Broken, Busted, or Both

[Striker]

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

[taamvan]

@Striker i’ve played it alot, and the other versions. I don’t spend time when I’m jogging hashing out my strategy for AAZ–there isn’t one. On the other hand, I spend hours strategizing over AA50, 42.2, G40/42.

The OOB version is luck driven and capricious. The tournament version is way better. I’m not sore I didn’t move on, I won the 42.2 tournament instead and I have no further desire to play this version.

[squirecam]

@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.

[Striker]

@squirecam said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

The technique is perhaps a cheesey strategy, but I disagree with aaz being boring since it adds another dimension to ground warfare beyond “stack everything In one territory, attack with 2 infantry and air to clear a territory and leave a single speed bump, rinse and repeat”

Those little battles matter, especially if you need them to block an assault on Moscow.

That justification can apply to zombie aggroing too?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I find it equally eyerolling whether it’s one infantry halting the blitz of the entire opposing tank force or a single sacrificial lamb whipping the zombies into a frenzy against the territory owners. It’s very subjective to say one is fine and the other isn’t.

[taamvan]

@Striker the single blocker thing actually ends up being very chesslike, especially if you can remove that blocker with an allied team before your turn. It may not be realistic, but neither are the territories in risk/axa or the way movement is presented, at all.

The War Game (and perhaps g36 idk) model this by having contingent moves–the blockers can each block 1 guy and the rest of the moves are each contingent upon what happens in each next square (so 10 ships, 1 destroyer blocking, 1 stays to fight the dd and 9 move on to face 3 ships, which can only block a maximum of 3 ships, so 6 can move on to the final movement square).

Its far more realistic, and a complete mess gameplay wise.

[thrasher1]

TV, Sq, Striker,

You all have a point. Yes, one unit blocking a complete step might not be realistic. But this is very much part of the whole - I would almost say - Axis and Allies DNA…
Changing that would really change the game.

I am glad this issue (send one plane into Moscow) was raised her. Surely gonna check it out and… think about counterstrategies. If we really do not find these and it turns out that this move is really a game-breaker then maybe the rule should be fixed (again: I came up with an idea) or maybe strengthen the Axis a bit by maybe giving them a technology or something like that.

I thought about a house rule. David wants us to post house rules in the seperate house rules section. So I try to post my ideas (not playtested rules, just ideas) there asap.

Glad to see of all of interested in this, well,… odd… Axis and Allies variant :)

[thrasher1]

@Striker said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

In the interest of quicker games and making japan/axis easier I’ve been considering a house rule of moving Japan’s turn to after Germany for effectively simultaneous turns, (and maybe adding an infantry to india to counter a t1 rush.)

I think this is a rathter harsh rules change. The sequence of play (USSR/Germany/UK/Japan/US) is well, rather hard coded in the simplier Axis and Alles variants. Say the world map games as I call them…
I would not tinker with that as a first step to fix or enhance the game of AAZ. But then again: if you do please share your experiences here.
One more for the house rules section then :)

[Striker]

@thrasher1
I don’t think it’s “hardcoded” as you say it is. Look at other games that start with Japan in their 1941 setup. Both pacifics, global,AA50 41…in each one Japan goes before Britain.
Both A&A1941 and zombies have this awkward situation where japan has a 1941 setup, before pearl harbor, yet…britain goes first? Japan doesn’t have the money islands yet to offset the alpha strikes.

I feel like it would be beneficial to the game to tweak the turn order first and adjust starting setup in response. As even with zombies there has been a feeling that “it takes too long” with some groups I’ve played with(meanwhile many of these same people liked how in D-Day both allied players move and collaborate together.) I like A&A and want it to succeed, but I feel we need to examine some of these “hard coded” aspects that may be outdated.

[thrasher1]

@Striker

I refered to the standard ‘world map’ Axis and Allies games.
Please play around with it and share your experiences here.

[Striker]

@thrasher1
Yes, and I still think you are comparing apples and oranges, as the standard world map games have japan in their 1942 setup, well after japan has entered the war and already made their economic gains.

[Krieghund]

@Krieghund, any idea if gameplay of AAZ would drastically change if Zs would follow the regular rules regarding taking control of an area?

I would say it would make zombies more powerful, as players would have less of a chance to react to territories being depleted of normal units.

[thrasher1]

@taamvan ,

I asked this question specifically here: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35212/sacrifice-a-unit-and-trigger-zs-gambit-move-and-the-z-camouflage-card-must-you-play

[8d88]

@thrasher1 Yeah, I think we need to look at this game as a different beast and not through the lens of the core games. While this strategy is crazy and overpowered mitigating hordes of zombies throughout the war campaign is clearly an extra challenge for the Axis (more so than the allies) that can’t be ignored if you want to take and hold territory. If Germany simply wants to take Russia out of the game quickly and take Russian IPCs they are welcome to rush Russia, but yeah, this will become a zombie controlled territory most likely. The end result would still benefit the axis but not at greatly as in an 1942.2 game.

I don’t see this immediately as a flaw, but as a characteristic of the game.
But I really don’t see how the axis have any chance to mitigate zombies properly without zombie technologies.

I understand wanting to limit luck for tournament play but I don’t see this game being a great tournament game at all, although it could be fun to play at a conference with enough beer is flowing.

For tournament or otherwise it feels like there needs to be a reliable way to acquire zombie tech that isn’t based on randomly drawing cards. Creating zombie stacks is obviously a benefit for the defenders, so the attackers should probably be rewarded too for taking on stacks of zombies. Perhaps granting a zombie tech for x number of Zs killed in a single battle either in addition to or instead of the cards.

I’d also like to see the technologies a bit more evenly balanced.
Maybe I’ll post in house rules instead of clouding the discussion here, but I think some community rules could lead to a better second edition for this game.

I think the Z42 variant has much more potential to be fun and needs even more attention/refinement. Larger national budgets should make the game feel a bit less swingy.

I was skeptical but I think is the first bold attempt at creating an A&A game in an alternate universe and it will have to undergo revision to become solid. And by solid I mean a fun romp of a beer and pretzel experience. I will never take a game of this too seriously, but I will laugh more during sessions of AAZ than any other war game and there will be some interesting tactical situations at times. But some refinement is clearly needed.