Axis win condition strategies always the same?


  • In this case, A&A&Z, I would classify it as “entry level” because of the map used.

    Fewer territories and less income make for fewer option than a 1942 or anniversary game.

    If it is a reboot, then it is of classic. :-D


  • @Striker:

    Other board games of similar or less complexity to A&A (IE: many of the scenarios of memoir 44, catan, etc.) aren’t locked into an optimal strategy…

    Other board games with more strategic options typically involve a lot more random and chaotic elements.  A&A is more predictable, and as such optimal strategies are bound to arise.  A&A players are apparently okay with this, as many of us feel A&A is a cut above.

    That said, A&A&Z looks like it offers a more tempting Sea Lion than any other edition.  It also should often end with an economic victory (zombie apocalypse), and it does have a strong random/chaotic mechanic that should make strategic play more “touch-and-go”.  You should be very happy with this game.


  • @Caesar:

    The problem is that Zombies is NOT an entry game, it IS a reboot to bring life to an IP that has a fanatical fan base.

    How is this a reboot when it is an expansion to 1942.2?

    A&A&Z has 2 marketing goals:

    • To sell s new toy for enfranchised players

    • To entice new/millennial gamers with sexy, pop culture

    The first group (I expect) will gravitate to the 1942.2 expansion for a deeper game.

    The new board will be enjoyed by vets for the fact that it is a new.  But this is an entry level game.

    • Fewer areas?  Check.

    • Reduced economy?  Check.

    • Fewer unit types?  Check.

    • Simplified rules/mechanics?  Check.

    The base A&A&Z game resembles 1941 more than 1942.2/AA50/G1940.

    1941 was clearly meant as an introductory game, but to the uninitiated it is just another A&A title.  Zombies will lure a lot more new players.  AH/Hasbro know this, and have designed the game accordingly.


  • @zooooma:

    @Caesar:

    The problem is that Zombies is NOT an entry game, it IS a reboot to bring life to an IP that has a fanatical fan base.

    How is this a reboot when it is an expansion to 1942.2?

    A&A&Z has 2 marketing goals:

    • To sell s new toy for enfranchised players

    • To entice new/millennial gamers with sexy, pop culture

    The first group (I expect) will gravitate to the 1942.2 expansion for a deeper game.

    The new board will be enjoyed by vets for the fact that it is a new.  But this is an entry level game.

    • Fewer areas?  Check.

    • Reduced economy?  Check.

    • Fewer unit types?  Check.

    • Simplified rules/mechanics?  Check.

    The base A&A&Z game resembles 1941 more than 1942.2/AA50/G1940.

    1941 was clearly meant as an introductory game, but to the uninitiated it is just another A&A title.  Zombies will lure a lot more new players.  AH/Hasbro know this, and have designed the game accordingly.

    You’re going to argue what we’re told at Wizard….


  • @Caesar:

    You’re going to argue what we’re told at Wizard….

    I’m not aware that WotC have denied this being an entry level game.  Where did they say that?

    But as a former MTG player, I can assure you that WotC do not publicise design decisions out of a desire to inform us!  It’s all just PR.  I don’t trust anything they say.

    Facts speak for themselves, and A&A&Z is significantly simplified compared to any other title (besides 1941).  What does that tell you?


  • Reduced setup and territories yes, but I’d say the rules themselves are probably as equal to or more complex than 1942.2.  You lose the simplest naval unit in the game(cruisers), d6 based income loss with strategic bombing, aa guns and buyable ICs(though there are now recruitment centers in the game).  The addition of zombies I’d say easily outweighs the loss of a few niche rules/units.  Oh, and technology returns to AAZ.

    There is a larger variety of events going on in a typical AAZ game round, but not necessarily larger quantity of things.  I think this a good thing in terms of game design.

    And regardless of whether or not it’s considered purely an introduction game that doesn’t excuse lazy victory conditions/making the pacific an afterthought.  Its so out of tune with the rest of the rest of the game.

    Even 1941 saw better than to make Moscow an instant win button. Even D-day had “hold multiple objectives to win”.


  • Obviously the Zombies add rules.  The question is, what have they added those rules to?  And the answer is a simplified version of A&A.

    Why do you think SBRs, new ICs, AAAs, etc were not included?

    1. Because WotC thought this would improve the game for seasoned players?
      Or,
    2. because they wanted a more newb friendly product?

    You can believe what you want, but I’m going with 2).

    As for the complaint that the Pacific theatre is downplayed, that sounds like almost every A&A game I’ve ever played.  It’s almost always KGF.  If you don’t like that, I (again) recommend using your Zombies as a 1942.2 expansion.  The base game was clearly not intended for those of us who want a deeper experience.  I’m surprised anybody here is even playing it, other than to get a feel for the new mechanics.


  • @zooooma:

    Obviously the Zombies add rules.  The question is, what have they added those rules to?  And the answer is a simplified version of A&A.

    You keep saying simplified, but i just explained its at least as much, and debatedly more, rules complexity to it than 1942.2.  Zombies,research,recruitment centers > cruisers,buildable ICs, AA.
    Don’t mistake quicker to play(due to less units) for simplicity. Otherwise we can start calling 4 hour sessions of classic risk comparable to axis and allies.

    Why do you think SBRs, new ICs, AAAs, etc were not included?

    1. Because WotC thought this would improve the game for seasoned players?
      Or,
    2. because they wanted a more newb friendly product?

    possibly 3): They didn’t want to make a game more complex than 1942.2 and were trying to keep the overall experience broadly similar in rules complexity.

    As for the complaint that the Pacific theatre is downplayed, that sounds like almost every A&A game I’ve ever played. It’s almost always KGF.  If you don’t like that, I (again) recommend using your Zombies as a 1942.2 expansion.  The base game was clearly not intended for those of us who want a deeper experience.  I’m surprised anybody here is even playing it, other than to get a feel for the new mechanics.

    “accept it or walk away” is a terrible attitude.  Again, there is little reason better victory conditions couldn’t have been made to satisfy more experienced players without taking away from beginners.  You can convince yourself that it was only meant for newbies and that somehow excuses it for silly victory conditions.  I will believe that i had multiple audiences(looking for an alternate experience, or important for my play group,audience looking for slightly quicker experiences)

    It is hard to bring IRL friends together for a 5+ hour 1942.2 game due to time free time being limited and heavily competed for for as an adult(Adding zombies to 1942.2 would make it even longer so it is not a good option).  3-4 hour sessions for a AAZ session may seem like only a slight difference, but it does get below what seems to be some sort of line. There’s been interest in my social circle here to play some AAZ over other variants, particularly after they ask “How long is this one” and I say it is a hour or so quicker than 1942.2.  Maybe in larger cities it’s easy easiar to find clubs with people interested in dedicating more time, but in smaller cities like mine in Sydney(nova scotia, not the Australian one!:P) you have to work with your social circle and what time they have available.


  • Pacific Theater is always downplayed because players have no reason to target islands in the Pacific beyond obvious targets with money value hence why I see tons of players adding house rules to island captures in G40.


  • Has anyone tried a sea lion strategy? I dismissed it as impossible but others have suggested it’s doable. I may run through that scenario in a Solo game pretty soon but I was hoping someone has already attempted it.


  • Zombies makes it much easier for Sea Lion, it’s not a cake walk, but more doable. Because of the position of UK ships against Germany and because Germany goes before UK, Germany can effectively destroy UK’s navy. It also takes US two turns to reach London while Germany can do it in one and UK only produces 4 units against Germany’s 7 with 5 of that being on Germany itself. If Germany is able to wall zombies against USSR, it makes Germany using Sea Lion more doable.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts