Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?

[maximumjdam]

My only two major suggestions I would like to see in a 3rd addition to the game would be some new unit looks on the game board. Especially when talking about the french. I personally will new say that I have enough units in my collection lol. But I definitely have way more Iowa battleships and wasp ACs that I would ever need. So maybe something different to bring some excitement when making the big purchase. Also maybe overhaul the rules around neutral countries. Maybe find a insensitive to bring larger neutrals into the war as co- belligerence. Ie. Spain, Turkey, and south American Nations. More so as an option to players. Giving them the original rules if they don’t want the complexity. Overall I like the mechanics of the gameplay already. I find it easy to add house rules and new units to the game without breaking gameplay and Overcomplicating it. That’s where I think a lot of us love the game. Because we can customize it our way. Lastly( I know I said only 2 things lol) AAA. Just let them fight ground units while defending after they do their special defense. I just can’t see myself as a commander in combat telling my troop to forget the AAguns because the enemy has no aircraft lol. Hell no, use every gun available to repel the enemy!!!

[barnee]

@maximumjdam said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

So maybe something different to bring some excitement when making the big purchase.

yea I would think cool looking units are a major purchase driver :)

[vodot]

This post is deleted!

[Black_Elk]

Some visuals for ideas. A map redraft for G40 would be cool I think.

In that one I added Aden to Br. Somaliland. Sakhalin with a false connection between Japan/USSR on that border. Basra Qatar and Trucial coast I thought could just be added to part of E. Persia’s tile, like if trying to keep all the same game tiles without actually adding new ones. Falklands to Brazil as Pro Allies sorta works that way as well. Like still on the team at least. I mean without having to change the defined connections, but just cosmetically to flesh it out. I put Sierra Leone in the mix since that got the nod, added the Ascension Islands to it. Azores to Gibraltar maybe? (bit of an anachronism but seemed reasonable) or stuff like that where it wouldn’t effect the gameplay per se, but just adds more zone and spots for the bombers to land I guess lol.

Mats and markers for Purchase or DOW aids might be cool. Or similarly, one to track Objectives or VCs or Tech Advances more conveniently. Sorta like these screens, but a physical version, maybe all on a single large sheet so it’s handy. Income Counter same deal, separated from the map would be my preference.

I also still enjoy Revised and the older boards from time to time. It’d be cool to see optional rules in the new manuals to bring them in line with the newer ones. Like the cost of tanks or how AAguns work maybe. Something in that direction. Still a fan of the digital angle too, clearly hehe.

It’d be cool to see a bunch of boards bundled together that way, especially the smaller tactical boards, so we could have different campaigns launching from the same spot. That would be fun.

A digital version with a way to customize the look or general vibe is something I’d be interested in for sure, since tastes vary so widely. Anyhow just quick heavy bomber. I’ll be excited to see what they cook up.

:)

[crockett36]

@black_elk good thoughts BE!

[Imperious Leader]

Using the molds from 1941 and adding a few new ones, Technology must be mandatory part of the game.

Heavy Tanks
Escorts
Light Carriers or “escorts”
Paratroopers
Generals
Battle-cruisers 4-4-2 one hit ships
Heavy Bombers
Fortifications ( Seigfried, Maginot, Gibrater, Liege, etc)

Map should be roll up Neoprene or Vinyl 72x36

Dry eraser IPC board

Plastic tray with 3 removable compartments (land sea, air)

Battleboard on the map

Neutrals have dynamic forces and IPC values and they can be influenced, Also Brazil is not allied to USA!

Add Azores, Mauritania

Allow invasions and fighting in Antarctica as per HBG “UFO business”

[The Janus]

I’ve gotta admit, I’m genuinely baffled by the constant suggestion to add more and more unit types.

Especially when you get to the point of suggestions being literally just [(adjective) (unit that already exists)]

Like… submarines have a niche, destroyers have a job, cruisers have a job (i.e. being battleships, except cheap enough to actually purchase), carriers have a job – What are all these added unit types going to do, that would make them worthwhile? Furthermore, if you don’t perfectly balance them, you’re going to end up with the IPM problem, where there’s one correct purchase and everything else is just a bunch of useless cruft/chrome.

If anything the closest I would go in that direction is to make the same types of units weaker/stronger/cheaper/different (i.e. unique abilities) depending on the country – and not all units need to be available to all countries, necessarily! The utility of having units function the same from one power to another is so that you can learn the game one power at a time, and the lessons all carry over.

I’m not unwilling to sacrifice that quality of life design (particularly for such an advanced game as G40) and I think it could be really interesting. Maybe some countries just fart out submarines that are basically just bath tubs, maybe another country can do the same with tanks. Particularly if you’re keeping to d6, you can’t just go cramming in half a dozen new unit types, especially if they don’t have a job to do.

[crockett36]

If anything the closest I would go in that direction is to make the same types of units weaker/stronger/cheaper/different (i.e. unique abilities) depending on the country – and not all units need to be available to all countries, necessarily! The utility of having units function the same from one power to another is so that you can learn the game one power at a time, and the lessons all carry over.

That would be monumental! Great innovation!

[The Janus]

@crockett36 said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

That would be monumental! Great innovation!

Appreciate it!

Perfect example would be something like paratroopers, or marines – those could just be infantry + special abilities.

• Maybe not all countries can use paratroopers
• Maybe some countries can transport paratroopers using tactical bombers in addition to strategic bombers; maybe some countries can ship 2 paratroopers per bomber, but others can only ship 1
• Maybe certain countries have infantry attack at 2/3/(first strike) in amphibious assaults (I swear this was a national advantage in at least one version, for the US) – which might actually incentivize them to attack islands.

You could even do things like, certain countries have 2-hit battleships, some have 2-hit / self-repairing, and some have 1-hit battleships. You could adjust the cost as much as you want (up or down) and then you obviate the need for any kind of cruiser class, potentially. Or just say only certain countries can make the really chonky battleships, and everything else is a (de-facto) cruiser. Maybe certain countries have carriers that hold more planes than others; maybe some countries can have their destroyers carry one plane, while others can carry one infantry. Be creative!

[Black_Elk]

It’s definitely a fair point. The unit bloat thing. Here’s an amusing example… shows a standard roster, then tech advances, then expansion type unit concepts I’ve seen floated. This set is generic based on Frostion’s with some additions I added, but gives a quick impression. Cause like many different graphics are required, just to handle the same unit, but in a different state of play. With physical sculpts you’d chip it or flip it, but for the digital version gives an idea of how things start to compound pretty quickly hehe.

I think another alternative to having multiple unit types, is to have cosmetic alts, which could be used in that way, but which could also just service the regular play. This is basically what we get when they vary the sculpts (like what equipment they use for the molds) for units in the smaller boards or satellite games. Or then just a cursory look at HBG shows that there’s probably a demand for something along those lines. So basically instead of paratroopers or marines as a set unit, you just have a handful of sculpts within the infantry box that could be used for these different concepts.

Or same deal for fighter aircraft or artillery or tanks or ship types. I don’t know, say for every dozen regular units you get a couple specialty alts of the same basic sort but a different riff. Very similar to the way they sell the plastic army men as toys. You know with a bazooka dude, and a paratrooper looking dude, an officer with a sidearm, that sort of deal. Basically a grab bag approach, in terms of what they include, but where each alt fits a certain niche that could be expanded. Or not, depending on how into that the player is lol. Since the equipment types Nation to Nation already feature pretty different looking sculpts, it’s not that big of a stretch to imagine the standard unit boxes having a few variants, but still using the same hue for their tints. Probably the expense goes up with more molds, but still, it would provide a lot of options for a look and feel vibe, without necessarily needing a ton of extra unit interactions or new rules per se.

[barnee]

@black_elk said in Advice to Renegade! What is on your top 10 for adjustments to G40 3rd edition?:

an officer with a sidearm

my brother and I always called him John Wayne lol

[Imperious Leader]

My suggestions are in most cases “TECH IMPROVEMENTS” In some cases are additional tools to give player options, which is what makes these games so interesting. For example a Battlecruiser is a “tween” unit between Battleship and Cruiser and not all nations may buy them, but need a 4 defense or offensive unit, plus if you add a speed of 3, you got a utility in that to use in special occasions and its cheaper than a Battleship, but the only thing is it takes one hit. I have played with this type of unit for years and it works and does not break the game. Paratroopers would be a tech unit BTW, but all nations should be capable of its development, even though all nations did in fact have Paratroopers in the war, sake Italy. What is not a “Tech” but nobody but me seems to flog its very notion, is those very scraps of paper with a corresponding pledge to pay the borrower back at the end of the conflict known as “War Bonds” This is not a tech!!! and yet people just pass it off as some invention that was paramount to Allied victory. Rather its: We got nothing left in our mind to put down as a potential tech, that’s not political “atomic bomb avoidance syndrome” due to our puny understanding of History and so i remember Rosey the riveter signs from some book as being iconic, so war bonds was born.

Stupid.

[hengst]

@the-janus COMPLETELY agree.

Most of these suggestions don’t even make a lick of sense of the scale of A&A. On the Renegade discord I’ve been vehemently arguing against this sentiment for a while.

[Angel]

@imperious-leader if BC move 3 spaces and att/def on 4 with lower cost then BB, then no1 will buy cruisers. My suggestion there is to give 1 additional space to cruiser att/def/move 3/3/3 cost 12, BC 4/4/2 destroy on 1 hit because of weaker armor then BB but more anti-aircraft power then cruiser and cost 15-16, and BB 4/4/2 with same anti-aircraft power as BC but can accumulate 1 enemy hit cost 20.

[Black_Elk]

Took me a while to realize this thread was in HR now. I guess that’s cool, anything goes here I suppose haha. Still my first big suggestion is to be consistent with what constitutes a Re-Issue/Re-Print vs a new "Edition’ (or if there is even a worthwhile distinction there) vs an entirely new game which properly should get a new Title.

For me this boils down to whether or not the update/revision can be handled by just updating the manual (e.g. the rules, or the set up cards) vs requiring major changes to other contents inside the box.

If the map does change (beyond cosmetics) like adding new territories and new sea zones, or adjusted connections/boundaries, that’s a new game and it should have a new name. If entirely new unit sculpts are added, that game should get a new title to reflect this, since it’s a very big change. Basically anything that breaks backwards compatibility with an already existing board, or which makes a previous release of that board obsolete.

You know what I mean, like if all I have to do is download a pdf of the new manual with new tech rules that’s one thing, but if I’m required to have a new map and new sculpts that’s a rather different thing. If the only changes are to the rules for existing stuff, or new unit set up cards for existing stuff, or if the changes to the map are only cosmetic, (like a new look and feel, but otherwise all the same TTs/connections) then that release should be a new “Edition” of the previous game’s same name.

Sadly these conventions have not been very consistent in the past, and so I think there is a fair bit of confusion regarding the whole ‘which edition?’ thing. This is part of the reason why I think they should drop the concept of editions for anything which should properly be considered sequels and instead give those new titles. I would look to the conventions adopted in Book publishing for guidance here. If the manual is being re-iussed, and only that, then a 2nd or 3rd edition printing under the same Name makes sense to me. If it goes much beyond that, then it should get a new Title/subtitle, or else some qualifier there like “Revised” or “Advanced” or “Anniversary” or some season/year whatever, to make that really obvious. I think anyway, but I’m pretty sure that ship has sailed already hehe.

[Imperious Leader]

@angel Well everything depends on the price! Cruisers cost could move to 11ipc and a Battlecruiser could be 15? Perhaps you keep them a M2 unit, then a 1 hit wonder with 4-4-2-14 and a SB4 would have some utility for some nations.

[General 6 Stars]

Cruiser C11 AD@3 SH@3
B. Cruiser C13 AD@4 SH@4
Battleship C18 AD@4 SH@4