Oil Rule's

[Young Grasshopper]

What I like about Buran’s barrels is that some are red representing 5, they are also a great size for the Global board. Just curious, are you guys play testing Buran’s rules when you use your oil barrels, or do you have different house rules to play with?

[John Brown]

@Young:

What I like about Buran’s barrels is that some are red representing 5, they are also a great size for the Global board. Just curious, are you guys play testing Buran’s rules when you use your oil barrels, or do you have different house rules to play with?

Well, I’m learning Global 1940, so that I can get into Global 1939 then onto Global 1936. I have also have checked your rules and they look pretty awesome, but I’m having to take one step at a time. I will be using the oil rules when I get enough 1940 games under my belt, but the plan is to graduate to 1939 rules, using these oil rules as well as supplies, but I have to take baby steps first, LOL. :-D

[General 6 Stars]

Got a rule where if territory is captured with an oil well in it , the losing side pays a double fee of the value of territory.
Say captured territory is worth 3 icp’s, the losing side pays 6 icp’s to the conquering side.
Also if you don’t own at least 1 oil well for your country you have to pay a certain amount of icp’s to move any of your pieces.
Have rule in a G39 game but have not used in G40 yet.

[Imperious Leader]

I like that but prefer:

Capture an oil center roll one die = IPC.  Possibly roll one d6 for each IPC

establish candidates for oil centers with each faction having equal number of starting centers.

Alternatively, capture may cause surrender of IPC to opposing country, done as a one time roll.

[Tall Paul]

@Imperious:

I like that but prefer:

Capture an oil center roll one die = IPC.  Possibly roll one d6 for each IPC

establish candidates for oil centers with each faction having equal number of starting centers.

Alternatively, capture may cause surrender of IPC to opposing country, done as a one time roll.
––IMHO instead of IPC cash,…the conquerer would receive Oil token(s) that still must be transported if necesary and then cashed in instead of production from a Factory. This to me sounds more realistic,… even in “gaming” terms.

Tall Paul

[General 6 Stars]

Tall Paul,

So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?

What is the value of the oil token in icp’s ?

[Tall Paul]

SS and others,

@SS:

Tall Paul,
So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?
What is the value of the oil token in ipc’s ?
**––These rules have been developed by Buran. If you go to the 1st message in this thread under OIL you will find a full description.
Oil token = 3 IPC and each barrel can be cashed in IN PLACE OF one production point of a Factory.

Tall Paul**

[Buran]

@SS:

Tall Paul,

So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?

What is the value of the oil token in icp’s ?

In these rules the oil barrels have there own transport.  Movement of 1 in the non-combat phase.  And can be moved on transports as well for movement from islands.  I’m looking at an air transport rule too.  But that is still in the thinking stage.

Buran

[crusaderiv]

SS…you always have great rules… :-D

[General 6 Stars]

:-D :-D :-D  Its been awhile Crus

[EnoughSaid]

Buran,

I like this! It seems especially well thought out.
Did you ever consider 1 oil being worth 2 IPCs? 3 IPCs each seems a little high to me (but that could be your perfectly legitimate intention).
To still make transports as effective, an infantry slot could hold 3 Oil as opposed to 2. Then the transport still holds up to 6 IPCs per slot, allowing you to make the value of oil lower, but not raising the opportunity cost.

Again, I really like what you’ve made (particularly the incorporation into the NOs!). Without any playtesting, I see nothing that needs a change. Just sharing my thoughts.

[Buran]

@EnoughSaid:

Buran,

I like this! It seems especially well thought out.
Did you ever consider 1 oil being worth 2 IPCs? 3 IPCs each seems a little high to me (but that could be your perfectly legitimate intention).
To still make transports as effective, an infantry slot could hold 3 Oil as opposed to 2. Then the transport still holds up to 6 IPCs per slot, allowing you to make the value of oil lower, but not raising the opportunity cost.

Again, I really like what you’ve made (particularly the incorporation into the NOs!). Without any playtesting, I see nothing that needs a change. Just sharing my thoughts.

EnoughSiad:

At first I had the oil set at 4 IPC’s, and then we played the first turn and realized it was way to high.  We changed it to 2 IPC’s  during the game, but kinda thought that that wasn’t enough so I increased it up to 3 IPC’s. 
The intent of transports was not to over power them in transporting oil.  Transports have 2 slots on them.  One is for any land unit, and the other can only be an infantry unit.  So a transport can with these slots transport 4 barrels.  This may seem like a lot, but this will help move oil that would otherwise be stuck on an island.

Buran

[EnoughSaid]

@ Buran

Thanks for the response! 3 IPCs is probably fine. I know the intent is to get more money flowing in the game (with a strategical layer) anyway.
On the transports, it’s possible we’re misunderstanding eachother. A max of 12 IPCs each doesn’t strike me as too much. They cost 7 to build, and possibly more importantly, they take TIME to transport the oil. If I know anything from my games, it’s that time is the game’s most expensive resource!
(I also don’t think the capacity is too little, for clarity. It seems like a good sweet spot to me.)

Again, I find your idea very exciting. I will have to try it sometime.

[Tall Paul]

Guys,

@Buran:

@SS:

Tall Paul,

So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?

What is the value of the oil token in icp’s ?

In these rules the oil barrels have there own transport.  Movement of 1 in the non-combat phase.  And can be moved on transports as well for movement from islands.  I’m looking at an air transport rule too.  But that is still in the thinking stage.

Buran

**––Buran, I really like YOUR oil rules as I have now studied them for awhile.
----IMHO as far as transportation purposes I would treat an OIL BARREL the same as an INFANTRY unit ,…thereby allowing TWO OIL BARRELS (max) on any Sea Transport. If this at first seems a lot, you must remember that any OIL BARREL that is “cashed in” takes the place of purchases from a Factory, as well as possible shipping space on Sea Transports (thus you’re already paying for the capabilty).
IMHO the same should be true for any AIR TRANSPORT. The OIL BARREL Would simply take the place of an INFANTRY unit.
----SIMPLICITY is a wonderful thing! And logic usually wins out in the end. What are YOUR opinions in reference to an OIL BARREL = INFANTRY as far as transportation?

Tall Paul**

[crusaderiv]

Its been awhile Crus
–-----------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah…sorry. A lot of work and I moved during summer.
Send me a PM + your email.
I think I lost yours…

[Buran]

@Tall:

Guys,

@Buran:

@SS:

Tall Paul,

So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?

What is the value of the oil token in icp’s ?

In these rules the oil barrels have there own transport.  Movement of 1 in the non-combat phase.  And can be moved on transports as well for movement from islands.  I’m looking at an air transport rule too.  But that is still in the thinking stage.

Buran

**––Buran, I really like YOUR oil rules as I have now studied them for awhile.
----IMHO as far as transportation purposes I would treat an OIL BARREL the same as an INFANTRY unit ,…thereby allowing TWO OIL BARRELS (max) on any Sea Transport. If this at first seems a lot, you must remember that any OIL BARREL that is “cashed in” takes the place of purchases from a Factory, as well as possible shipping space on Sea Transports (thus you’re already paying for the capabilty).
IMHO the same should be true for any AIR TRANSPORT. The OIL BARREL Would simply take the place of an INFANTRY unit.
----SIMPLICITY is a wonderful thing! And logic usually wins out in the end. What are YOUR opinions in reference to an OIL BARREL = INFANTRY as far as transportation?

Tall Paul**

Tall Paul, I did think of the simplicity of making oil barrels equal to an infantry, but thought that the movement of more barrels was a bit more important, and as well it keeps the numbers of transports down.  In the play test that we did at the FMG con didn’t see much transporting of oil across the water.  But we were all getting used to the idea’s of oil as well.  I’m going to be doing some more work on these rules and my in the end switch to oil = infantry for the sea and air movement, but for now I like the 2 oil = 1 infantry sea movement.  This is just a matter of play testing and seeing which way works best.

[Tall Paul]

Buran and others,

@Buran:

@Tall:

Guys,

@Buran:

@SS:

Tall Paul,

So you can transport oil tokens with planes, mechs, and transports back to anyone of your factorys ?

What is the value of the oil token in icp’s ?

In these rules the oil barrels have there own transport.  Movement of 1 in the non-combat phase.  And can be moved on transports as well for movement from islands.  I’m looking at an air transport rule too.  But that is still in the thinking stage.

Buran

**––Buran, I really like YOUR oil rules as I have now studied them for awhile.
----IMHO as far as transportation purposes I would treat an OIL BARREL the same as an INFANTRY unit ,…thereby allowing TWO OIL BARRELS (max) on any Sea Transport. If this at first seems a lot, you must remember that any OIL BARREL that is “cashed in” takes the place of purchases from a Factory, as well as possible shipping space on Sea Transports (thus you’re already paying for the capabilty).
IMHO the same should be true for any AIR TRANSPORT. The OIL BARREL Would simply take the place of an INFANTRY unit.
----SIMPLICITY is a wonderful thing! And logic usually wins out in the end. What are YOUR opinions in reference to an OIL BARREL = INFANTRY as far as transportation?

Tall Paul**

Tall Paul, I did think of the simplicity of making oil barrels equal to an infantry, but thought that the movement of more barrels was a bit more important, and as well it keeps the numbers of transports down.  In the play test that we did at the FMG con didn’t see much transporting of oil across the water.  But we were all getting used to the idea’s of oil as well.  I’m going to be doing some more work on these rules and my in the end switch to oil = infantry for the sea and air movement, but for now I like the 2 oil = 1 infantry sea movement.  This is just a matter of play testing and seeing which way works best.

**––I REALLY like these Oil Rules,…but I can forsee that whoever plays the USA with 20+ Oil barrels in North & South America with 1/2 cost shipping can ship a LOT of Oil and a few Infantry to Anzac for example, and Anzac can buy a Minor Factory specifically to “cash in” the Oil money (from the USA) and they would then be SOLID, militarily speaking.
----The USA could also ship to UK-Africa across the lower stretch of French territories below the desert,… or down to South Africa.
----Think “outside the box” a little and I believe you will see where the USA can skew the economics in a BIG WAY!
----IMHO if the shipping rate for Oil was EQUAL TO 1 Infantry it would be harder for any country (like the USA) to Overwhelm the economic issues.
----I’m not meaning to complain at all,…but I believe when you “play test” this some more you’ll see how it can be manipulated, especially buy the USA player. I REALLY LIKE your Oil Rules. I will patiently wait to see if you’re play testing uncovers this possibility or if I’m incorrect. Again,…GOOD JOB on the Oil Rules thus far!

Tall Paul**

[Young Grasshopper]

Hey TP,

When I was playing Russia during the play test we had, there was a lot of side strategies for sure, for example: the oil that was being produced in southern Russia gave me some extra cash to play with, but it was painfully obvious that protecting those supplies was priority number 1. Therefore, many of my military resources went towards the Ukraine, because the thought of Germany cashing in on their own barrels as well as mine seemed to spell certain doom for the Soviet Union. As for America, yes… Texas was producing a lot of barrels right next to their factories, so the extra cash for the US came easy, while on the other hand… Japan had to transport their barrels from the money Islands. That’s why I like Buran’s original transporting rules, because some nations live and die by transporting it and they can get conflicted between using their transports for military resources or oil barrels, so limiting the use of transports will only make the point about the American advantage stronger. To tell you the truth, many of us were just trying to grasp the shift in strategies rather than who was alloted more oil than others. Buran’s chart as to the oil enriched areas of the map seemed very well thought out, there was discussion later in the game as to the US going after the South American supplies if we wanted to implement our neutral block house rule… that conversation went in a lot of interesting directions, so there is something to be said about bringing those oil reserves into play. However, back to your concern about American oil surplus creating to much income, all I can say is that we had a very lose game and although we enjoyed the added dimensions created by Buran’s oil rules, we all agreed that some refinement was necessary. Simple is better, and Buran did a fantastic job already cutting his game mechanics by half even before our play test, and much more afterwards… playing it just once I would say that I like the price at 3IPCs a barrel and I really like the transport “slots” rule and trust me when I say that it’s very easy to calculate how much a transport can carry while your in game mode.

[Tall Paul]

YG and others,

––Well, let me re-state that I REALLY LIKE 99 % of Buran’s Oil Rules,…and they seem very thorough and well thought out. I certainly appreciate his hard work and time spent on them.

----The only thing that I had any concern about was that being able to ship Oil at 1/2 the rate of Infantry, or 4-Oil Barrels on any sea transport, might be too overpowering or allow some skewing of the economic/military balance in the long run.

----For example, in one of my scenarios as Japan I build up a “shuttle service” of Infantry from Japan to Phillipines, and another from there to Borneo,…or wherever I’m attacking. With 2 Transports going to and from Japan-Phillipines (four total) each turn I can easily supply my offensive forces with troops, etc. and All I need to Defend in force (with Fleet units and/or scramble Fighters) is Japan proper, the Phillipines, and then wherever my southern Fleet is.
----Here’s the point I’m making,…The Transports rather than returning empty to Japan can return loaded with Oil,…very EFFICIENT!
----And another thing, I would build a Minor, then a Major Factory in Korea for the main purpose of “cashing in” the Oil reverues.
----I can’t myself “play test” these theories of mine as I only have one player i my area at the moment who is versed in GW-39. I will depend on your opinions as you play test these rules further to see if four Oil Barrels, or only two should be allowed.
----I truly hope my previous postings weren’t received as criticisms. My only goal is to have as good, fun, and fair game as possible and therefore I pointed out something I believed might be a potential problem.

----IMHO GLOBAL WARFARE-1939 is not only the BEST GAME, but also the FUTURE of A&A gaming!

Tall Paul

[Young Grasshopper]

Sorry Tall Paul, I hope my post didn’t come across as being defensive… not my intention. your opinions were awesome to read and they didn’t seem like criticism to me. Cheers.