 years / 8 years.

    Doing other eras, like WWI, is an option for the future of the series. I think battles/campaigns are done as we haven’t seen anything since 2007.

    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.

    Time will tell though.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @robert:

    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.

    @squirecam:

    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?

    @squirecam:

    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.


  • @DouchemanMacgee:

    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?

    Gencon A&A tournaments (Indianapolis 8/1-8/5) do not use NO’s. Neither did Origins (Columbus OH, this past June).


  • 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.

    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…


  • 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

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @smo63:

    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.


  • The Classic A&A winner is usually determined when the big Eastern Front infantry stack is dealt with between Germany and Russia… dicing usually plays a role in that one way or another.  Most Classic games I recall are determined by whoever wins that battle.


  • Japan can always lend a hand in that battle by opening a second front.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

39

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts