Re-release of board game "Crude" includes MANY derricks, barrels, and oil wells!

Wow. It looks like the learning curve for making TripleA maps is extremely high.

Oh cool, we’re back! For a few days there I wasn’t able to get the site up.

I like the idea of a round 0 build up, but I think the implementation needs more work.

The first issue I’m anticipating is just sheer amount of time it would take to go around the table piece for piece. Beyond that you also have the issue of players matching each other (out in the open) by choosing to place all their TUV in just a few hot spots, at the expense of everywhere else. And finally, without any limits or caps for individual territories or sea zones you will likely see a ton of front line units, placed just outside the range of any opening attacks.

My suggestion would be to have more structure to the zero round, more rules defining where the units can be placed, or perhaps some kind of initiative role to determine the sequence in which they are placed.

One approach might be to just scale back the number of units or ipcs that are included in this process. So instead of taking all the starting TUV and putting that in a tray, you might just use a portion of the total, or perhaps instead allow players to add some smaller amount of TUV on top of the normal starting totals. Not only would that make things faster, it would also provide some much needed structure to the set up process.

Particularly with sea zones, instead of a race to be the first to occupy the contested ones (that border multiple originally controlled territories), you could restrict where naval units can be added to just those sea zones that already have a ship etc. Same deal with land.

You might make it a secret placement only revealed after everyone has recorded all their placements. Or you could break it down by unit type, first bases then inf then tanks then fighters then ships etc.

For ease of use, the more this zero round looked like a bid the easier it would be to implement. Although in this case it would be like a bid for all sides.

Again I like the idea a lot, I just think it needs more polish.

I would give America Shipyards and Russia Improved Artillery. I really don’t think Germany or Japan need anything. They have so many territories, which equates to too much income. It should be easier for the Allies and I worry it will not be.

So basically a 2 dollar bump for the allies turn1, then 4,6,8 and so on. Sounds pretty interesting. Another way to play the game. The more the merrier. One should never get bored playing A&A (although it might not be bad to take a break once in a while), just bust out a different scenario. :)

@Der:

I would add a level of strategy, which I’m all for. Love strategy.

Why not say everyone can transfer up to 25% of their income to an ally during their purchase unit phase?  The 2:1 loss of production would not motivate me to do it, ever. If I’m the UK and have 40 IPC’s, instead of sending them to Russia so they can have 2 Russian fighters, I’m going to still buy 4 UK fighters and fly them over there. But say I could just transfer 25% over there. (10 ipcs) I would do that and Russia would get the fighter faster because they could buy their own and put it out on Russia with the money, instead of waiting for UK to put out fighters, then fly them over next turn.

@toblerone77:

What about just charging a fee plus the unit cost? For example, the U.S. could build a British destroyer plus a fee of say +2/3 IPCs. The question would be where placement would be allowed. You could in the case of G40, that could be on territory adjacent to a convoy zone. In other versions it could be the nearest industrial complex.

Whether you loan IPCs or have an ally build the unit for you the principal is the same.

It may also be reasonable to implement a system where a die roll is made by the enemy to destroy the convoy shipment. Example: The U.S. builds two tanks to send to Russia. Germany then rolls two dice at 1. Germany rolls a one and a two. One tank is destroyed en route.

Either of those might work, and still be preferable to me, over a scheme that only encourages multination stacks on defense.

I’m open to finding new ways to get a real Loan phase going

Are you working on a setup for this? I’d be willing to try it out as long as it doesn’t alter the OOB map at all.

@Bardoly:

My main point though, is that giving techs for free is definitely a house rule, while allowing one’s opponent to pay 5 IPCs and you assume that the tech die that he rolls is automatically a “6” and then his Chart 1/2 die is automatically forseen, is more of a gentleman’s agreement rather than a house rule, and as such, could possibly be allowed in League play.

Whether it’s a light beer or a wheat beer or a pilsner beer, it’s still a BEER.

In other words, I am pretty sure any gentlemens agreement is still a house rule, and would technically be against any league play rules.  Sorry  :cry:

Small change to the rules.

I did my playtesting on TripleA where Afghanistan is adjacent to Chinghai.  I had the opportunity to play a live ftf game last night and noticed that on the real board the Himalayas lie between Afghanistan and Chinghai.  Therefore…Afghanistan is no longer a selectable neutral by China…they may take Mongolia only.