Broken, Busted, or Both

[thrasher1]

@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

It could also have been done to give each power the ability to combat move all units out of a zombie-occupied territory and then noncombat move other units in without losing control.

Krieghund, you are the rules expert. But I dare to disagree on this one. But correct me if I am wrong please.

Any change of ‘ownership’ happens at the end of a player’s turn. So if you move out all your units during your combat move that area is still owned by you (or your ally). OK, so now there are only Zs there. But in the non-combat phase you can non-combat move any unit that did not move yet into a friendly area. And that area is still friendly at that very moment.

Yes, that was my point. If they had given control over to the zombies immediately upon their being the only units in the territory, then the territory would not have been friendly in noncombat movement, but they didn’t do it that way. However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.

@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

Yes, that was my point. If they had given control over to the zombies immediately upon their being the only units in the territory, then the territory would not have been friendly in noncombat movement, but they didn’t do it that way.

The issue is: when does the ownership of an area change? After the combat? At the end of the combat phase? Or at the very end of the turn?

The - general - Axis and Allies rules seem to imply that this happens at the end of the combat phase, Why? Because you may non-combat move a unit (that did not move already) into an area you just took control of.

So if we follow this line of reasoning and if Zs also take control of an area at the end of the combat phase then you could not non-combat an unit into that area as it is not (no longer) controlled by you.

However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.

Yes. But I would say this happens at the end of the combat phase. For all areas at the same time.

[Krieghund]

The issue is: when does the ownership of an area change? After the combat? At the end of the combat phase? Or at the very end of the turn?

The - general - Axis and Allies rules seem to imply that this happens at the end of the combat phase, Why? Because you may non-combat move a unit (that did not move already) into an area you just took control of.

It happens at the end of each individual combat, but for all practical purposes it happens at the end of the combat phase, as all combat is simultaneous.

So if we follow this line of reasoning and if Zs also take control of an area at the end of the combat phase then you could not non-combat an unit into that area as it is not (no longer) controlled by you.

However, changes of control do happen mid-turn in the case of attacks, so there was a precedent for doing it that way if they wanted to.

Yes. But I would say this happens at the end of the combat phase. For all areas at the same time.

That would be true if zombies followed the same rules as regular units, but they don’t. They have to wait until the next turn to take control.

[thrasher1]

@Krieghund said in Broken, Busted, or Both:

Then again: as the check for Z Apocalypse is at the end of his very turn. So a full turn to kick out some Zs…).

Since the Zombie Apocalypse can occur only at the end of a round (not any turn), only the USSR can prevent it in this way.

Yes. During the USSR’s turn these areas will get Z-controlled. And that might get you over the critical number for ZA. Then still: you and your opponents have a full ROUND to get you under this.
So maybe this aspect of the ‘unusual take over of control by Zs’ isn’t that important…

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

[Striker]

Speaking about the tournament, how were the results in general? Did allies consistently have the advantage /axis bid required as predicted earliar?

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.)

[taamvan]

@Striker the result was that the clever player that figured out how to exploit the rules won the tournament with his partner.

[Striker]

@taamvan

I understand one player won quite handily with allies. I am wondering allies were favored across multiple games. Smorey hasn’t posted detailed results for zombies like hes done for other tourneys.

[taamvan]

@Striker neither team is favored, in the absence of the exploit. However, Allies have a higher income and more territories, and more backfield territories, thus, they win.

The Axis have to attack Moscow in 3 turns and destroy it. They can do that, but they cannot hold it.

This game is more or less balanced in the OOB version, its just not fun or interesting IMO.

[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.