I Think Joshua From "War Games" Said It Best….

@Paper_IPC:

I think they should have gone for a bigger swing.  I mean they control D&D where is the D&D A&A?  Even if D&D players dont bite en mass, a well done fantasy area movement game is in order.  With the world of D&D at thier disposal they could release a whole string of games!

Maybe leverage the wonderful sculpts Wizkids has been doing  -  print them in smaller scale, use Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms…
You could launch army boxes in waves or maybe just do so with another game depicting a different area I dunno.

Ask and you shall have received over the past several years already. From BoardGameGeek.com;

Dungeons and Dragons Adventure System Board Games:

Based on Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, this series of tile exploration games bring the basics of RPGs to the Board Game realm.

Using pre-generated characters and random monster encounters with defined tactics, no Dungeon Master is required. Explore castles, mountain caverns, and the realms of the underworld in this fast paced game.

The core games in the D&D Adventure System Series can be combined to expand one another. All heroes, monsters, treasures, tokens and tiles are fully compatible.
Games in the D&D Adventure System Series can be expanded with sets from the Dungeon Command series. Dungeon Command sets include Adventure System style cards to allow the included miniatures to be immediately integrated into any of the Adventure System games, and the Dungeon Command tiles can be connected to the tiles found in the Adventure System games (although house rules would be required to determine their use in the game).

D&D Adventure System Core Games:

Dungeons & Dragons: Castle Ravenloft Board Game (2010)
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of Ashardalon Board Game (2011)
Dungeons & Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt Board Game (2011)
Dungeons & Dragons: Temple of Elemental Evil Board Game (2015)
Dungeons & Dragons: Tomb of Annihilation Board Game (2017)
Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeon of the Mad Mage (2019)

Then there are the other board games they have based on the D&D world such as Lords of Waterdeep that goes into other mechanisms such as worker placement and Betrayal at Baldurs Gate that is a retheme of Betrayal at House on the Hill using a co-operative-turned-all vs 1 traitor mechanic, rather than area control.

From what I recall from the conversations at WotC this game tested well with people who have never played Axis & Allies. Give the negativity a rest. You’re all just speculating without even talking to anybody about any of it.

Bottom line is that you ALL should be rooting for an overwhelming success. If this game succeeds, then we’re more likely to see more A&A games that you want than if the game fails. (There, I threw in my speculation as well).

Finally, if you play it and don’t like it, don’t play it again. But I literally had 2 people tell me its their new favorite version of A&A. These 2 folks play a lot of other games including Euros, collectible card games, and other wargames. It definitely has appeal to the gamers that are NOT hardcore A&A.

WotC has little interest in making games for small hard core fans.

They are in the business of making money using the latest pop culture theme.

However, like just posted, if it is a hit, the A&A community will benefit with more main stream A&A games being produced.
(some off the wall stuff too)

Hopefully they will revisit the battle series or do a campaign game.

Regardless, we will know soon enough what this game brings as it is close to Oct 31st.

As I said before, the CEO of Wizards is a huge Axis and Allies fan so we know AnA isn’t screwed with what the grown adults whining on these boards could called “childish” zombie games. And as I said before, they have ideas on the table, none that they would talk about and I did “try” to pitch two games I wanted to see with AnA; Korea and some kind of global cold war.

@robert:

They are in the business of making money using the latest pop culture theme.

They are in the “business of making money,” is exactly correct. That’s the function of a business.  :-D

Not sure I agree with the pop-culture reference. At the WotC event Scott relayed the story as to how this game came to be. He’ll explain it an upcoming post, but IIRC it was not really planned… somebody said something, they tried it, tested it, and it “worked.” Again, that’s the terrible re-telling of the story. Stay tuned for the details.

I think most games, especially euros, are wrapped in a thin layer of the latest crazes happening.

mankinds survival/space/medieval/fantasy are all popular themes right now.

It surely played a role in Scotts likes/dislikes at the time.

Possibly. My “interview” of Scott, which included a question about how the game came to be, is arriving soon.

@Imperious:

Or just buy 1941 for about $25?

Take out the zombies and AAZ is still a richer game than 1941. More unit types, more territories, and Recruitment Centers.

@djensen:

Take out the zombies and AAZ is still a richer game than 1941. More unit types, more territories, and Recruitment Centers.

Now, that is a valuable piece of information! The fact that, not only is the the game playable sans zombies, but also offers better experience than one of the “canonical” titles does gives one pause before rejecting the concept outright.

Now, I cannot, yet, comment on the game setup balance without zombies. But it’s definitely something worth a try.

The opening attack and stack from Russia is pretty strong (11/2/2?), so without any zombies in the way or cards to mix things up Germany would be on the defensive for most of the game.

Honestly I think the Recruitment Centers are going to be the one thing from this game that breathes new life into the franchise, especially if they become purchase-able in future editions as cheaper ICs.

Imagine a game of G40 where Ukraine and Novgorod were Recruitment Centers instead of ICs. That wouldn’t be enough to turn the balance in the Allies’ favor but it would definitely stop scenarios where Germany rolls into those territories and starts pumping out Tanks 2-3 territories away from Moscow the very next turn unless the Soviets resort to gamey tactics (purposely not repairing the ICs when Germany bombs them, etc.).

they work both ways in AAZ, because you can pour out infantry, which just makes more zombies.  I believe US/China and UK/India are the ones on the printed board, UK has a full-fledged factory in Austrailia too–so while there is a temptation to churn out that infantry, it just means one thing is going to happen.

More zombies.

@DoManMacgee:

Honestly I think the Recruitment Centers are going to be the one thing from this game that breathes new life into the franchise, especially if they become purchase-able in future editions as cheaper ICs.

That certainly seems hinted in the rulebook.  Looking at the rules for porting zombies to 1942, you can buy recruitment centers for 10ipcs AND one of the chinese territories starts with one. In fact, I’m interested in using the ported setup(Edit: As soon as they errata the American scuba soldiers out!) as a zombieless “patched” setup for the current 1942.  Tougher china, british navy/australia may be a positive change.

@Striker:

@DoManMacgee:

Honestly I think the Recruitment Centers are going to be the one thing from this game that breathes new life into the franchise, especially if they become purchase-able in future editions as cheaper ICs.

That certainly seems hinted in the rulebook.  Looking at the rules for porting zombies to 1942, you can buy recruitment centers for 10ipcs AND one of the chinese territories starts with one. In fact, I’m interested in using the ported setup(Edit: As soon as they errata the American scuba soldiers out!) as a zombieless “patched” setup for the current 1942.  Tougher china, british navy/australia may be a positive change.

That’s a different take on re-balancing 42SE that I’d be willing to try. Having a Recruitment Center spawn in China would go a decent amount towards slowing Japan down in Asia (currently there’s basically nothing stopping them from running over the Allies in China and driving straight to Moscow).

What are the rules for placing units at a recruitment center? Is it tied to the IPC value of the territory like it is for ICs (haven’t got my copy of AAZ yet or I’d check for myself).

@DoManMacgee:

What are the rules for placing units at a recruitment center? Is it tied to the IPC value of the territory like it is for ICs (haven’t got my copy of AAZ yet or I’d check for myself).

Exactly like regular ICs except they cost 10 IPCs and only spawn infantry.

@zooooma:

@DoManMacgee:

What are the rules for placing units at a recruitment center? Is it tied to the IPC value of the territory like it is for ICs (haven’t got my copy of AAZ yet or I’d check for myself).

Exactly like regular ICs except they cost 10 IPCs and only spawn infantry.

Bummer. I don’t see that being very helpful in 42SE’s China then. Aren’t all those territories worth only 1 IPC each? I doubt 1 INF/turn is going to do much in the face of the Japanese onslaught.

@DoManMacgee:

Bummer. I don’t see that being very helpful in 42SE’s China then. Aren’t all those territories worth only 1 IPC each? I doubt 1 INF/turn is going to do much in the face of the Japanese onslaught.

Of course Japan will have to kill each infantry twice…

Yes, just got the game and the three new factories are limited to 2 units, 2 infantry, and 1 infantry.  Seems lean.

Also, limiting UK to 4/2/(2) and Russia to 4/2 total units seems lean, but remains…to be…seen

@taamvan:

… but remains … to be … seen

And depending on the roll results, have to kill the remains again…  :-P

-Midnight_Reaper