Picked it up, and while I haven’t taken time to really review it, one quick glance at the map board was all I needed to come up with some suggestions.

1. Why present a ‘generic’ map with no relatable ‘landmarks’ (ugh, sorry).

Maps centering on the Atlantic, Pacific, or Mediterranean , along with the underwater topography we’re aware of (trenches, tectonic plates/undersea mountain ranges, volcanoes, sargassos) , would have made for a much more interesting experience.

2. If you’d consider using ‘real’ world maps as described above, why not take it one more step further toward a ‘real’ Axis & Allies experience, and place the undersea conflict -during WW2-

This would make the game A&A ‘adjacent’ much like A&A&Z, with the switcheroo of having ‘surface dweller’ activity being the random element. How about: Random Depth charges, as well as occasional submarines (with increased probability of depth charges when a submarine is present, or near islands and coasts, or along WW2 convoy routes). Further brainstorming from people smarter than me would likely come up with even more possibilities.

This would have resulted in a game which would sit far more comfortably next to the rest of the A&A family of games.

Fans should be invited to brainstorm ideas for/with Renegade. Easy ideas are being missed. IMO.

I’d love to see a combined Battle of Britain/Battle of the Atlantic A&A game.

Britain getting squeezed, needs to decide to invest in destroyers, planes, or transports/land units for an attempted invasion.

Germans need to decide to invest in subs, planes, or transports/land units for an attempted invasion.

America limited in its ability to support.  Maybe a 3rd player.

Russian Front (or perhaps the tip of Africa) a wild card; as, if the Allies can successfully shift troops to either, the effect on Germany would be akin to an outsized Industrial Raid, simulating German forces pulled to other fronts.

First country to land troops on the other’s beach and hold for one round wins?  Or maybe just if Britain holds out for x amount of turns?  Maybe both?

@robert:

Strategic retreats are an interesting new twist though.

I concur, that’s some out-of-the-(zombie)-box thinkin’

I dunno, I think the adjustments to play will make this game an interesting variant.

-does it look to you all like zombie units can’t move from territory to territory?  Seems like it to me.  Also, since the Zombies go first on every player’s turn, does that mean zombies go first wherever that particular player is facing them, or worldwide, against everyone, wherever there’s zombies present?  That gives the Zombie Hordes five worldwide shots against the living for every round of play.  Might be too powerful, unless zombies attack at 1 (which they presumably do).  Might be too powerful anyway.

-it seems like most of the nations would probably avoid purchasing Infantry if they can help it.  Except that leaves the Russian player in quite a pickle, as Infantry has always been the lynchpin of Russian defense.  Can he afford (both strategically and financially) to purchase all tanks and artillery?  I doubt it.

-The Infantry Bite-Proof Armor and the Zombie Mind-Control Rays might be the ‘Heavy Bomber’ of this game.

• the Zombie Capture Transport sounds hilarious.  Don’t have units of your own to transport into battle?  Snatch up a couple of coastal Zombies and dump them on an enemy coastline to rob him of IPC’s.  I wonder if you can Battleship Bombard along with a zombie drop-off.

Can’t wait to see what other wrinkles are in store when this hits the shelves!

@AlphaKappa:

Artwork on the back of the box indicates no new sculpts except for the zombie miniatures.

What, no ‘chainsaw tanks?’  Color me disappointed.

How do we think they’ll differentiate between anti-zombie unit types if not by miniature?  A little slip of paper, again?
Might be worth buying a few spares from HBG and do a little creative painting.

Supposedly has a release date of June 6 2012.  This week!  Yay!  8-)

eh.

I suppose I would do it if I hoped it would provide some insight into playing a role differently.  Sometimes in awkwardness different perspectives have been found.  My least favorite viewpoint in looking at the map is north facing south (ie upside-down) but it has occasionally been useful.

But, as I noted in my post, and has been reinforced by others in this thread, the tradeoff would be sacrificing playability.

shrug<  I just thought it might be cool if the maps were designed so there was an option to do it that way.

…and I apologize if this question has been asked/answered/buried in the posts somewhere…

It occured to me that there was an opportunity for a tiny new (though possibly interesting) wrinkle in game setup.  With the 1940 sets being sold seperately - though with rules to combine them - will the maps be designed in such as way that the players could configure the maps so that the maps/countries join from either the East OR the West? i.e. linking up the maps with the US in the center of the game, rather than Europe/Asia. :?

… I’m not sure if the game would be all that different, but you never know.  From the historical perspective, it was logical to break up the USA on the original map, as it represented the logistical choices facing the US relating to which theatre in which to deploy.  But…seeing/playing the board from a USA-central position might be illuminating.  Probably most players wouldn’t want to play that way, it would inconvienence the Germany, Russia, and Japan players, and benefit only the USA.

thethedew