House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!

[vodot]

@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:

…Only time u can gain from it is capturing it.

Can you explain how capturing works? Do Oil Derricks get “looted” when captured in addition to counting towards a power’s income normally?

[General 6 Stars]

Ok. Russia has 3 oil derricks in Middle East along with UK having 2. There all worth 2 icps and UK collects 4 icps towards income and Russia collects 6 icps income from them to. Now Germany can damage them to reduce both Russia and UK income. Derricks are never destroyed. ( but u just gave me another idea of destroying them ). If axis captures a territory with an oil derrick then they collect the income from the oil derrick plus territory value. But if it’s damaged then they don’t collect until they repair the damage. Oil derricks can be damaged up to double there value.

Also game is based on victory points and there is a 1 point bonus for axis to get if they control 3 oil derricks in Middle East with only 1 damaged.

So now Germany probably damage a few to help reduce Russia’s income and then repair after capture to get point. Rostov is also a victory city worth a point. This promotes a bunch of action. Also some oil derricks worth more money for income like Romania is worth 8 icps.
Like Dutch island oil derricks are worth more too to promote more action plus Japan needs the oil to survive in war based on they need income. Those derricks are worth 5,5 and 4.
Allies can damage them to block income or capture back.

[Black_Elk]

Cool thread! I haven’t kicked around here in ages, but I like the concepts above.

Haha yeah, I’d say Iron War’s scheme would be tough for a physical board. The Fuel=Unit Movement concept works ok in game with the aid of the computer, machine doing all the counting and such, but tracking it as a separate movement related resource is more than I’d want to try in my head or on pen and paper.

I think the idea of fuel as infrastructure or fuel=money, or even the stuff where the fuel is a moveable unit itself. I think that would be easier to execute ftf than the mech naval and air units all consuming fuel to move around idea present in Iron War. But then again it might work, if it was simplified quite a bit. Fewer units involved, or maybe a more basic scheme for how its consumed during gameplay? I do like that it gives oil rules a try, some emphasis and value on certain territories that might not otherwise be reflected in A&A style games. Beyond just an extra ipc or two built into the TT I guess, which is what we usually get hehe. Giving the oil thing special consideration on the map, since it was such a major factor in the actual war. Seems apt and cool!

best Elk

[General 6 Stars]

For me and after trying a bunch of different ways for oil seems the best outcome anyway on my game is what I have.

Allies really had no problem getting oil. UK after 1940 when Persia area fell they got most of there oil from Venezuela. But UK did get Iran back with Russia based on both attacked together in 41 in separate territorial attacks. They didn’t like each other at the time. On my map history wise Russia controls northern half of Iran and UK southern half of Iran.

Yes I can see oil shipment boats from refineries could be hit by axis in the Atlantic. I did test in game if a enemy sub was in a sea zone touching a territory with an oil refinery you could convoy attack it. You would lose I believe a flat rate of 3 icps from your income representing oil transport ships being sunk. Now you could play remove right away 3 icps from your income or wait and see if allies try to kill the sub before the penalty kicks in at end of your turn. Also the refinery could be SBR up to 3 damage.

I think this type of raiding was stopped because we went to oil derricks. It got to strong in certain areas like UK and Dutch islands and depleted Japans income to much. Just more ideas here. And also there’s enough convoy boxes on map to include oil basically.
Like G40 map the convoy boxes should be a bit further out in the Atlantic.

My opinion is the to keep it simple and have the oil mostly more important in game for the Axis at key locations based on the oil producing chart in war. It would be great if UK didn’t destroy there oil wells in Burma when Japan started to invade. This would help Japan get another bonus point if controlled. Probably with so much fighting there they Japan didn’t have the option probably to repair them wells.
But funny thing is they brought engineers or repair men from Japan and used the captured workers on Sumatra and Borneo to help rebuild them oil wells that UK/FEC destroyed when Japan attacked in Dec 41 and a bit later.

Not a big fan of pentalizing a group of units whether ground, navy or planes. It can affect the game more on this scale level. I like it best in smaller version games like Barbarossa where only a small fraction are affected based on more territories in them game maps.

OK had my say so I’ll chill out now. lol

[Imperious Leader]

@general-6-stars

@Imperious-Leader’s Oil Centers
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/15500 & various other places (help me out here, @Imperious-Leader)
Territories have Oil Values, and Oil limits both production and movement of mechanized units. Total values = total number of mech units that can be bought or move that turn.

My idea is that enemy oil centers are possible IPC producers each turn with a roll of one D6, however the first turn of capture you don’t receive any income to model the fact that the original owner player damaged the facility. Every other turn just roll D6 and add to production. Neutral oil centers are treated the same way. The other idea is you must own at least one oil center, or you must roll a D6 and that result is removed from your production each turn. Also, while you don’t own any oil centers, your land units all move one space.

[General 6 Stars]

Depends on what you want in game and I get what your saying.

[vodot]

@imperious-leader Thanks IL, I’ll update the summary above. I like that idea from the KISS principle, and also that in your rules oil is something you can - but probably shouldn’t - ignore. I also like that denying oil to your opponent functions like a free SBR raid…

[General 6 Stars]

It’s already in your list

[vodot]

@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:

It’s already in your list

Right, I just wanted to clarify the particulars. Is there a thread for your rules to which I can link, @General-6-Stars?

[General 6 Stars]

No not at this time. I could make a list or something It’s in 2 areas in my rules

[General 6 Stars]

I can post my oil rules and oil bonuses in my game thread on site here.

Then if you want post it at top of your thread

[vodot]

@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:

I can post my oil rules and oil bonuses in my game thread on site here.

Then if you want post it at top of your thread

Added your rules to my first post, General. Now I’m reading through the entirety of your amazing thread! :)

[vodot]

Here’s fodder for discussion; what about a system where, in the Collect Income Phase, Each functional Oil Derrick to which you can trace, from an IC, some uninterrupted direct link (TBD; maybe through unoccupied convoy zones and/or land TTs) grants that IC one “Oil Barrel”. During the purchase units phase, that barrel can be “traded in” for a discount on a unit/group of units, according to some simple schema like the below (ignore “wheat” and “iron” for now):

[barnee]

@vodot interesting. Is this how the chart reads, 3 oil barrels = 1 AB at reduced cost of 12 bucks ? 1 oil barrel = 3 Medium Tanks at reduced cost of 5 bucks a piece ? Have to buy all 3 ?

Oil Derricks number are fixed ? Can’t create any new ones ? Or can the Texans keep drilling lol

[General 6 Stars]

It looks that way barnee. Ya I go with continuous open route by land and certain sea zones. But I’d give the attacker some bonus for blocking oil like make the cost go up for your pieces. Thinking most won’t leave a ship for block or inf without some reward and just get killed possibly.

Also if u go with wheat and iron then need to add copper/brass ammo, motors etc.and rubber for wiring.

Is this mainly for G40 ?

[Imperious Leader]

@vodot Are the prices the costs over two or three turns? So a medium tank takes 3 turns to build? Or am i missing something??

[General 6 Stars]

Don’t think so IL. Looks like u can buy 3 med tanks at 5 icps per turn

[vodot]

@barnee said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:

@vodot interesting. Is this how the chart reads, 3 oil barrels = 1 AB at reduced cost of 12 bucks ? 1 oil barrel = 3 Medium Tanks at reduced cost of 5 bucks a piece ? Have to buy all 3 ?

Oil Derricks number are fixed ? Can’t create any new ones ? Or can the Texans keep drilling lol

The intent of that table would be that you can trade in an oil barrel for a $1 discount on up to 3 tanks, or two oil barrels to get the discount on up to 6 tanks, one oil barrel for a $2 discount on up to two fighters, etc… You wouldn’t have to buy all 3 tanks/2 fighters etc.

@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation: Oil!:

It looks that way barnee. Ya I go with continuous open route by land and certain sea zones. But I’d give the attacker some bonus for blocking oil like make the cost go up for your pieces. Thinking most won’t leave a ship for block or inf without some reward and just get killed possibly.

Also if u go with wheat and iron then need to add copper/brass ammo, motors etc.and rubber for wiring.

Is this mainly for G40 ?

RE: G40, yes that’s the ruleset I’m primarily thinking about for the above, with the hope being that if it can work there it could work pretty much anywhere. I think a simplified version could maybe work for AA50 as well.

RE: more resources (aluminum etc.) yes more resources could of course be incorporated. It might get a bit ridiculous managing a Catan-style hand of resources in a game of A&A, but maybe that would still be fun if it was simple enough.

RE: Penalizing powers for not having resources, here’s a slightly different table that takes more of that approach (and also standardizes the value of each unit of resource at 3 IPC). In this table. units have a lower base cost in IPCs, as long as you also consume one or more special resources as shown for their construction.

Then the idea would be that any missing resources you do not spend could be “bought” for 3 IPC each. Therefore a battleship costs 14 IPC + 1 Oil + 1 Iron. If you don’t have (or don’t want to spend) the Oil or Iron then you can still build a battleship normally, but it will cost you the full OOB price of 20 IPC: 14 + 3 (for the missing oil) + 3 (for the missing iron).

[General 6 Stars]

So basically an oil barrel is worth money based on you sold it over the market and collected money for it ?

[vodot]

@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:

So basically an oil barrel is worth money based on you sold it over the market and collected money for it ?

Yes, particularly on the second version - each oil barrel in that scheme is worth a fixed amount of money, but you can’t just exchange it for IPCs - to use the barrel you have to use the $ towards building mechanized units.

In the first example it’s more subtle, as the discounts apply to different units in different ways (since oil is more important to some units than others). Either way it’s similar; essentially oil = money/discounts for producing mechanized units.

The way this is written currently would encourage powers to lock down multiple sources of oil (because each barrel/source would count individually as money/discount), but we could also structure it more like an on/off switch:

“if a power has access to at least one source of oil, then a set of reduced costs apply. If not, the default cost set applies.”

The above would be a sweeping change amounting to a wholesale cost restructure, but we could soften it by limiting the reduced cost to just the first of each type of unit built by a power each turn; so the first tank built by a power with oil might cost 3 while any additional tanks would cost 6 as normal, etc.