Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

AW: Re : [wifdiscussion] Is this a legal/viable strategy

Expand Messages
  • Gratz, Herbert
    In WWII some oil rule is needed imo. But I am sure that WiF without and oil rules is a nice fantasy game. Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 81 , Dec 1, 2011
      In WWII some oil rule is needed imo.
      But I am sure that WiF without and oil rules is a nice fantasy game.


      Von: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von Devin Cutler
      Gesendet: Montag, 28. November 2011 20:51
      An: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Betreff: Re: Re : [wifdiscussion] Is this a legal/viable strategy



      I cannot stand playing without some sort of oil rule. Otherwise, it just makes certain very desirable strategic objectives as take-em-or-leave-em. With an oil rule, Japan MUST take the NEI, and the oil embargo is an absolute driver of Japan to war. Without an oil rule...well not so much.

      Ploesti becomes the massive target it was historically. And the Middle East becomes very important as a outre strategic objective. Without some sort of oil rule, these places merely become resources that are easily switched with other perhaps more convenient resources and, if you have more resources than factories already, completely useless.


      ________________________________
      From: William Popovich <popovichwilliam@...<mailto:popovichwilliam%40gmail.com>>
      To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:00 AM
      Subject: Re: Re : [wifdiscussion] Is this a legal/viable strategy

      My thought on an oil rule is that a rule which takes x number of resources
      per turn from a country is basically a production limiter. Do you want that
      or not? I don't know. I like building, and currently one can't build the
      historical navies, for example. So, we find a "no oil" rule is basically a
      "more production" rule, and we like that. One can always figure that
      production as designed always can factor oil in without a special rule, and
      there are so many choices they wildly affect game balance depending on
      which one you choose.

      We find that with no oil rule, we do more building, and with our mix of
      gamers, the players win a balanced amount of times, and the MPs win a
      balanced amount of times. So, we don't add oil.

      Bill P

      On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM, dewargamer <dewargamer@...<mailto:dewargamer%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I very much appreciate the feedback.
      > My thinking (after seeing this is legal and will work) is that it depends
      > on the long term strategy.
      >
      > For example, if you view the key to victory requiring a really devestating
      > campaign against Russia, then this No-Bess helps quite a bit I think. Being
      > closer on the intial Barb (right out of Rumania) and killing the Odessa
      > factory is huge.
      >
      > On the other hand, an opposite strategy has merit too. In my current game
      > I'm the Germans, getting ready to start Mar/Apr '41 and still getting 6 of
      > the 7 resources out of Russia. Russia did Bess, but otherwise all the
      > balkans are still neutral. has helped production and I'm poised for either
      > a weak Mar/Apr Barb or strong May/June barb BUT can't align Rumania until
      > declaring war on Russia, so there's no "pop" coming out of there in the
      > initial attack.
      >
      > I'm floored that some folks don't play with some oil rule, but I must
      > admit it intrigues me. All of the various Oil rules, from RAW, to WifCon
      > Gas to "simple oil rule" have positive elements but strong negative ones as
      > well.
      >
      > --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>, William Popovich <popovichwilliam@...<mailto:popovichwilliam@...>>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I disagree with your analysis of lost production - Germany loses 1 for
      > > Hungary, but gains 1 for Rumania, while losing 2 to Russia. Italy loses 1
      > > for Rumania.
      > > HOWEVER - your analysis of 10 turn loss is not correct, because the 2
      > YUGO
      > > resources are claimed by the Polish attackers before they return to
      > France.
      > > What is lost is that Russia gains the 2 resources, not that you lose them
      > > for a significant time. And you cannot count the one for Rumania, because
      > > that is not an extra loss - you lose it when Russia claims Bessarabia the
      > > same turn. So, what you are down to is a net zero for Germany and -1 for
      > > Italy, offset by Germany getting the 2 extra Yugo resources within a few
      > > turns. So, net-net, you get plus 2 for Germany, -1 for Italy, and plus 1
      > > for Russia (because you must count the Bessarabia claim as being an
      > > automatic early loss of a resource for Germany and it does not factor
      > into
      > > this decision).
      > >
      > > What you really lose is the US entry, but you would have lost that
      > > eventually anyway - most Germans eventually DOW Yugo (or Greece), and
      > align
      > > Hungary and Rumania, before the US comes in the war. The only US entry
      > you
      > > might lose is the "support a minor" entry, but normally the CW has used
      > up
      > > too many TRS in their first move to accomplish this anyway as well.
      > >
      > > So, really, not much of an entry or production issue.
      > >
      > > Bill P
      > >
      > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Tordson <tordson@...<mailto:tordson@...>> wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Is this legal ? => YES
      > > >
      > > > Is it viable ? Well, it depends :)
      > > > Of course the jump off is closer for a Barbarossa.
      > > > Still it will cost you at least 2 ressources (Rumania and Hungary
      > > > active) less in the Nazi Soviet Pact agreement for at least 10 turn, so
      > > > around 20 bp ( 5 MOT for ex).
      > > > Not speaking about the US entry cost from the beguining.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > EC
      > > >
      > > > "Victory needs no explanations. Defeat suffers none !"
      > > >
      > > > De : dewargamer <dewargamer@...<mailto:dewargamer@...>>
      > > > À : wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com<mailto:wifdiscussion%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Envoyé le : Lundi 28 Novembre 2011 17h33
      > > > Objet : [wifdiscussion] Is this a legal/viable strategy
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Been re-reading the "Balkan" rules.
      > > >
      > > > Please supply commentary or point out rule misstatements.
      > > >
      > > > Start of global game.
      > > >
      > > > 1. Impulse 1 German must declare on Poland. no other declarations
      > > > allowed.
      > > >
      > > > 2. Impulse 2 - Russia can NOT claim Bessarabia on this first Allied
      > > > impulse.
      > > >
      > > > 3. impulse 3 - Germany declares war on Yugoslavia (even though they
      > can't
      > > > reach it or attack it. perhaps that's a requirement I can't find in the
      > > > rules?)
      > > >
      > > > Then Germany aligns Romania (since it is at war with Yugo).
      > > >
      > > > This means Russia can't demand Bessarabia.
      > > >
      > > > Germany aligns Hungary in a later impulse, and moves through Hungary
      > for a
      > > > Yugo campaign.
      > > >
      > > > Is this a viable strategy? The main benefit would be a no-Bess so the
      > > > later Barbarossa is launched from the original Romania border, meaning
      > a
      > > > more effective jump off plus you kill the factory in Odessa.
      > > >
      > > > ------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • morgil_azog
      The Oil-rules we use in our games works very nicely, and i would recommend everybody to consider it. Oil resources can be used directly as other resources, but
      Message 81 of 81 , Dec 31, 2011
        The Oil-rules we use in our games works very nicely, and i would recommend everybody to consider it.

        Oil resources can be used directly as other resources, but to use them as fuel, or be stored, they have to be transported to a RED factory. Stored fuel can be used as a resource, if you want to. You can have a maximum of one Oil counter at each red factory, and they max out at 4 points. We also use fractions so you could say the 4 represent 40 tenths of oil..

        To flip up units you will need to use Stored fuel, as Final Reorg happens before Production, and the units must not only be in supply the normal way, but must also be in supply to the Stored Oil they are using.

        Easy peasy :p

        As to the various reasons to not use any Oil rule:

        It does slightly affect the counter density, but only for France, Italy and to some extent Japan. No oil leaves Germany with resources to spare, and why then do they go to war ? To make Fiats ?

        It is a bit time consuming, doing the math at every Final reorg, but really, it is only an issue when you have to little fuel to go around, and if youre sturctured its like 3 more minutes.

        Some say it makes it impossible to hit CW production, since they store so much oil in the UK, well I say you just got a range of new juicy targets to strat. There is a reason those Ju-290 and He-177 are in your forcepool. And, if you store that much in the UK, there is precious little elsewhere, or they have already taken a production hit. You might have ships flipped in Canada or India that cant be used cause the convoy lines to UK got cut, and you dont have oil stored elsewhere.

        Some said it lead to gamey results when youre keeping CLs flipped to save oil, but I should remind you about the first USA vs Iraq war, where Saudi Arabia said they would pay for the fuel, and almost bancrupted the country. I would say its extremely gamey to not limit the use of planes and ships.

        The one country it does hit hard, is China. No more storing oil in Urumchi, and only using 0.4 of it every turn, thus making it last forever. This is still on the drawing table, but one idea we have messed about with, is to limit Chineese attack weakness to the coastline, and the hex inland from that. No defensice shore bombardment here.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.