AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress) [House Rules]


  • @Midnight_Reaper

    I also think the no infantry strategy is interesting, especially as Germany. Instead of 4 inf, you get 3 art (or perhaps more practically in terms of what one would buy overall even if it can’t be afforded/placed in 1 turn, every 28 IPC gets you 7 arty instead of 4 inf 4 art) Then when you presumably attack Moscow, that’s a lot less zombies you’ll be making that are more likely to hit you than the Russians in that battle. No idea yet how that works out in terms of odds.


  • NOTE: Thank the Lord for the new Forum Software. My session timed out while writing this and I was horrified to think I had lost my entire post. Fortunately, the new Forum Software is smart enough to save a draft of your post for you.

    I have my own thoughts on the strategies others have posted about, but first and foremost Happy New Year to everyone.

    Sorry it took a while, but I was able to sit down over the holiday and give AAZ another look. This is the third and final part of my overview of this game, where I’ll be taking a look at how the game plays without Zombies, compare it to AA41, review the “1939 setup” from the back of the instruction manual, and give my final impressions on AAZ and what it brings to the series as a whole.

    I was not able to round up my playgroup for a game without the “Desperate Measures” features of the Zombie Cards, nor was I able to test out my proposed House Rules from my last post (only use the Zombie Cards for UK/US-owned territories). I apologize for this and I’ll try to test these out in the future at some point.

    Anyway, I ran through AAZ without applying any of the Zombie Rules, and I what I found turned out to be the exact opposite of the scenario I described in my previous post. Here’s a general overview of my observations:

    • The Eastern Front devolves into the typical West Russia Stack game you’d expect from a Revised/42SE game, mostly because no zombies = no attrition. No surprises there. However, the lack of a “Belorussia” territory between Eastern Europe and West Russia makes East Europe into the main German stacking point instead of Ukraine, which greatly strengthens their position by shortening their supply line.

    • Due to the way the SZs in the Pacific/Indian Ocean are positioned, UK can drive the Germans out of Africa B1 with minimal losses (by using the FTR from India + loaded TTs from Australia and India. The FTR is only necessary if Germany suffered minimal losses in taking Egypt).

    • Without zombies to hamper their advance, Japan is able to steamroll mainland China with minimal issues. They tend to stall out in Southeast Asia though, due to their weak start in FIC + having to spend the first 1-2 turns clearing out the UK Pacific Fleet. This gives the British enough time to establish themselves in India and the USN enough time to match the IJN’s strength.

    • No AA Guns helps the Axis in assaults on key Allied positions (India, West Russia, etc.). By time the Allies are attacking strong Axis positions the lack of AA guns doesn’t matter as much as they should have an overwhelming advantage when they go on the offensive.

    • Overall, with no zombies bogging down their forces, Germany can steamroll the Soviets because the amount of TANKs they start with is simply insurmountable. They force the Soviets to retreat their stack to Moscow G1 by moving every available TANK to East Europe, and after that point they can just stack Ukraine to finish the game (Caucasus can only produce two units per turn, which is too few to stave off a German push around G3/G4). German loses its entire fleet at the end of round 1, but they inflict so much damage on the RN that by time they build a fleet capable of landing in Europe the game is already over.

    • Japan doesn’t amount to much, but they can clear out China J2 and force the Soviets into a position where they’re forced to either clear out the INF-IC in Szechwan or allow Japan to start building INF there each turn, neither of which are sustainable options.

    • It’s amazing how much the game balance fundamentally changes if Zombies are removed, in my opinion. Honestly the game is more even with the Zombies left in. Without Zombies Allies probably need 6-9 IPC of bid to either bolster Russia’s start or to give the UK an extra DD to force Germany to commit all 3 Subs to clearing the main fleet (the one with the BB).

    So any way you split it, this game is not a balanced one. Additionally, taking away the Zombies completely kills the Fun-Factor this game has vs. the rest of the franchise with nothing to show for it. Not the news I was hoping to give you all on this front…

    Anyway, let’s talk a bit about some more general points this setup has, Zombies or not:

    • Germany’s starting fleet has a whopping 0 TTs in the Baltic. This makes Sealion virtually impossible unless the German player is willing to commit almost all of their starting income to it.

    • That being said, Germany can attempt to bolster its starting Baltic Battleship by keeping it out of the G1 attacks and building a CV on G1. This echoes a popular strategy in Revised where Germany builds a Carrier G1 to delay the UK’s uncontested landings in Europe for a turn or two. Whether this strategy has any merit Vs. opting to wipe out both starting fleets I can’t say for sure, but it’s worth looking into further. Note that going this route means sacrificing most of Germany’s land build G1, but Germany’s start has such a material advantage over the Soviet’s that I don’t think one lost round is necessarily crippling.

    • As I’ve mentioned previously, the starting Submarines + the small Italian Fleet Germany starts with are enough to kill basically the entire UK Naval Setup on the Atlantic Side. The trade-off is that the US/UK can clear this out by the end of round 1. However, much like in G40 and 42SE, the near-total loss of the Royal Navy cripples the UK and delays any serious threat to Germany by at least 3-4 turns. Not a big deal when Zombies slow down the German advance, but without Zombies Germany is partying in Moscow before the Western Allies can manage anything significant.

    • Unless the Allies go for a 100% KGF, the USN will overtake the IJN in about 2 turns. That’s not a lot of time for Japan to establish itself, and without the ability to build ICs, Japan will have an extremely difficult time gaining income once their initial land units are killed off. This is less of an issue without Zombies due to the lack of Attrition Rolls.

    • I don’t understand why players are not allowed to purchase ICs. In my opinion, this streamlines the game to the point of making the strategies for each country painfully linear. Yes, the Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow is not historically feasible, but neither is 70% of the other nonsense that happens in this game. Without being able to build ICs, Japan is forced to play the naval game, which they will lose every time. Without being able to build ICs, Britain is forced to defend a difficult position in India/Australia without even having the option of declining in favor of a full-on KGF because of the threat Japanese control of the Indian IC presents to Russia’s back-door.

    • INF-ICs (the ICs in China and India that can only build INF) are a marvelous addition to the game that should be included in future releases as not only features of the setup but as a cheaper alternative to a full-priced IC. Imagine being able to spend something like 6-7 IPC to build an INF-IC in a territory you want to defend, but simultaneously don’t want to risk becoming a strong point of the enemy. I’m thinking of ideas like giving the UK the option to produce INF in India to stall Japan’s advance without the downsides of wasting 15 IPC and handing Japan a staging point to build Tanks from. The INF-IC is a perfect middle ground between leaving a territory in the hands of the starting units and investing 15 ICs in what is essentially a double-edged sword. Something like a double-edged knife, I guess?

    • Switching the “Purchase Units” phase to the end of the turn is a change I welcome, but question the value of. I appreciate the ability to better-tailor your buy to account for some of your rolls going poorly in a major battle, as it lowers the barrier-to-entry for new players to compete on a higher level. However, was such a drastic change to the core rules really necessary for a 35-year-old series? My play group and I had to catch ourselves several times buying units at the wrong time, and we’ve only been playing since ~2007. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for people who have been playing since the 80s/90s to adjust to the new timing.

    Anyway, the last major point I want to touch on is that this game, in my opinion, is heavily based on 1941 to the point where I’d go out on a limb and say that this is what WOTC did:

    1. They started with just having 1941 and trying to add Zombies to it.

    2. They realized immediately that:
      A: The starting incomes are way too low in 41, so no country would be able to deal with the Zombies.
      B: There are far too many INF in the 41 OOB setup compared to other units, which only furthers issue A above.

    3. To remedy this, they bumped up the IPC value of (almost) every territory in the game, while retaining mostly the same map apart from some minor changes (which I covered in my first post but I’ll briefly go over again below). These changes mostly serve to tweak the balance of 41 while also accounting for the switchover to the Zombie rules. Below is my comparison of the 41 OOB Setup Vs. AAZ’s OOB Setup, by-country:

    • USSR: Almost no changes, but 1 INF in Moscow is swapped out for an ART and 2 INF were moved from Moscow to Urals. This weakens the initial Soviet push but gives them more flexibility in their opening (allows a bigger stack in Siberia or a beefier Sinkiang).

    • Germany: “East Europe” has been split into “East Europe” and “Balkans”. This makes attacking Europe more time-consuming in a late-game scenario, and splits the initial German units between more territories. The Wehrmacht on the front lines in Russia have had their strength reduced (mostly INF cuts, INF swapped out for ART, and one less TANK in West Russia. All of these changes were likely intended to reduce the number of Zombies that would pile up after R1 and G1). To compensate, Germany has had several TANKs added to their overall setup (North Africa, West Europe, Germany), along with an extra SUB which makes G1 an absolute nightmare for the UK.

    • UK: The Carrier near Gibraltar has been swapped out for a DD, and the FTR that was on it has been relocated to Gibraltar proper. This spares the FTR from the G1 onslaught unless Germany goes out of its way to eliminate it (at the cost of letting the Egyptians live, bad trade-off IMO). Their Pacific Fleet has been given an extra DD, which allows it to stand against Japan for ~1 more turn (or simply betters the odds of wiping the DD/SUB off FIC). The Atlantic Fleet got an extra DD, but that’s not enough to save the Royal Navy from being obliterated G1. India can now only produce INF, which indirectly weakens Japan by preventing them from mass-producing TANKs once they capture the IC.

    • Japan: Navy 100% identical to the 41 setup. This, coupled with the buffs to the US Pacific Fleet and UK Pacific Fleet, makes life difficult for the IJN, as I’ve elaborated on previously. The only other change for Japan is an extra ART in Manchuria, which helps the J1 push but not much else (it doesn’t even help the J1 push if Zombies are in-play, as the Soviets can sacrifice the Siberians to drown Manchuria in Zombies).

    • USA: “Szechwan” split into “Szechwan” and “Yunnan”, net change in the area is one extra ART. Szechwan can now produce 1 INF per-turn. This doesn’t do much without Zombies, but with Zombies it effectively allows the US to dump 1 Zombie on Japan’s advancing troops per-round. This adds up quickly and will ensure that Japan’s land forces die out long before they reach the Russian border. The SUB on the US West Coast has been replaced with a DD, and the SUB was moved to the Solomon Islands SZ. As mentioned previously, this allows the USN to very quickly overtake the IJN and strain their supply lines (since Japan can only really produce land units in Japan proper, and must ferry them to the mainland via TT).

    Lastly, we have the 1939 Setup, a glorified tutorial. As it hasn’t been covered by any posts on this site, I’d like to review it briefly here.

    Play is limited to the following territories:
    SZ5 (Baltic), Norway-Finland, Karelia, Archangel, Moscow, Caucasus, West Russia, Ukraine, East Europe, Balkans, South Europe, Germany, West Europe.

    This means that UK Proper, the USA, Africa, Japan/China, and most SZs are out-of-play.

    The objective of the scenario is for Germany to reach 20 IPC value by turn 6. If they cannot attain this objective, the USSR wins. There are British units on the map, representing Neutral Countries. However, the UK does not take a turn. These units merely exist to die to Germany and Russia, but will fight back when attacked.

    Anyway, here’s the setup:
    Germany - 7 IPC
    Germany (4) - 7 INF/3 ART/3 TANK/2 FTR/BOMB
    Italy (3) - 3 INF/2 ART/2 TANK
    SZ5 - 1 TT/1DD

    USSR - 10 IPC
    Moscow (4) - 3 INF/TANK/FTR
    Caucasus (2) - 2 INF/ART
    Archangel (2) - 2 INF
    Karelia (2) - 2 INF

    UK - 14 IPC
    France (4) - 2 INF/TANK/FTR
    Norway/Finland (2) - 2 INF
    East Europe (2) - 2 INF/ART
    Balkans (2) - INF/ART
    West Russia (2) - INF
    Ukraine (2) - INF

    This scenario is a joke, so I didn’t really sink much time into it. I’m pretty sure Germany just wins outright by the following:
    G1: Build INF/ART, they go to Italy to hit Balkans G2. Crush France/EE. Be sure to stay after combat and eliminate all Zombies. End with 13 Income.

    R1: Either 2 TANK for fast-move of 2 INF/ART for a longer game. They take West Russia + Ukraine. They probably kill all Zombies as well. If they’re feeling lucky they can try taking out the Baltic Fleet to lock Germany out of Norway-Findland. End with 14 Income.

    G2: Build 2 TANK/INF, all in Germany. Take Balkans and probably Karelia + Norway-Finland (may not be able to take it if Russia killed the Baltic Fleet R1). End with 17-19 Income. Rest either stacks EE or dead-zones it by over-committing to the Balkans fight.

    R2: Not sure what they can do here, really. I guess the can try poking at EE if it was lightly defended, or strafing Karelia to flood Germany with Zombies.

    G3: Germany probably wins this turn by mopping up Norway/Finland and/or taking one of Ukraine/West Russia/Karelia. I’d have to play it out to be sure, though.

    All in all the “1939 Scenario” is a disappointment. I like what they went for with the concept of “holding Germany to a certain IPC level”, but I wish they had at least added Japan/UK/US to the scenario to represent the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the early tension in the Pacific. It could have been a useful tutorial on the Naval Mechanics.

    If you actually read all this, way to go.
    If you actually all 3 parts, You Da Bes.
    If you only read 2/3 parts for some reason, you’re kind of strange but way to go anyway.

  • 2024 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18

    @Midnight_Reaper said in AAZ - Review and Thoughts (Work In Progress):

    One strategy I’m curious to try out is the “no Infantry” strategy. In short, you don’t buy Infantry. Ever. You buy Arty and Tanks, Fighters and what not, but never Infantry. You could even take it to the extreme that Infantry units in factory territories can be traded in, 1 for 1, for a 1 IPC reduction in the cost of buying another unit at that factory.

    I’m sure there’s downsides to this (besides the fact that Arty units are more expensive), and I don’t know how practical it would be, but I’m going to try it a few times myself to see.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    This issue with this IMO is that you’re still losing units to Zombie Attrition when attempting to move forward. That, and when you don’t build INF you start losing every single trade in every single battle you fight. 1 German ART for 1 Soviet INF is fine on-paper but the losses add up over the course of the game.

    INF cost 3, ART cost 4. That means for the trades to be worth it the ratio of Germany’s economy Vs. Russia’s must remain at or above 4:3 (1.333)

    Germany starts with 23, Soviets with 14. A 23:14 ratio rounds out to 1.643, just above where it needs to be to make trades worth it. However, I’d warn that after R1, Russia starts pulling in between 16-18 IPC a turn (from taking Ukraine and West Russia). Meanwhile, Germany’s income winds up being about 26 if I’m being generous (+1 from Egypt if they can hold it through the Zombie Attrition, +2 from Karelia if they don’t just strafe the Russians in West Russia, +2 from trading Ukraine if they can withstand the Zombies that are due to pile up there).

    That being said, 26:18 = 1.444, which means that trading ART for INF is still on the table, although it’s a risky venture. Good find.


  • @DoManMacgee

    With tanks costing +2 in return for +2 attack, +1 defense and +1 move, they are clearly and intentionally underpriced. The fact that they dont turn into zombies and get the chainsaw clench it–if you could buy only tanks, you should. Since every unit gets a different tech, you still would want some “combined arms” just to access all the techs you are getting as the game progresses–though as you may note, the techs all address zombies and nothing else, which is why none of them are particularly game-breaking and can be awarded freely.

    However, there are plenty of reasons to create zombies, and infantry remain 1) the cheapest for defense + hits 2) get a free space on a transport 3) are being created by liberation and cards so you can’t avoid getting some.

    I appreciate that you undertook the comparison with 1941 ed., but without the zombies or fun cards in the mix, that game seems like a bust. No zombies = low luck of AAZ.

    After my 3-4th game, I started to get the hang of it though; alot of times, you as the acting player (germany esp.) will want to create and manipulate a malestrom of zombies, they appear as a battlefield “memory” of wherever conflict has been taking place and makes those areas less amenable to further conflict…so regardless of your overall strategy or unit buys, if you create the vaunted zombie horde in a time and place more likely to stymy your opponents than yourself, you’ll win.


  • @taamvan Yes. Infantry does appear after a successful battle and by cards. But you can seriously limit the amount of infantry you have. Still I think this is a very expensive strategy…


  • @taamvan Your conclusion about AAZ No Zombies was the same as mine. The game simply isn’t fun and I’d rather be playing something else. The Zombies are what gives this game its niche, although I wished the game could be fun without them, for the community’s sake.


  • @DoManMacgee,
    You came up with an idea for a house rule. Being: only Zs in UK/US controlled areas. This to balance the game.

    Just an idea:

    This might be too harsh. But what might be an idea:

    If a player draws a card adding a Z in a German/Japanse/Russian controlled area then simply discard this card. Draw another card. This card is implemented regardless of the territory a Z is added to.

    So basically Axis and Russia have a bigger chance not to have Zs added to areas under their control. But it will happen. Only not so often.

    What do others think?

    (Moderator, if needed to be moved then please move this message)


  • @thrasher1
    Eh, I’d just take out the Japan/Germany/Russia-labelled cards from the get-go, rather than evaluate every card drawn. That way you don’t get gamey scenarios like:

    1. UK Invades France.
    2. Japan starts their turn, reveals “France” Zombie Card.
    3. Additional Zombie spawns in France, making Germany’s life more difficult (UK probably only intended to stay in France for a turn or so, just to gain some extra income).

  • @DoManMacgee ,

    I do not agree. I think your proposal is way too much ‘pro-Axis’. So that’s why I came up with this idea.


  • @thrasher1 I’ll hold off on arguing with you until I’ve actually had a chance to test my house rules.

    Personally, I’d prefer axing the cards altogether. They bring too much luck into the game. I’d keep the Zombies that appear from casualties, of course.

    However, I’d argue that the Zombie mechanic in-general is Pro-Allies to an obscene degree. It makes conquest neigh-impossible for the Axis from my (admittedly limited) play-testing so far.


  • @DoManMacgee ,

    Please share your thoughts and ideas and opions :) And ideas for house rules are welcome of course. But I guess they should be posted in a different forum.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Ah, but the cards are one of the most fun things about this game. I’m not sure the mechanic itself is pro- one side or the other, its that the SETUP has a number of imbalances that stand out visibly without extensive playtesting. If you pull out half of them for one reason or another, it’d be hard to objectively justify what was left over…


  • @taamvan
    “Fun” and “Balanced” are two different things altogether. My playgroup has a blast playing this game OOB, balance issues be-damned.

    In this game series, the Axis are tasked with utilizing their superior starting forces and initiative to conquer territory from the economically superior Allies. My argument is that the Zombie Mechanic makes conquering and holding territory more difficult than in previous iterations of A&A, and thus, negatively impacts the Axis more than the Allies.

    Basic Example, let’s say USSR has 24 IPC income and Nazis have 40 IPC icnome.

    Germans attacks a made-up Soviet territory, we’ll just call it “Karelia”, and say it’s worth 2 IPC. Let’s assume it’s a typical trade and Germany takes the territory with ~1 INF remaining (we’ll say it was 2 INF Vs. 1 INF or INF/FTR Vs. 1 INF).

    In a normal A&A edition, Germany goes up 2 IPC, USSR goes down 2 IPC for a total swing of 4 IPC.

    This plays out mostly the same in AAZ, with the caveat that the battle can potentially result in both sides getting wiped out due to Zombies.

    In the base case, this is highly unlikely, but as the game drags on and the Zombie Stacks get bigger/more impenetrable, you will see situations where you get territory arrangements that look like this:

    • Territory 1: Safe German Clay (we’ll call it “Eastern Europe”). The main German stack is here.

    • Territory 2: “Karelia” from above. Was originally Soviet, but now has a massive Zombie stack on it, and is controlled by the Zombies (i.e. not providing income to either player).

    • Territory 3: Safe Russian Clay (we’ll call it “Archangel”). The main Soviet stack is here.

    This is you usual Dead-Zone situation, but the problem here is that Germany is not able to maintain its income level by continuously attacking “Karelia”. Yes, the Soviets are similarly denied the income from the territory, but the result is beneficial to the Allies overall:

    Normal Game: Germany takes “Karelia”: +2 to German Income/-2 to Soviet Income = +4 swing to Axis.

    AAZ: Zombies take “Karelia”: +0 to German Income/-2 to Soviet Income = +2 swing to Axis.

    These sorts of situations play out all over the map (Chinese mainland, Eastern Front, Africa) and the overall effect is that the Axis’ progress in meeting the Allies’ income is slowed, which gives the Allies more time to leverage their superior starting income to overcome the initial disparity in starting forces.

    This can be managed, yes, but it’s difficult when you also factor in the following points:

    • most of the territories that are passed back-and-forth in the ETO are considered German-owned (W. Russia, Ukraine, Norway, W. Europe, North Africa Vs. Karelia, Egypt and maybe Caucasus if the Soviet Player is doing poorly).

    • The Soviets go first (out of necessity, as this is a 1942 setup and the Germans start at the gates of Moscow), and thus may immediately begin doing damage to the German income that they may or may not be able to recover effectively due to the accumulation of Zombies.

    • In a strictly numerical sense, the gap between the Soviet and German incomes (14 Vs. 23 in AAZ, a 9 IPC gap) is not as large as it is in your typical A&A game (which is usually 24 Vs. 35/40/41, anywhere between an 11 and 17 IPC gap). This makes the Soviet’s Task of “hanging in there” against the German onslaught less difficult, despite how massively superior the starting German Army is.

    I know a lot of this is just me throwing numbers at you, but the point is that, with the current setup, the Allies have the luxury of dictating where the main concentrations of Zombies will appear during the earliest stage of the game, which in-turn sets the tone for the entire match by giving the Axis a hole to punch themselves out of before they can even start challenging the Allies’ economies.

    The Axis need a handicap to compete under these conditions, and diverting the attention of the UK/US to the more far-flung regions of the map for a few turns via biased Zombie Cards is, in my opinion, the simplest way to do it. A bid won’t cut it here because if Germany is given too much extra power at the start they’ll just steamroll the Russians and ruin things in a different way.


  • @taamvan ,

    I agree: the cards are fun. That’s why I liked Fortress America so much…

    One more thing: if you remove say half of the cards then you also remove the ‘Desperate Measures’ part. This might unbalance the game…


  • @DoManMacgee ,

    Thanks for the extensive analysis. Almost all territories are included in the deck of cards.

    Maybe a more diverse, well fine-tuned, deck of cards should do the job. So say some US/UK areas being represented in the deck twice. Maybe some even receiving two Zs…
    Maybe some Axis territories should not have been in the deck at all. Maybe Axis (and Russia?) should have been given some cards that only apply to them. Say GER/JAP/RUS being allowed to change a Z into an own infantry. But this card can only be used by an Axis player. Just some ideas :)


  • @thrasher1
    A custom Zombie deck could do wonders for the game. Something like varying “Desperate Measures” effects based on which country/power flips up the card, and different ratios of cards (i.e. your idea of some territories being in the deck twice).

    I was just trying to focus on simple solutions that can be handled using the base game’s components.

    Maybe a bid for the Axis, but only Japan is allowed to use it? Japan is the country that has the hardest time getting anything going in the game as-is, IMO. If the Soviets suicide into Manchuria R1 and the UK suicides into FIC B1 they can basically knock out half of Japan’s starting income and almost all of their land forces. A bid that can only go to Japan can help them actually be a factor in the game without allowing Germany to simply steamroll Russia and win the game by themselves.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    That anti-Japan opener is more powerful here than in other editions, and Japan has too little income to get troops and ships.

    Tinkering with the deck in order to remove zombies from certain teams and areas has lots of issues–the game rewards you for converting zombies and so if you remove the bad, you also remove the good. Also, the cards are distributing 1 zombie per player turn, whereas its the battles that create the huge stacks of zombies. Having 1 zombie pop up here and there isn’t what makes the game problematic.

    Also, to your point DMG, later in the game, the techs make it easier for the teams that have them (earned them) to plow through formerly protective stacks of zombies. If a zombie wall appears between moscow and the german army, that seems pretty pro allies to me–in every other edition of the game germany proceeds with all it has to destroy moscow without having to worry about other considerations. Interestingly, most of the techs don’t reduce the danger of attacking the zombies (with their first strike), only text on the cards does that-- the “zombies dont attack on round 1” card is one of the strongest single bonuses in the game because it removes and reduces the risk of clearing the zombie wall for a specific player on a specific turn.


  • @taamvan
    The 1 INF bonus for liberating a Zombie-controlled territory isn’t particularly helpful on the Eurasian Mainland, seeing as it will inevitably be converted into a Zombie when it dies in a future battle.

    Yes, UK/US will get a free INF or two from liberating their far-flung territories, but they’ll need to:

    • Buy/bring additional Transports to pick up said INF

    • Waste the time/resources to liberate said territories, which would otherwise be spent confronting the Axis in more strategically important locations.

    • Risk having their units die to the Zombies (unlikely but the possibility still must be accounted for by the player attempting to liberate their territory).

    Your point about tech breaking the stalemate is fine, except that they removed the Purchase Research Dice/Tech Roll Phase from this edition of the game. Instead, you have to get lucky enough to draw a Zombie Card that gives you a tech.

    I’m starting to agree with you though that tampering with the deck might be a bad idea because it destroys the “fun-factor” (basically the only thing AAZ has going for it, given the fact that its balance issues become monumentally worse when you try removing the Zombies).

    Maybe the Japan-only bid is the safest bet? That and having the Zombie Apocalypse result in a hard-draw rather than what’s basically a free win for the Allies.


  • @DoManMacgee ,

    Just some more ideas:

    IDEA 1:

    Japan/Germany/USSR were police states (to say the least). So they can implement very harsh matters much easier then UK/US.
    So…

    At the very start of their turn Germany/Japan/Russia may remove one Z from a territory they control,
    (Or maybe even: from a territory they originally owned - though this might be too ‘strong’ an advantage.)

    Ideas are welcome!

    IDEA 2:

    Germany and Japan (and maybe Russia too) get one free Tech Roll Attempt each turn. A classic-1984 style one…
    Roll one die (for free). If you roll a six roll again for a specific technology.

    But these are just ideas…


  • @thrasher1 I’d go for requiring them to control the territory, at least. That would be a way of representing the various atrocities/genocides committed by those powers during the war.

    Plus, it plays into my re-purposing the “Zombies” as “Partisans”/“Resistance Members”.

    In addition to the one free roll for each Axis, I’d at least give everyone (including the Allies) an option to pursue the Tech Dice, for a price. None of the techs are as overpowered as Jet Fighters/Increased Air Movement/Heavy Bombers, so I don’t see a reason to not let the Allies blow their money on it.

Suggested Topics

  • 11
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 6
  • 10
  • 1
  • 31
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

41

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts