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

My concern was not related to turn 1 or 2 but to later German turn:
9 additional Art for a Russian counterattack may cause a problem for Germany advancing to Belarus or Western Ukraine or one turn later to Bryansk, because Italy cannot take this area first (RU takes it back before the German turn) and therefore G cannot land their air on top of it’s army.
12 additional Inf may delay a G 6 attack on Russia (Simon33 was faster while I typed this post).

My concern was based on a game otherwise played without bid or only with a small bid (for example: balanced mod;  our group with other houesrules).
If you play OOB-rules with a bid around 30 IPC, then Gargantua’s idea is very fine (I already understood that he only wants to make one simple adjustment), the inherent bid goes to Russia and does not destroy the game in the MED (as usual IMO).
I will have to try it to see more effects.

That’s generally what war is about, one country(s) wanting to expand and colonize, and other county(s) trying to stop it to protect their own interests. England was a super power at the time, it won multiple wars allowing it to expand the Empire. With expansion comes a strain of resources and uprisings (like that little conflict in the America’s). Although the English were on the winning side of WWII much of the Empire was disassembled afterwords.

The axis partners had spheres of interest prior to the start of WWII. Germany would dominate Europe, Italy the Med region, and Japan would get Asia and the Pacific. If things had continued to go the axis way,  those lines very well could have gotten blurred leading to conflicts among the axis. We all know that the Germans were capable of back stabbing their treaty partners.

Yea the Germans were late to the party, but did colonize in the Pacific and Africa prior to WWI. As a result of WW1 they lost those colonies. It is reasonable to believe that had the war progressed in their favor the Germans would want those lost territories back at some point. Would the Japanese just freely relinquish those Pac territories? Maybe some kind of trade off?

I’m no historian, but I don’t think the Japanese had any interest in expanding into Africa during the war(?). That would fall under German/Italian influence where the Euro axis were already fighting. I’m not saying the Japanese didn’t have the means to make landings in Africa, only that it would probably raise red flags to their axis partners if they did. Plus such a landing would have been a major strain on Japanese ambitions and holding they already had in their own back yard. They chose to keep the NAP w/Russia to continue their conquest of Asia and the Pacific (against the wishes of their strongest ally). I don’t think the Japanese would have looked at Africa unless they got the US to sign a treaty giving them complete reign of Asia and the Pac. Then they may have looked towards Africa or the Mid East???

With that said, I like that fact that if the US goes full tilt Europe the game allows you as the Japanese to venture to into Africa, and other European territories. Same for if the Japanese are getting pounded the Germans/Italians can make gains on the Pac side if they want. I wouldn’t like a set of rules that limit you to one map side or the other. Many people already complain about the Acme Chinese wall as it is.

If a house rule limited axis cross overs, or base certain moves on a domino type of effect, I think that you would also have look at putting in some US spending limits per theater as well.

Since A&A 1914 came out, I’ve been looking to import some of the rules from there into the Global 1940 game. The rule I’ve been eyeing most is the contested territory mainly, but as this is mainly a result of the limited combat rounds I feel it may limit the game too much. That was until I thought this could be a perfect time to implement oil rules! If you used oil to “buy” extra combat rounds as needed, this could simulate supplying your army as they attack. This really allows the use of the contested territory rules without the limiting effects of a hard one-round cap on combat, as well as limit territory exchanges. I thinking something along the lines of:

**Oil Refinery
Cost: 12-15
Move: 0
Attack: 0
Defense: 0 (AA ability)

Oil Refinery: Oil refineries give the nation that possesses it 3 oil tokens. These refineries can be built in any land territory you control that can support an oil refinery i.e. a territory such as the Caucasus or Romania (places that had a historical set of oilfields during the conflict); you can only have one per territory.**

How about giving the Cruiser an AA roll of 1, or 2 on a 12d system! Keeping everything else the same! This would make the cruiser a little better buy and not be overpowering in a naval battle but would be an excellent carrier escort.

Back when all we had was Classic, I tried out a game where Germany and Russia were pals and they fought against USA, UK and Japan.  The Germany/Russia combo was pretty devastating.  They rather quickly over ran the rest of the Asian continent and most of Africa, although Russia had some problems with Japan because Japan kept using their transports to drop off troops all along the coast and Russia didn’t yet have enought to put garrisons in each coastal territory. 
As powerful as Germany got by taking most of the Middle-East and Africa, they had a hard time trying to get at England because the Brits kept buying aircraft and sinking all the German ships.  So while Germany had lots of troops and tanks, they couldn’t keep ships to take them to England.  Also, Germany had put so many men along the coasts that America had to build a really huge invasion fleet to get over there.  They also had to be careful about staging their ships because Germany had a lot of Luftwaffe too.
It took a while, but Germany and Russia eventually won.  Russia finally got some planes over to sink the Japanese ships and Germany eventually whittled down the RAF enough that they started to keep and build a decent navy.  They also used lots of subs for fodder (remember back then planes could hit subs anytime).  The big American invasion took too long building and ended up being used to liberate England instead of attacking somewhere in Europe.  Germany had enough guys and transports to re-take England and after a couple of large naval battles, managed to reach North America and had enough transports to keep shuttling men and tanks from Europe to England to Canada, with even a few Russian troops sent over by their puny navy to take defense hits by US counterattacks.  Eventually, they even overwhelmed Eastern US.  Japan couldn’t help because every time they put ships in the water, Russian planes would sink them.

I recently went back to my older games and incorporated the newer pieces into them.  I only went as far back as Revised.  At first I thought it would simply be a matter of altering the setup some but found a few more problems:
1 - In the older games, Destroyers were 3-3-2-12, same as Cruisers are now.  Also, Aircraft Carriers had an attack of 1, now they have no attack value.  So basically, you have to bring the costs back to the older games and you have to use the 1940 battle boards.
2 - You can’t use air or naval bases in the older games.  Especially in Revised because there are a lot less sea zones.  For example, with a naval base, Japan and W USA are one move away from each other.
3 - ICs and build limits also present a problem.  In the older games, you simply have ICs and their build limit is based on the IPC value of the territory they are on.  I don’t know how to incorporate Major and Minor ICs into the older games.  I simply used the new unit values with the old IC rules.

Well, I hope this helps you.  If you would like my setup changes, let me know and I can post them for you.

You get to choose in that case. If you choose armor, your attack suffers. If you choose infantry and you take, then you face the possibility of inadequate fodder for enemy counter attacks

I never do CAP, mostly because I don’t think about it.  The few times I do I don’t want to risk my fighters.  I’ve never seen it done in any games I’ve played.  I do think it could be useful so I’ve thought about adding it again to my house rules but I am striving for simplicity right now.