• At first blush, Bombers don’t seem to be too worth the investment due to AAZ’s depressed economy, and the designers choice to eliminate Strategic Bombing as a tool. More importantly, the cost inefficiency for Bombers against Zombies seems to suggest if someone is using large numbers of Bombers to attack, thin, and eliminate Zombie Hordes, the game is already out of hand for the opposing players.

    In the grand scheme of things, winning an AA game has always been about preserving mechanized units to leverage advantages in combats. A bomber or fighter lost, is probably a bomber or fighter lost for the entire game, because replacing it is far too costly.

    Zombies add a wrinkle, though, that give players time, and create buffers to thin attacking units, decreasing the need to keep bombers, specifically, tucked away safe.

    When you think on the Macro level, Bombers make no sense.

    But if you think on the micro level, Bombers have been given back the “Strategic Bombing Run” in a more dangerous context.

    Because all infantry become Zombies, and because Zombies claim territories and deny IPC production of the territory to a player, using a Bomber to attack a single Infantry may be worth it, especially if the controlling player can’t liberate the zone in a timely fashion.

    Take the Phillipines for example. If on J1, Japan attacks the Phils with a Bomber, and kills the trooper, he’s cost the US 2 IPC per turn until the US can Liberate the Phils, and due to the nature of AAZ, that might not ever occur.

    Running the numbers:

    A single Bomber will kill the Trooper 66% of the time in R1
    The bomber will die 33% of the time in R1
    Meaning:

    11% of the time the trooper takes the bomber down without the bomber doing its job (Boo)

    22% of the time the trooper and the bomber trade kills (this is an ok maneuver as long as it costs the bombed country at least 7ish IPC’s)

    44% of the time your Bomber takes the trooper, and converts the territory to a Zombie Territory. (yay!)

    22% of time you’re going onto the next round. (Ugghhh)

    Obviously the longer you spend time in combat, the greater the odds you’re going to see an outcome that you aren’t a fan of, but in gambling terms, taking 66% to potentially cost the US upwards of 20 IPC’s during the game against 12 IPC’s spent to take them is a bet any gambler will take every day and twice on sunday.

    Look for situations like this, where you can use a bomber to take a single territory that your opponent would be hard pressed to take back acting as a sort of “strategic bombing run” proxy.

  • 2020 '18 '17

    Really interesting point to create a zombie. The unit balance is pretty dramatically altered in AAZ, and you’re right, I’m not rushing to buy bombers with my low incomes.

    WRONG

  • 2020 '19 '18

    This is the exact type of “gaming the zombie mechanic” type of strategy that I believe gives this game considerable depth, despite the low economy and smaller map size (compared to G40 standards, anyway).

    Denying your opponent IPCs is just as important as taking them for yourself, IMO. One just has to be wary of triggering the “Zombie Apocalypse” endgame condition, as that will almost certainly result in an automatic Allied Victory give the way I understand the rules to be written.


  • @taamvan It’s the Infantry that’s attacking back, not the Zombie, as soon as the Infantry is turned into a Zombie, you choose not to bomb it (if you have D.O.T.S.) and return home. So the numbers, as run, are correct to to the ones digit.

  • 2020 '18 '17

    @Ragnar4

    Oh sorry, great point! Wasn’t thinking that through.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

80
Online

15.1k
Users

35.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts