Subjective Complaints about AAZ (Zombies are stupid thread)

I might take you up on that, i did pre order it $40 on amazon

A lot of sci-fi borrows from or appropriates history. This is nothing new in that sense.
From what I’ve read, the zombies don’t fight for one side so much as occupy a territory
which has seen a lot of casualties.

This is just a fantasy version of A&A not a upgrade of the core series. WOTC have been trying to cash in on A&A brand for a while. The “collectable” minis used the A&A brand and they had less to do with the game.

I really don’t understand why people are leaving because of things like this WOTC are doing.
It’s not as if they are forcing you to buy and play this game.
From what I’ve read, a lot of you have countless hours of fun playing A&A with your own house rules.
How has a new game announcement changed this?
Larry has left A&A, so unless the community comes up with a new version/rule set/map/etc, I think it is safe to say A&A is in its final edition.
This is fine too as it is a fun and great game to play with friends.

I’m just sad that the battle series didn’t take off. I really enjoy D-Day and Battle of the Bulge.
Kursk or Stalingrad would have been awesome.

@Col.:

Why? I understand not buying it, but why would you quit? That’s sort of like saying I’d never watch Caddy shack again because I hated Caddy shack 2

I dunno, Highlander II: The Quickening was so bad, it made me wonder why I ever liked the original Highlander movie.

Agreed, Highlander had such promise but was ruined by the sequels.

This movie is a must do remake IMHO.

I’m glad that you are in the same boat with me GHG.

In my defense, I’m only planning on buying the game if it’s actually worth buying (which it likely won’t be, judging by the apparently miserable size of the map on the back of the box that was revealed a few days back).

Like I said in my previous posts, I can understand (but can’t relate to, it’s just a board game to me) people being offended by the shameless, quasi-disrespectful cash-grabby nature of the game, but I cannot for the life of me understand why you’d quit G40 (or any other edition of A&A, for that matter) over a separate game that should rise or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof).

I intend to buy this game.

I understand the complaints about this title. But to me it is just a board game. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. I’m buying this for a bit of variety new pieces etc. It will probably become just like the original E/P Dday Guadalcanal and just get pillaged for pieces.

I’ve already looked at the zombie rules and plan to house rule them into a type of historical plague. Similar to influenza, dysentery, spoiled rations or many others. Since this was something I have been distracted from but considering for a long time. Large casualty battle fields are likely to be a source of diseases. I just won’t use the term zombie. WW1 influenza epidemic sound familiar to anyone?

Plus my daughter isn’t interested in AnA but was interested in playing the version with the zombies… maybe this will get her interested in the franchise.

Looking for the positive rather than the ridiculous in this title. Their system may work well as an expansion for my games House Rules. At least

Aside from the Zombies themselves, there are no new sculpts with this game, so buying this just for pieces seems wasteful, every unit in AAZ is already available from multiple sources (except the zombies)

@Rank:

Plus my daughter isn’t interested in AnA but was interested in playing the version with the zombies… maybe this will get her interested in the franchise.

That’s going to be the case in my home… I’m not really interested in the zombies personally, but anything to get my kids more into daddy’s A&A is a plus with me, and I know my son, who is big into zombies, will be attracted to this angle.

@robert:

Quitting A&A because of a new game is the wrong approach.
Not buying this game or future games by WOTC is the correct way.
You have already bought the games, so WOTC has been supported.
Now, not buying this will send a better message and not come across as a knee-jerk reaction of an upset person.

On the bright side, WOTC IS including money with this game so maybe they are listening to one of the biggest gripes people have with the A&A line.

I agree with a lot of this, but my worry is if this game tanks because it is miserable gimmicky garbage, then WOTC might decide that A&A not is worth it anymore, and mis-ascribe the reasons to it being A&A instead of it being gal-durned Zombies.

Nothing new has been released for WWII A&A since 2012.

Even then, it was a reprint and errata edition.

So, 6 years later, they release a new concept which includes zombies.

This won’t affect their thoughts on the core A&A if it bombs as they already have given up on the franchise.

I think A&A Anniv. and Global 1940 are the pinnacle of what you can do with this game.

HBC has released other versions (earlier starts/more complex) but I doubt WOTC want to go this route.

@robert:

Nothing new has been released for WWII A&A since 2012.

I think A&A Anniv. and Global 1940 are the pinnacle of what you can do with this game.

I agree with this statement. I believe the A&A franchise has reached it’s developmental end. Whether WOTC wants to admit this or not, the fact that Larry Harris is not even involved with this project is telling….

Now, there will always be companies like HBG and The War in Vietnam that could or should be the logical successors to A&A; however, I don’t foresee WOTC having the imagination to either pick them up OR build upon their ideas to continue or expand the game.

A&A gets monotonous after you get to a certain skill level. You do the same strategy over, and over again. That is the main complaint for A&A games. So this zombie game will definitely won’t be a improvement. It’s a theme to attract people that like zombies. It is a poor attempt to get more people interest in A&A.

@Dauvio:

A&A gets monotonous after you get to a certain skill level.

And chess dont ? Even with the Fischer set up, after 8 turns it looks like a casual game

I don’t think it is meant to get people interested in A&A at all.
A side benefit maybe, but they already have an intro A&A game.

If successful, it might turn into a Risk type strategy. That is, overlay various themes on the core system.
Risk Transformers/Risk StarWars/…

@robert:

If successful, it might turn into a Risk type strategy. That is, overlay various themes on the core system.
Risk Transformers/Risk StarWars/…

That’s quite an interesting theory, and personally I think the concept might hold a lot of promise if it was used correctly by WotC.  A good example of what I mean by “used correctly” is a game that has actually been published: A&A WWI 1914, which fits the concept of the A&A game system being overlayed onto a different historical war than WWII.  The same could be done with other historical wars, though the potential choices aren’t actually as vast as thousands of years of military history would imply because only the past two or three centuries offer any credible scope for a war having theatres all over the world.  Fantasy-type overlays, on the other hand (zombies and so forth), would be a very different evolutionary direction that I’d be unhappy with.

As someone who isn’t as overly harsh on AAZ as most of the board, I have no idea why WOTC thought Zombies was a safer play than, say…

• Axis and Allies: Korea (bonus points for being a topical subject)

• Axis and Allies: Cold War goes Hot (Not that it would ever compare with Twilight Struggle, but some say A&A doesn’t compare with other WW2 Wargames, so whatever)

• Axis and Allies: Civil War (I think even Larry expressed interest in this at one point or another)

• Axis and Allies: Napoleon (Bonus Points for having multiple setups for different Coalition Wars)

• Axis and Allies: Rome (which I guess would just be Conquest of the Empire, if you really think about it)

They could even do a fictional, modern-day scenario similar to what HBG is doing with Meltdown: 2020 (or whatever it’s called I don’t remember).

zombies are still a hot topic although definitely on the decline.

A&A for other eras would probably just need a clever sales pitch.

Risk Napoleonics is a good game but limited to Europe and only released in French.

The Roman conquests would be a similar area-Europe/Africa/Middle East.

Don’t remember how far north Alexander went, he did go east a fair bit.

Civil War and Korea might be a bit small an area to game. We will have to see how Vietnam plays to know how smaller conflicts work.

@DouchemanMacgee:

As someone who isn’t as overly harsh on AAZ as most of the board, I have no idea why WOTC thought Zombies was a safer play than, say…

• Axis and Allies: Korea (bonus points for being a topical subject)

• Axis and Allies: Cold War goes Hot (Not that it would ever compare with Twilight Struggle, but some say A&A doesn’t compare with other WW2 Wargames, so whatever)

• Axis and Allies: Civil War (I think even Larry expressed interest in this at one point or another)

• Axis and Allies: Napoleon (Bonus Points for having multiple setups for different Coalition Wars)

• Axis and Allies: Rome (which I guess would just be Conquest of the Empire, if you really think about it)

They could even do a fictional, modern-day scenario similar to what HBG is doing with Meltdown: 2020 (or whatever it’s called I don’t remember).

They should do something with space, like the solar system, and beyond. :)

for space, you would need a sh*t load of transports to go from one planet to the next.

It would be interesting though, 5 galaxies fighting for control of the universe.