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

I love this game and I appreciate the work the game designers put into it.
I was looking at a way to speed up the game and I played “all throws are hits.”
Did it once with No Mines Option and once with All Mines Always Hit Option.
This was a lot of fun and it forced me to rethink some buying strategies and maneuver strategies.
FYI, Allied Powers start with 161 ground units (169 when US enters) and 23 ships (25 when US enters).
Central Powers start with 176 ground units and 12 ships.

Switzerland has to be worth more then 1, 4 sounds good (just wish I could change that on the actual board). My first game I played, I was CP and my friend was Allies and I just managed a victory (He was getting bored and not as focused as he was at the beginning). I did the Russian Rev on turn 3, thank god because of the Americans entering next turn, didn’t really want to face 5 opponents. Italy was the next to fall by the Austrians and it ended up being a three on three game with the Germans and Austrians fighting on the Western Front against the French, British, and Americans who chose to land in Picardy, were backed up by the British as the French dealt with the Germans just to the north in Belgium. Now, he destroyed my German navy with his British fleet which I let get bigger and bigger, i’m an idiot for that one, and he landed in Berlin, can he do this? anyway, I was able to push him out and destroy his fleet and finally take Paris.

Tigerman,

As you know in about a month HBG will be releasing it’s US Supplement Set with a real winning cast of units included:

P-40 Warhawk (early) Fighters, P-51 Mustang (Late) Fighters, C-46 Commando Transports, Airborne Parachute Infantry, M-3 Stuart Light Tanks, M-5 Priest S/P Artillery, M-10 Hellcat Tank Destroyers, Nevada “class” Battleships, Casablanca “class” Escort Carriers, Mack 2 1/2-ton Trucks, TBF Avenger Torpedo Bombers, and B-25 Mitchell Medium Bombers.  WOW!!!  This will be a GREAT Set.

It’s not open to Pre-Orders YET, but should be VERY soon.  Everyone should really make sure they don’t miss out on orderring this GREAT SET.  Later, Guys

“Tall Paul”

@Hobbes:

@Cmdr:

Or just add up all the attacking planes and divide that number by 6.  11 Fighters, 11 Tactical Bombers and 2 Strategic Bombers = 24 Planes, 4 planes are lost.

The thing with that approach is that it allows for very effective strategic bombing campaigns. You send 6 bombers against an IC on a territory worth 8 IPC or more (on Global 40 against a Major IC): 1 bomber gets shot automatically by the AA, resulting in a loss of 12 IPCs but the other 5 bombers deal an average of 3.5 damage to the targeted IC. You keep buying one bomber to replace the lost one and the other guy has to either pay a lot to build units or abandon the IC.

Actually, average of 3.83333 dmg (3 + 1@5).  Yes, it is effective, but allegedely, no more so than a normal bombing raid would be, at at least you don’t have Yatzee, right?

What does this have to do with the title?

First, I am assuming that all submarines in A & A attack from periscope depth, not the surface.  That is the only way that the first strike rule for submarines can be justified.  If all subs are attacking on the surface then aircraft should be able to attack subs without a destroyer present, and all surface ships should get a free shot at the sub with no chance of reply, as most successful torpedo attacks occurred at ranges of less than 2,000 yards, point blank range for surface guns.  The attack chance is based on a submerged sub attacking a sub running on the surface, not submerged.  WW2 boats spent most of their time on the surface, submerging only to attack or avoid aircraft and surface ships.  The snorkel only came into use by the Germans in mid-1944, and did allow for diesel running while submerged.  If you wish, I will post a detailed discussion of WW2 submarine tactics and operational proceedures.  If you argue that all subs are always submerged, then they should have a movement of 1 sea zone every two turns, to reflect the very low speed of submerged running.  You cannot have it both ways.

OK yes submarines attacked at periscope depth and then immediately submerged at the first sign of trouble. And what the ‘first strike’ idea is supposed to model. However, fighters didn’t have the tactic of attacking subs down until the mid war period and up until that time reconnaissance planes ( in our case bombers) were used as spotters for convoy or for wolf packs to hunt convoy system. Those snorkel types you mentioned are the type XXI Walter U-boat turbine system which could travel in some cases underwater faster than some allied destroyers ( about 16 knots). Also you have to know that a turn in AA is something like 4-6 months which is plenty of time to move around and not really effect its movement. The 2 movement point thing is for play balance issues because if naval vessels had unlimited range it would mess up the game because its already a highly abstracted strategic system.

As for a submerged submarine sinking a submerged submarine, the HMS Venturer sank the U-864 while both were submerged on February 6, 1945.  This is the first recorded case of a submerged sub being sunk by another submerged sub.  Both the US and the UK in the immediate postwar period began the development of hunter-killer subs designed specifically for submerged ASW engagement.  During WW2, British submarines sank 35 enemy submarines.  I will need to check on the totals for the other countries.

I knew you would bring up that example: but the game is representing one submarine as something like 20-40 submarines for each ‘piece’ and that is only one example near the last days of the war. Hardly anything to base a major principle of naval combat on IMO. The game has to reflect what actually happened as a matter of normal affairs during the war . All postwar developments wont help us model WW2.

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.

They’re going to mix A&A with an RTS engine?! Hmmmm……we’ll see how it turns out.

If you’re looking forward to playing a WW2 RTS game, check out:

Blitzkrieg

I didn’t like Sudden Strike, and I thought that RTS wasn’t for the WW2 genre, but this game changed my mind. It reminds me a lot of Panzer General II, but with rad graphics.