@CWO:
…. and two American fighter units represented by two different sculpts (though their cost and characteristics in the rules were identical).Â
Correct, One of the designers said he could not live with an Army P 38 Lighting as a carrier based plane, so they gave us 6 carrier based fighters too. Those were the days…
I totally agree with all of you, however Vann is right when he says that it’s probably to appeal to the younger crowd.
I am 50 and it appeals to me, man, so dont blame the age.
Oh, and since many of you wont buy it, I will buy 10 copies, just to support WOTC.
Yes, my way to honor and respect the veterans is to buy as many copies of A&A Zombies that I can afford, and store in my basement.
Enough
As Ceasar said, while it is a good idea for the playability and balance, its far from historical truth.
According to International Law for that period, and that is the Haag convention of 1905 and 1907, a country that declare neutrality at the start of a world war, can not take part in any kind of warfare or let other partys use their territory. The Law says the neutral state must have a strong military force to protect and defend its neutral territories.
Based on the International Law, all neutrals should have strong Infantry/Fighter defense for self protection, stronger than the OOB set up, and even maybe let them grow with one additional unit every second turn, if that dont make it too complicated.
The OOB rules for neutrals dont model the historical truth, it models the collective safety mechanic that the League of Nations tried to implement after WWI, but was abandoned in 1938, when every neutral minor country in Europe reverted back to the Haag convention from 1905/07. Attack one member, and you attack them all. I love that idea, and maybe it would have worked, but no matter how beautiful the idea is, it was in fact abandoned in 1938 because UK and France denied the League of Nations to punish Italy and Japan after the attacks on true neutrals Ethiopia, Albania and Manchuria. PM Chamberlain said in his speach that the collective safety mechanic was dead, and that each neutral minor had to depend on their own military defense, or join the Western Allies.
Still, the idea of collective safety for neutrals is not dead in A&A. Attack neutral Spain, and all the neutrals of the world will attack you. Sorry but its not the historical truth, not for the first years when strict neutral Ethiopia, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Romania, The Baltic States, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium and Netherlands all were attacked, and all this were strict and true neutrals, its not like they were pro something that would have justified the attacks, but the truth is that the rest of the true neutrals did nothing, strict neutral Sweden did nothing when its brothers Finland, Norway and Denmark were attacked, why would neutral Sweden do something if true neutral Bolivia in South America, or true neutral Zimbabwe in Africa, or true neutral Mongolia in Asia got attacked ? I just cant see the reason. A neutral is a neutral, when your brother get stabbed you turn your back to it, you dont suddenly join any fight, because then you are not neutral.
Pacific 2001Â – not listed
Correct, Pacific 2001 and Europe 1999, the two best A&A games, currently out of print, too sad.
Pacific 2001 was the first game with convoy zones, naval bases and air bases, and my favorite, the CAP, Combat Air Patrol, the current scrambling is by far not that good.
And the best, they were playable, you could play it every where, you did not need a dedicated basement like when you play G40, or a 6 feet table. Also, the map was focused on the spot where the war actually happened. No Africa and no South America. Too sad its out of print
I paid years ago and start to get tired of waiting, anybody know how long to this game is actually coming to my home ?
I dont belive we had oil here in Norway during WWII, I think we found it in 1965, at the bottom of the North Sea, and any way there would be no technology to get it up from the deep of 4 miles before the 1960s. As you know, the oil in the Middle East is just some feets under the sand, and is easy to get up, some places it even pops up by itself.
I love an oil rule. With no oil your battleships, aircrafts and tanks cant move. Lack of oil was the sole reason that the Italian battleships never left port during WWII. There should be some oil in Amerika too, since 60 % of all oil was produced there, like Venezuela and Mexico, and Texas. And you should add, that you need to track a path between your oil and units that are not blocked, if you want to move something other than inf
Have you considered using Kickstarter ?
@Caesar:
you should add a rule that UK can declare war of Italy but suffers some kind of backlash for it.
I think you are on to something. In fact every player, except USA, should be free to declare war on any enemy or neutral, but if they do they will suffer a backlash. USA did not have this freedom of DOW because they had the Congress, but every other nation could. The only ting that prevented them from making favorable DOW,s were fear of suffering backlashes. In fact every nation that unprovocely attacked innocent neighbours did in fact get banned and blocked from the international trade. When Benito attacked France, then Italy was denied American oil the next day, forcing Germany to share the Romanian oil, which led to all Italian battleships staying in port for the rest of the war. Same with UK, they wanted to attack neutral Norway and Sweden to cut of the iron ore trade, but did not dare that because USA warned that in that case they would be banned from trade, so they had to wait and let Adolf do the first move.
I suggest that the German 5 IPC trade NO can be used on every playing nation. Every player start with a 5 IPC international trade NO. If you make an unprovoced attack on any neutral or enemy not yet at war power, then you lose that 5 IPC NO. But if you are the victim then you keep it. Now UK must decide if an unprovoced Taranto raid is favorable, or is it better to let Italy make the first move. I think this is in the spirit of A&A, and all the silly special rules we have seen the last years are not. Tanks you for listening, man
A Japanese base in Madagaskar would have closed the US Lend/Lease route named the Persian Corridor from US to USSR, as well as the Middle East oil going the other way, so I dont think US would allowed that. In fact UK did attack the Vichy garrison there in May 1942, to deny Japan access to Madagaskar. Its a pretty long way from Japan, so I cant figure how they should have done it, its hardly doable in an A&A game, and in the real world you got the supply chain too
I cant find anything yet about how purchasing and mobilization of new units work. Only some combat examples, at Kickstarter and BGG. So, I am watching this documentary about the war in Nam, and have come to 1965, so my assumptions could be wrong. But fact is, the military advisors that have been asked so far, claim that the main problem was, that if you killed one enemy communist, then that one enemy would be replaced. But, and this is vital, if you killed one innocent, then 10 new people would join Viet Cong. To me this look like a zombie apocalypse. Kill one enemy unit, and your opponent can mobilize one new unit. But burn a civillian village and your opponent can mobilize 10 new units. Is this taken care of in the Rulebook ? Because about the Vietcong unit, it says on Kickstarter that its ability were to ambush, disperse, evade and control the rural population, and that this ability is what forced USA to keep sending units, and finally lose the war. This is wrong, it was the killing of innocents that turned people to join VC and then the growth of VC forced USA to keep sending troops.
I believe this case should be covered in the game mechanic. If one or more Red units is in a territory, you should have several options. You can bomb that territory and automatically kill every units in it, but then the Red team can mobilize 10 new Red units for each casualty, like you kill 2 Red units by bombing, and the Red mobilize 20 new units. Or, you can target the Red unit, but with low odds, like a 1 on a 6D is a hit. But if you succeed and roll a 1, and that one Red unit is killed, the Red team can not replace it. So basically carpet bombing is very efficient on the battlefield, but with huge backfire in the long run. Targeting is difficult and takes a lot of work, but it pays off in the long run.
�
The typical VC strategy was to let a VC sniper fire from an innocent village. If he hit anything or killed any US troops was not important. Then ARVN and US troops would always respond by burning that innocent village down. Then the surviving families and neighbors of that ruined village would join VC. It was basically this VC purchase and mobilize new units strategy that made USA lose the war, because we kept responding with wrong strategy. We should have targeted that VC sniper, not the entire population. Â Its like when a brown-haired person steal a car, you dont hang every brown-haired persons in that neighborhood, because that is not justice, but it is a sure way to turn every brown-haired persons of the entire world against you. You can do it if you are Hitler and want to ethnically cleanse the world from brown-haired people, but if you do it by accident, like the leaders did back in the -60ies, and you dont have any strategies to deal with it, then you lose
I have my set pre ordered. After all these years!
The Richelieau is still listed
Sure it is listed, but the pic show a La Galissonniere light cruiser, that is not on the list. Explain this……
I’m not censoring anything. If you have subjective complaints, put them all here in this thread. If you have constructive criticism, start a new thread.
Again, when the newbies arrive to learn more about AAZ and other A&A games, I want them to see a welcoming community. Seeing a bunch of posts of people hating on zombies, might turn people away.
You got some strong points here, and I want to change my stand.
The techs mostly “reskin” all of one team’s units of one type so to make custom pieces in one color would cause a lot of confusion.  However, a full new ($100?) set of minis for all the teams with 10 copies of custom tanks, infantry transports etc. will no doubt be offered by Christmas.
WOTC could make Expansion Packs like they did with the Minis, and make lots of money, I bet the A&A community would love it
Has anybody here tried to produce a game? Game pieces? Or even run a business?
I think a chainsaw tank mini is an awesome idea but there are tradeoffs. Yes, you and I would pay extra but there are a bunch of die hard A&A a-holes (sorry guys but the haters are acting like jerks) who are not even going to buy one copy. If you price it too high, then newcomers to A&A won’t buy and then you guarantee a flop.
Chainsaw tanks is a great opportunity for the community to create and sell their own. I’ll be ready to buy one from Combat Miniatures should they chose to make one, hint hint.
I belive you missed my point. A lot of the A&A fans are piece junkies, they would purchase any A&A game if it has new pieces that can be fairly used in their customized games. You can make a simple game with F4F fighter for the p38, or a Tiger tank, or a Hood battleship, and people would buy that game just for the new pieces. I figure that a Chainsaw Tank could be used to clear minefields or that kind of thing in a non-zombie game. I know that this plastic pieces cost from less to nothing, so I figure that WOTC could have made good money if they had a better understanding of the motivation of the piece junkies that spend a lot of money on this games. I belive it is poor business policy to target a game like this to a narrow audience, when it could reach all the A&A community just by including some Panzer IV sculpts, or a Mustang fighter for US. Dont confuse this with negativity, it is ment to be a rational advice.
I’m not a super fan of zombies but I do like games. I think the zombie cards add a counter-balance when you have a bad day with the dice. The problem is that everybody is so focused on the theme that you’re all blind to well thought out game mechanics. I’m so sick of the negativity, I’m very tempted to limit subjective (i.e., “zombies are dumb and you’re dumb”) criticisms of the game to one or maybe zero threads.
If you think there is something specifically broken about the map, setup, rules, or mechanics. I want t read about that.
I do understand how you can be sick of too much negativity, but limits or censorship is never the way to go, and not in the America we know and love. It is less than 10 persons that have posted negative waves on this topic, but because they are spamming, it feels like they are the majority. The best ways to deal with this are either to ignore it, or counter it with facts. When the game is out on the marked and people start playing it, I bet the negativity will disappear. Just hang on, man, and dont ruin this place with censorship.
@CWO:
…. and two American fighter units represented by two different sculpts (though their cost and characteristics in the rules were identical).Â
Correct, One of the designers said he could not live with an Army P 38 Lighting as a carrier based plane, so they gave us 6 carrier based fighters too. Those were the days…
Pacific 2001Â – not listed
Correct, Pacific 2001 and Europe 1999, the two best A&A games, currently out of print, too sad.
Pacific 2001 was the first game with convoy zones, naval bases and air bases, and my favorite, the CAP, Combat Air Patrol, the current scrambling is by far not that good.
And the best, they were playable, you could play it every where, you did not need a dedicated basement like when you play G40, or a 6 feet table. Also, the map was focused on the spot where the war actually happened. No Africa and no South America. Too sad its out of print
