Oil Rig/Drums,V2 Rocket And Train Playing Pieces

Oil has been a very common house rule discussed. I found Burans oil house rule and that is my favorite one I’ve seen thus far, but there is one thing I don’t entirely like. There seem to be 2 main uses for oil in most of the forums.

A- you turn oil in for money. This one doesn’t totally make sense to me because oil doesn’t necessarily mean lots of money. As I look at it, Russia had a ton of oil in the war, but that didn’t mean they could build a massive air force right away, it just meant they had a lot of oil.

B- you use up X amount of oil to move as many of one branch as you want. Like X oil allows you to move your army, or your navy, or your airforce. This one doesn’t makes less sense to me because ANZAC obviously would need less oil to move it’s 3 boats than Japan would to move the entire IJN, yet with this rule, they both require the same amount of oil.

I assume I’m not alone in thinking this. There are some more specific ones I saw a while back but they were still pretty close to what I said in B. The idea of having a supply line intrigued me, as I got started in this by wanting to reflect the U-boat disruptions against convoys better, but I don’t like that the US fleet could be anywhere in the pacific and still get fuel easily just because of a supply line. Maybe that could work good, it just doesn’t seem totally realistic, however on land it would make more sense to me.

Does anybody have a good rule for how to use oil to fuel units? I’d like to stay close to the numbers involved Burans house rule and be close to historically accurate. Of course, I can’t totally accurate in regards to oil production as Baku in the Caucasus was producing like 10-15 times as much oil as Romania.

Thanks for the input. This is Burans rule is referring to-https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/23944/oil-rule-s

@Zaibach:

Hi! I really like the idea of simultaneous turns, because many people are not ready to play an 8 hours or more game! :)
Hovewer there are too many rules you created, and i think the capabilities of attacking together is too much powerful for the allies.

I make a soft version of this rules for A&A Global:

That could be for Global, but for the 1999 version of A&A Europe, the Axis are so overpowering that with the official rules and experienced players, it’s a forced win for the Axis.  Just buy soldiers and a few artillery and tanks on the following turns and then you have an unstoppable force that takes over Moscow.  With this change, the Allies sometimes, but don’t always win.  If with your group the Allies win too much, it might be the players, but if not, I’m sure you could come up with some rules to weaken the allies such as not being able to use each others transports.

I’d like to pursue the every player playing at the same time for Global, but may save that for a future post.  What you’ve outlined seems a safe way to speed things up without unduly altering the game balance.

Regarding the rules: I posted a lot of details, but it’s actually very simple.  “Germany” is simply divided in half with a second player who will possess half the territories and starts with half the money.  The rules themselves are the same, except all the allies play at the same time.  It’s really just as simple as that.  The axis already played at the same time since it used to be one country (the Axis already could pool their money, build in either factory, etc.) .

I am trying the rules I posted above and it appears to be balanced. One change I want to make is that you SHOULD place the standard units in southern France to prevent Germany from taking all of France G1

I’ve seriously considered using the map and customizing it for my never-ending variant project.

One thing I like in both Risk! And Attack! That I didn’t like previously is the “sea lane” movement as opposed to A&A’s transport only movement. This idea is one I’m tinkering with on the A&A maps not only to speed up the game but to also break away from standardized strategy. Which not only lengthens the game but contributes negatively IMO to replayability as well as other aspects.

I wonder what the difference is in :
Battles fought in Winter / Casualties    - VS -    Battles fought in Summer / Casualties

Cheers,
Starlight Sniper

About cost balance of Elite/Marines, here is a first point:

The 4 IPCs and 7 IPCs Marines unit transportation cost is relatively balance on the long run, when a player can use for a second time some transports.
After the first travel, where it is better for Marines unit, the transportation ratio is reversing toward regular units.

FIRST TRAVEL                                                        / SECOND TRAVEL, same transport
Cost ratio for Regular unit transportation:
3 (transport + Inf + Inf)                                                 3 (Inf + Inf)
3 (7+3+3) = 39 IPCs /6 grounds = 6.5 IPCs/unit  /  3(3+3)= 18 IPCs +39 = 57 IPCs/12= 4.75 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Tnk) + 1 (transport + Inf + Inf)        (4 Inf + 2 Tnk)
2*(7+3+6) + 1*(7+3+3)= 45 /6 units = 7.5 IPCs/unit  /  12 + 12 = 24 IPCs + 45 = 69 IPCs /12 = 5.75 IPCs/unit

Cost ratio for Marines unit transportation:
2 (transport + Inf + Inf + Inf)                                        2 (Inf + Inf + Inf)
2*(7+4+4+4)= 38 /6 units = 6.33 IPCs/unit             /      2*(4+4+4)= 24 IPCs + 38 = 62 IPCs /12 = 5.167 IPCs/unit

2 (transport + Inf + Inf+ Tnk)                                       2 (Inf + Inf + Tnk)
2*(7+4+4+7)= 44 / 6 units = 7.33 IPcs/unit            /      2*(4+4+7)= 30 IPCs + 44 = 74 IPCs /12 = 6.167 IPCs/unit

So, after a second travel, with the same 12 units the transportation ratio is improving for regular units compared to Marines ones:

for 12 Infs vs 12 Marines Infs =  4.75 vs 5.167 IPCs/unit.

for 8 Infs+ 4 Tnks vs 8 Marines Infs + 4 Marines Tnks = 5.75 vs 6.167 IPCs/unit.

Well, i guess it could represent an inhabited land. I have not really thought about its representation all that much. I just thought that this was a good idea for an addition to the game. In my opinion, i guess the “houses” could represent a land that has been fortified, mechanized, or one that has a barracks? It’s all up to the player i think.

Anyone given any thought to playing AA:Pacific and integrating the AA:50 ruleset?  By this I mean:

1. 1942/AA:50 unit costs and stats
2. 1942/AA:50 sub and transport rules

However the specific Pacific rules could stay in force:

1. USA Marines
2. Air Bases / Sea Ports
3. Japanese destroyers can transport 1 infantry
4. Unlimited builds in Hawaii and Japan

There is little conflict except in regards to SBR, where it would have to be decided which ruleset would be used for SBR, and if SBR would still affect the Japanese VP.

Any thoughts from you geniuses on how this would affect the Pacific game?  Better yet has anyone actually TRIED it?