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

Ya but every thing is raised +1 across the whole game for AD
So far Allies 3-2
But should be 4-1. Axis had 1 tank in coast city. Allies Didn’t bring enough troops.
It was nice had allies attack St. lo on T4 or 5
Added a few pieces to setup. 3 extra paratroopers and a few tigers late on card and AD@5 I think M1 only. Moved 3 block houses off coast on upper left side of map and put in 2 more against big US beachhead and other one against other US beach head.
This is the map I use.
Better take d day discussion to correct thread from now on
DA6E0A3F-2E5B-4517-B1B4-BDFC48594DD2.jpeg

IMO using real WWII rationale for China VS Japan does not compute in Axis and Allies because A&A does not use terrain. The #1 reason Japan did not take all of China in the real war was because of terrain. South West China is all mountains. North West China is dessert that is the second largest desert in the world. Also that desert is a nightmare scenario in winter. There is also this huge mountain chain coming up the west side of the China that is ignored.

SO

If you want to change up the status quo in China in respect to Japan I would offer this. Using game mechanics in the game.

You use Impassible territories.

You put up a Impassible territory between Khazashistan and Novobirisk. The only way Japan can get into Russia then is to invade Timguska.  So, you now force Japan to focus on the north which brings into play the Russia far east forces to resist them. It also forces Japan to diffuse their air power to the north. Which then brings up a choice Japan has to make. Go north with air power and leave India to build up and resist Japan.

Hey Folks,

has anyone of you ever tried HBG “Battle Shapes (3D)” rules (fortifications, rockets, etc.) in your 1940-Global games? (www. historicalboardgaming.com/Battle-Shapes-3D-printed_c_425.html)
If ‘yes’, what are you’re experiences with them? Are they a great imrpovement? Or to expensive, unbalanced or simply unrealistic?

Hi Tolstoj,

I’ve never played 1st Ed., so I have no insight upon the differences between the two editions. But in one of our games ‘Seelöwe’ was successful on G2 due to the errors of the British player in UK1.

There are several players who opt for a attack by Japan on J1. The sinking of the British BB is one argument. Personally I like to attack on J2 or J3 after my invasion forces are in position, so I’m able to capture the ‘treasure islands’ and Malaya in one single turn. (And in most cases one or two British and/or ANZAC transports can be sunk in addition.)

As Germany I prefer to launch ‘Barbarossa’ on my second turn. On G1 capture France, sink as many British ships as possible and weaken Yugoslavia by attacking it for one round of combat and then retreat to Romania (so Italy can finish her off).

There were a few wars fought in South America in the early 30’s. I don’t know who had who’s backing in those conflicts. There was the Guerra del 41 between Equador and Peru. I know the US supported Peru and Japan supported Equador, but I’m pretty sure that support was from the bleachers. The only equipment I can tell you for sure that was used was the Czech LTP (Panzer 38t). These were used by Peru.
Peru had all the gear. They actually prepared for war. This lead to Peru having a 3-4 to 1 advantage in men and equipment. Except for tanks. Equador had none. Peru had around 25. Take a wild guess at who won.

I bumped this up because there is a similar thread to compare with.

Uncrustable,
why don’t use this game mechanics instead when attacking transports?

@Baron:

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Transports cost reduced to 6 IPCs.
-When empty may move 3 spaces during noncombat move. No transport may move 4 spaces
-Transport ‘evasive maneuvers’, each transport caught undefended by an attacking warship or plane may roll 1 dice. A roll of a 1 is a successful evasive maneuver and that transport is removed from battle and placed back on the game board, a transport that evaded an enemy attack while undefended may not unload units until its next turn.

This is another way to play a defenseless transport which should be added in this thread to be complete on the optional rule for this topic.

It makes me think about a similar but still a bit different way to played it also as a defenseless but not hopeless transport:

When there is no more warships/aircrafts to defend transports, then each transport roll and for each “1” rolled in a specific round, one TT can escape.
Attacker need to hit transport unit according to each attacking factor (ex.: subs @2/ DD @2 / CA @3, etc.) to destroy one transport.
Each round any un-destroyed transport which haven’t been able to escape can still trying to roll “1” to escape.

The combat end when, either all remaining transports have been able to escape, or have been destroyed.

Their will be no more auto-die, no combat unit will be destroy and the naval combat is done according to usual A&A system rule: a roll is needed to destroy any unit and no unit able to destroy more than 1 unit in the same combat round.

Since I play-tested it,
I say it is much more interesting than auto-die and more balance way to keep some surviving TT than destroying expensive attacking units (one way or an other).

I should add this detail:
transport can get their evasive roll as soon as their is no more warships or planes on their side at the end of a combat round.

Always attacking units can hit first, and it is only surviving transport which can get an evasive roll.

Which means, for instance, if their is 2 transports at the beginning of a round and 2 are hitten by attacker’s units then their is no evasive roll.