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

Made a few more changes. Removed 3 inf from allies on setup in Asia.
Made FIC worth 3 instead of 2.
Cauraucus now worth 4 instead of 5. Russia income back to 24. from 25.

We played another game but ended it on turn 4. Axis not being able to get that 12 city.
But of course more play is needed.

I can post updated map if somebody wants to see it.

Hopefully I can remember enough to add a quick finish to this after all this time.  Basically, Churchill’s morale was broken after England fell and realizing the mistake of thinking India’s IPC’s were England’s, so he went off to play cards.  Roosevelt took over control of all of the remaining Commonwealth nations and military forces.  Stalin still felt optimistic that he could push back the Germans.

The following summarizes R4+5 (I think it was 5 rounds at least)

Japan and the US clashed around the Caroline Islands in what was the largest naval battle of the game.  Japanese battleships Yamato, Musashi, and Nagato joined the carriers Zuikaku, Shokaku, and the Kaga complete with full loads of Tony, Oscar, and Zero fighters as well as Kate and Val bombers along with 5 destroyers against a multinational fleet consisting of US and Royal Naval forces lead by the “Big E”, the USS Enterprise loaded with Wildcat fighters and Dauntless bombers (still in their 1940 pre-war livery), the carrier USS Lexington with a Wildcat fighter group and Devastator bombers all in Battle of Midway camouflage, 5 DD’s, a sub and a bunch of transports, with the BB USS West Virginia not able to join the battle in time. The overwhelming Japanese force was successful, with the bulk of their forces surviving with battleships damaged.  Encountering success everywhere, they also wiped out the last remaining Chinese resistance.  On the follow up turn, an Australian tank corp raced across the country to defeat the sneaky Japanese and their infantry unit’s beached was eliminated.  The few surviving Mongolian troops and the Allied powers had little to celebrate.

Roosevelt took huge morale blows with Churchill’s resignation and now this catastrophic naval loss, but he was still hanging in there by a thread.  The Japanese were pretty much the masters of mainland Asia.

In Europe, Iraqi soldiers were charging towards India, backed by their Italian friends.  Germany kept pressing towards Russia.  They bought another carrier and a Destroyer to further intimidate the Americans, who were still equally distributing their money to each front, with some money left over given to land units to maintain parity with Stalin, with the idea of spending everything to land units against Russia on the following turn.  Italy steamed the Battleship Littorio, a cruiser, DDs, and subs past the “Pillars of Hercules” to further intimidate the Americans from making a move.  The naval intimidation moves succeeded on Roosevelt who decided to capitulate as he didn’t want to dare move the US fleet in range of all of those Axis ships, especially given all of the airpower that could support them.  Stalin tried to convince him to fight on, but after the demoralizing Pacific defeat, he didn’t have the heart to see the USS Ranger, California, and Arizona at the bottom of the sea (yes, the USS Arizona was stationed on the East Coast for this alternative history).  The Allies were essentially defeated and it was game over.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eWPStTU4pgFqS3rN8NnCtVlTJzmcFZnSHA
Pacific after the Allies capitulated

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Htmx1y4AuE4X81l1iBdf0bU8wiABqjiTxQ
Europe after the Allies capitulated

I’m betting this variant is not balanced, but there were so many mistakes and the skill level was so unbalanced between the Axis and Allies, that it’s hard to say that it favors the Axis.  It seemed like Sea Lion wouldn’t have worked with England collecting the proper income and making more strategic decisions such as supporting with Canadian troops and not scrambling all of their air force in the initial attacks.  The drawback of simultaneous play was that the newer players couldn’t be monitored as well as when play is one country at a time.  Perhaps playing one country at a time for the first round may be the way to go when there are new players, so they can be watched and have their questions answered.

I use WWII Russians and control markers for Bolsheviks. These are controlled by the CPs, but cannot attack outside original Russian areas. Some sort of Siberian railway track to represent the arrival of Allied (i.e. anti-Bolshevik) forces from the east.

Something else I’ve experimented with is the release of POWs; if the war with Russia ends, G & A get a number of infantry to represent the release of prisoners held in Russia. This can be extended to any power being knocked out of the war.

My main change is that collapse is based on national morale, based on casualties suffered & bombing raids on the capitals as well as losing battles and tt. Its fairly obvious that collapse based on income levels favours the CPs too much.

@Black_Elk:

I have done a lot of experimenting with the AA50 game board, but trying to use G40 rules on it is not something I have tried. I’m curious what you have in mind?

Do you mean like using G40 with an expanded unit roster? In that case it may be possible to include Tac Bombers or Mech, possibly G40 factories (with their restrictions) but I think the air and naval bases would be out, since the movement advantage would bust the map. Not using Air bases would handle the most problematic aspect of G40 on a AA50 board, since you wouldn’t have to deal with scrambling.

AA50 could probably support 2 hit carriers, though that might bust the opening battles. I suppose if you really wanted to retain the repair aspect on ships, you could just attach it to coastal factories, though that might give Japan a decisive advantage over the US in the pacific.

Beyond this, the Tac Bombers and Mech, I’m not sure what the payoff would be using G40 rules over AA50 OOB.

I think AA50 is a superior game to Global in many respects,  especially in terms of the learning curve and the total playtime to conclusion, so I’d be pretty excited to see it on offer if I showed up at someone’s house to find it set on a table.

I’m just spit balling, might be easier to just play by the AE rules rather than go though the work of making the G40 unit profiles compatible with the AE board. It’s been a long time since I played AE, but maybe it’s time to revisit it.

I just have a problem sinking a piece without even rolling a dice.
Same thing here.
You must rolling die to sink a warship escorted or not.

The only long range sortee by unescorted battleships that I have ever heard of are the German convoy raiders of WW II. I just feel that there should be some penalty for a player doing such a foolish thing in AA. Maybe a one shot attack and then submerge is enough.

Either subs attacking unescorted capitol warships get 1 roll, if a 1-2 ship sunk on 1st hit. if sub misses,sub is considered submerged,breaks off attack,but if it stays in sea zone to try again next turn or follows same shipsinto another sea zone to try again next turn, destroyer and cruisers detection roll is upped to 1-4 becouse sub is known to be activly prowling area.

Well if a player let his warship alone, it could be destroyed.
Sub must continue his attack after the first round of combat or warship alone can escape after the first round. - But I prefer the first option-.

Updated rules slightly, added rules to first post

I love copy and paste  :-).

I am a big fan of Diplomacy, but can’t imagine adding simultanious movement to A&A. First, as Imperious Leader noted, there would be a large amount of moves to write. In Diplomacy a leader has to write at most 17 orders, but will generally need to issue 5-10. In Axis and Allies both the number and the complexity of the orders increases.
Second, writing down orders will likely serve as somewhat of a deterent to inivation. For example; as Germany I draft a set of orders to strike the U.S.S.R at Causcus and Karelia. If I suddenly see a stronger strategy that involves me completely changing my orders for both countries, the time I already put in that will be lost and the time I will need to write up new orders may deter me from attempting my new course of action. Having to continuously edit a page or two of orders will be tedious.
Third, in real life military leaders would re-act to enemy movements. If as Japan I ordered my units in Kwangtung, Manchuria, and French Indochina to attack China, but was attacked by units in Soviet Far East and India my attack would not proceed. Not only that, the Manchurian units would likely be diverted to re-inforce and/or counter-attack.

It’s very good, except … I think the US scenarios
are a wee bit OVER THE TOP!