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

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

nock the bonuses down to

Not sure about # 1, 4 and 8. I like the other ideas.

So the Q was for Global 3rd Ed, but while we’re at it… I just got 3 to add

1. A legacy version of the base game (midscale board), that is simply called “Axis and Allies” ie don’t include a start date year or an edition number in the name for that one. It should present as the basic starter set. Provide unit set ups for a couple dates like AA50 did, but do that in the manual instead. The idea being that it’s easier to re-print or revise or download material for unit set ups in a manual than on cards/boxes. So you could do 1942 as the default, but also 1941 or 1943 say, just by referencing a page in the rulebook.

2. Axis and Allies Global - Sell it as a single complete game, rather than 2 separate theater games. For packaging maybe have 1 box be for the maps the cards and all the paper stuff, and then have units sold separately? I think the players that are most interested in the more advanced game just want G40, rather than Europe and Pacific 1940. By selling the sculpts separately there is less need to divide the boards by theater, and then it can build on the starter unit set included with the base “Axis and Allies” game mentioned above.

3. Include a small Art book/History of the Axis and Allies game and it’s creator, including the images from all the cover boxes and such. Legacy style! I just think that would be a nice touch and cool to see.

Boosting US income by 10 is too flexible. I find it makes for an interesting alternative to a bid to give the US a strat bomber in CUS every turn it’s at war.

Reduce Italian NOs to 3 bucks apiece; same for ANZAC & UK Pacific.

Take one infantry off each starting Japanese stack in China.

While we’re on China, get rid of the orange coloring on the initially-occupied Chinese territory; make it clear there should be a Japanese roundel in starting setup.

Right on! :)

oh & for the love of god include cardboard inserts for the boxes

We’ve discussed this topic in our Axis & Allies Veteran Members Club.

Some of the ideas were:

• Build the base game as close to the OOB G40 as possible to make it more recognizable with the same game mechanisms - and then add multiple levels of Advanced Game Play.
• Advanced Game Play: Select any number of Units & Rules from the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion - the more Units & Rules - the more advanced game play becomes (and increased time of play).
• Make the new Axis & Allies Global 1940 in two versions:
  1 version is in a box with a physical game board etc.
  1 version players can buy online - in the same way as BBR Game Boards & Rules.
  Most players already have tons of units etc.
• Add 1939, 1941, 1942 and 1943 versions. General 6 Stars has an interesting Global 1941 Expansion - and we have added a Global 1943 Expansion.
• Make two Winning Conditions:
  1st: Military Victory: Capture 1 enemy Major Capital - and hold it for 1 complete round of play (Major Capitals: Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Washington, London)
  2nd: Economic Victory: The first side to achieve a certain IPC Level at the end of one complete round of play has won the game.

Some examples of Advanced Game Play aka Advanced Rules:

G40 Strategic Rail Movement.pdf
G40 Heavy Industry Production.pdf
G40 Soviet Guards, Waffen-SS Infantry & Waffen-SS Panzer.pdf
G40 Strategic Bombing & Air-to-Air Combat.pdf
G40 Lend-Lease.pdf
G40 Non-agression Pacts.pdf
G40 Landing Craft.pdf

You’ll find many more Advanced Rules at the House Rules section on this forum - look for:

• Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion

Some of the latest Advanced Rules that we have developed:

G40 Combat Engineer Unit.pdf
G40 Desert Army Rules.pdf

Those rules were originally play tested for use with the Axis & Allies Global 1943 House Rules Expansion

We have since incorperated them into the Axis & Allies Global 1940 House Rules Expansion.

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

• Add 1939, 1941, 1942 and 1943 versions.

1939 Would be a tough sell, IMO. At that start point, you end up with too much politics and not enough war; it’s just Germany (and USSR) invading a bunch of neutral countries. I think G40 strikes a good compromise. I’m also leery about '43.

@the-janus

True - about 1939 scenario. Since this is only our suggestions, I believe that Renegade would make the necessary decisions in this matter.

Concerning Global 1943 we have already been playing this scenario for more than 8 years now.
It’s a great scenario with both the History Enthusiast as well as the Game Player in mind.

I assume that you haven’t played the Axis & Allies Global 1943 Expansion - that would explain your concerns.

We’re looking forward to your suggestions to “Advice to Renegade”.

I honestly would like to see a more stripped-down version of the game. I think if you want to remove most of the politics, you need to set it either right on the cusp of Barbarossa/Pearl Harbour (Spring 1941) or what Larry calls the “high-water mark of the Axis expansion” (Spring 1942)

Just as a side note, I would say when I look at World at War, it feels like an attempt to answer the question “What if we had Axis & Allies, but with France as a major power?” without any thought as to why not to do that. I still think 1940 (before the fall of France) is probably the last, other reasonable start date – but I don’t know that it’s preferable to the other two. I think 1943, with the failure at Stalingrad (and particularly after the surrender of Italy) is kind of a “point of no return” for the Axis.

I think back to Classic, and it’s kind of a pastiche of WWII. You have to have tanks, planes, submarines and carriers – those are iconic to the period. Of course, you need transports and at least some type of surface ship (whether it’s Battleships or just something nondescript.) Artillery have been around basically forever, and I’d say they’re more iconic to WWI (that, and machine guns.)

Submarine interactions have gotten too complicated, and the creep towards contested sea zones and land territories is taking away the elegance and simplicity from the game. Also constantly trying to shoehorn in Italy and China as separate powers isn’t doing the game any favours, IMO.

I’m not entirely sure how they might fit this into a “G40 3rd Edition” but I’d be interested to see a 1945(ish) scenario, in the vein of Operation: Unthinkable

I think there are a couple different start dates you could do w/r/t the Cold War. For example East & West (by Imp Games) is set around the Berlin Airlift of 1948, just before decolonization began to really ramp up. So you still have the full breadth of the British Empire for the most part, with the Arab League and Organization of American States being established as major neutral blocs, and the civil war in China nearing its end.

E&W sort of has the problem of being “USSR vs. the World” so I think if you could do a global game where the west is powerful enough to merit having China as an active Soviet ally, that would be ideal. The issue is always going to be that there’s effectively little or no naval game, unless you set it in a period where nuclear submarines are just all over the place, pulling wild and crazy stunts.

Other dates:
1950-1953 - Korean War, Greece and Turkey join NATO
1955 - West Germany joins NATO, occupation of Austria ends, Warsaw Pact is formed, Baghdad Pact/METO/CENTO (UK, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan) is formed, SEATO established in 1954 (US, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand)
1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis
1975(ish) - allows for Communist control in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Indochina, as well as the Warsaw Pact countries; (Iraq left CENTO in 1958, but it existed until 1979; SEATO operated until 1977)

Ultimately, the issue I find with any cold war scenario is that it probably lends itself more to a Europe map (maybe even the 1914 map over the Europe 1940 map) or that it should actually use a northern hemisphere map, rather than eastern or western.
Right at the outset of the cold war, the western powers have vast empires, but within a decade or two they no longer control much of anything in Africa or southern Asia. Having a map that’s chockful of neutrals isn’t terribly appealing, without a robust, meaningful, yet lean diplomacy system (again, don’t do what World at War does.) I think the “activation” mechanics mostly work for a WWII setting, but they also feel kinda handwavey and tacked-on.

If I had to make a wish and just get one flagship A&A scenario, I’d like to see a map on the scale of G40, but set in 1941 with only 6 factions.

I think the big 6 is better than the big 5, if only because it allows for parity by sides Axis vs Allies and to alternate by sides each turn.

I don’t really want to see Italy get nixed, because Axis is in the name after all, but I think it makes more sense to have Germany and then a faction called ‘European Axis.’ This set could provide some unique sculpts and roundels that could be used for basically all the smaller Axis aligned countries, Italy at the head maybe, though not just Italy, but Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania whatever. Basically you do some purely decorative design elements like mini flags, and then a more generic sculpt set with specialized flavor, like say a couple alt infantry or air types, stuff like that to cover the bases. Then have this player ‘nation’ catch-all faction come between the turn blocks on the Allied side. Basically removing the piggy back into the next round for team Allies, so both sides are more even that way.

On the Allied side you could obviously do the same with China, but it might be interesting to just see the Allies framed in the same way, again where the material for the smaller factions is done up with the decorative map elements with specialized flavor but folded back into one of the big 3 turns. So basically Anzac folds back into Britain, China folds back into USA. Or France into USA, or either of those into the Soviet turn block to maybe make it more interesting? I guess whatever makes the most sense from a “game seat” position might be good there. I can see advantages to maybe randomizing it too, like which of the Big 3 gets which of the Little 3 might be a thing that is determined by a roll or something on team Allies, just for flavor? But anyway, main idea being to keep the turn blocks down to a 3v3 exchange and no more. Basically 3 outs per game round. I just think that’s a good way to go.

The reason I like 1941 over the high water mark 1942 opener, is that mechanically the game always has the Axis side expanding early as the way to get a rough parity by sides going into the second and third round. That just feels more appropriate to 41 for me. Like if you have it open with a bang and the Axis side achieving that high water mark in the early rounds it feels more like the march of history, rather than starting from that high water mark and then vaulting like Shamu even higher, expanding massively into uncharted territory right at the start. You know where like Italy rules Egypt and Japan crushes into Siberia and India or whatever, because that’s how far they need to go to get into break even territory hehe. Like it’s all well and good if the game gets there after many rounds, but just not to have the balance tip too hard like that right away. Better, if the Allies are going to be on their heels in the opener, to pick a date where that vibe hums. Also helps I think with the sense of progression of game-time in the player’s imagination. Early enough for a total war start with some space to operate, but not so early that you have players waiting on the sidelines forever before it gets interesting.

I like a big map, with more unit types, cause it’s hard to go backwards there at this point. I’m used to Artillery and Mech and such and they’re fun units, but trying to keep everything else as simple as possible so that has some room to breathe and isn’t eclipsed by too much other stuff going on at the same time. More starter set focus. It can always morph from there into Expansion territory with add-on materials and more nuanced rules. I think I’d be a little bummed if it was just a bunch of re-releases without any revisions. Like I could imagine a vintage 1984 reissue, but that’s not really what I want. Basically I want “Classic, but Global” if that can just somehow be a thing heheh

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

The reason I like 1941 over the high water mark 1942 opener, is that mechanically the game always has the Axis side expanding early as the way to get a rough parity by sides going into the second and third round. That just feels more appropriate to 41 for me. Like if you have it open with a bang and the Axis side achieving that high water mark in the early rounds it feels more like the march of history, rather than starting from that high water mark and then vaulting like Shamu even higher, expanding massively into uncharted territory right at the start. You know where like Italy rules Egypt and Japan crushes into Siberia and India or whatever, because that’s how far they need to go to get into break even territory hehe. Like it’s all well and good if the game gets there after many rounds, but just not to have the balance tip too hard like that right away. Better, if the Allies are going to be on their heels in the opener, to pick a date where that vibe hums. Also helps I think with the sense of progression of game-time in the player’s imagination. Early enough for a total war start with some space to operate, but not so early that you have players waiting on the sidelines forever before it gets interesting.

I think I kinda get what you’re saying: 1942 basically requires the Axis to do better than history, in order to be competitive and/or to keep advancing right out of the gate. The problem I have with 1943, is that it’s essentially trying to capture that 1941 feel, when in reality the momentum should all be going the other way, plus the Soviets and Americans aren’t caught unawares.

I think Italy only works if you’re doing a really zoomed-in Europe map (like basically converting a WWI map) where it’s more along the scale of the old A&A Europe, but with more territories – just North Africa (not the whole continent) and maybe the middle east. And even then, once you hit Barbarossa, Italy isn’t going to have enough to do (after Taranto, and with France and Greece/Yugoslavia already taken care of.) Frankly, having a 10-IPC “”“major”“” power just doesn’t pass muster IMO. I think the only way you can buff Italy to any meaningful level is to bend history and stick Vichy French territories under their control.

China has the same problem; if you don’t want them to just be ‘neutral’ picket armies, and you also don’t want them to be able to attack on the UK turn, just stick 'em under the US, like in Classic. ANZAC seems entirely unnecessary, particularly outside of a Pacific game – or just for the purposes of victory conditions.

Basically there are things you can (and possibly should) do in either a Pacific or a Europe game, that you shouldn’t do in a global game.

@the-janus Beg to differ: if “Italy” is considered to be all minor Axis powers, you could possibly make some interesting roles for the nation/power on the Eastern front. Romania/Bulgaria were quite important in the south