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
@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! :)
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):
@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
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 ?
@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??
Don’t think so IL. Looks like u can buy 3 med tanks at 5 icps per turn
@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).
So basically an oil barrel is worth money based on you sold it over the market and collected money for it ?
@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.
The funny thing is the axis would of never sold there oil based on how much they needed it. It would make more sense to have a movement penalty. But we have to some how implement it in some way to hurt a country for lack of oil and mostly its icps.
I’m not trying to be negative here. Based on my test play with a penalty movement based on lack of oil hurts to much in game on this scale. But that’s IMO.
What I’m going to do is setup G40 map, and place all oil derricks in game with iron, wheat, copper and rubber tokens in certain territories that I have play tested with in
my game many times. I think for every lack of oil barrel 1 territory with ground or planes moves -1 or 1 fleet. You would roll a d6 and results would be 1-2 ground, 3-4 navy, 5-6 planes. You can pick the territory or fleet. Then use the resource tokens for cheaper builds. My opinion is this is the way it should be. Allies will have the advantage but then sea convoy raiding by axis would be huge. Problem is you won’t hurt the US to penalize them.
Anyway you all can disreguard this idea if you want but Vodot has a good idea chart so far. I’ll just make a chart with all resources.
Vodot
You have a oil derrick location list yet ?
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:
The funny thing is the axis would of never sold there oil based on how much they needed it.
I agree - I didn’t mean that they’re selling the oil - the idea is that the oil is a crucial component of the production and operation of that unit. If a power doesn’t have the oil, then they have to pay more IPCs to field that unit, with the extra IPCs representing having to buy, synthesize, or cannibalize the oil from somewhere else. Does that make more sense?
…movement penalties for units
As I wrote in my discussion, I think movement and performance penalties for out-of-supply units is a great idea and definitely historical, it’s just a little too complicated for what I’m currently thinking.
Vodot
You have a oil derrick location list yet ?
No, there are so many great lists out there already - yours, ILs, buran’s, siredblood’s etc. My thing is more analyzing rules and mechanics - I’ll gladly lean on the historical research and knowledge of the willing! Plus I would rather come up with a system that could be modular - applied to a variety of maps and other systems.
Getting back to design, I think that on the “each unit uses 1 barrel” model, I would need each source to produce more than one barrel, and maybe a few ‘tiers’ of oil sources; not individual 0-15 values like Buran but at least “minor” & “major” tiers that produce 2 vs. 5 barrels each, or something like that.
The same would go for any other resources. I would expect several of the powers to have sources close (or in) their capital territories, but those could be restricted to ‘minor’ sources to encourage going after major sources elsewhere. Large maps with dedicated city circles may not have this issue to the same extent.
Ok. Do have more than 1 resource for all. Ok. Good luck
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:
What I’m going to do is setup G40 map, and place all oil derricks in game with iron, wheat, copper and rubber tokens in certain territories that I have play tested with in
my game many times.
…
…I’ll just make a chart with all resources.
If you want to take a stab at a chart with more resources, incl. positioning them on the map, that would be cool - I did just find the “League of Nations International Resource Report” for 1931-1940…
https://wayback.archive-it.org/6321/20160901222852/http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0280ah.pdf
…and a wheat & grains report here:
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/142804/files/wheat-1941-12-18-04.pdf
Lots of great info across multiple resources here:
https://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/eco/raw/met/met-spe.html
Ya. I’ll make one up. Think I seen this charts before or close to it since we played with all 5 minerals in game with main locations.
Just a quick follow up to talk about some of the Oil ideas that were tried in Frostion’s Iron War game for triplea, since it went through a few iterations, trying a few different things hehe. The game itself uses some familiar A&A mechanics, but with a D10 combat scheme and a base cost of 10 IPCs (called Production Units or PUs) per infantry as the floor rather than 3 ipcs. So different map, different unit cost structure and production spread. Not quite the same as Global, but its in a similar ballpark. It reminds me more of Revised than AA50 to Global, if the former had a larger unit roster and much larger map I guess.
The game uses Steel and Oil as resources attached the map territories. They function pretty much like IPCs, at least in terms of the collect income phase. Pretty simple, as they aren’t really game units so much as map features.
In it’s first iteration Fuel was attached to the purchasing mechanic. Meaning it cost a certain amount of steel and fuel to produce the various tanks and ships and planes. This was the easiest to track, but from a gameplay standpoint was kind of the least interesting, since it was basically 3 types of IPCs that all sort of do the same thing.
In it’s second iteration Steel was retained as part of the purchasing mechanic but Fuel was separated off into a maintenance mechanic. So basically a cap on the max number of tanks, ships and planes in play, as each unit required 1 fuel per turn. Effectively a limit on purchasing new fuel consuming units, since you’d either need more oil via conquest or unit attrition once you hit your max capacity. This was relatively simple to track, but had some weird side effects requiring players to scrap units in order to field new ones.
In it final iteration Fuel was changed from a maintenance mechanic to a direct movement mechanic. So the effect is on the combat and non-com movement phases rather than purchasing phase. This also required a lot more fuel lol. I think it’s a novel concept, but also a bit harder to track and scale appropriately. There’s also a sort of 1 way resource exchange in that game, between the various nations within each faction as well, which complicates the scheme a bit. Definitely doing a lot of things at once there, some more effective than others just for gameplay and the entertainment factor.
I think the basic idea was to have Axis under more pressure to acquire the resource, and more apt to run dry, whereas Allies are sort of flush. In addition to the regular oil drums which are a map feature, he also introduced “synthetic-fuel” as part of fuel=movement idea, which is sort of catch all Fuel unit on top of the regular oil. Thematically it could be seen synth derived from coal or just refined oil held in reserve, but basically the reverse of fuel=ipcs, where the player can spend money to increase their fuel per turn. That was sort of an expedient for the Axis side, and also to give a way to scale the mechanic as more units enter play. I don’t think it was tried as part of the maintenance scheme, which may have had some promise. Anyhow I think it’s a fun concept and worth exploring, but the main challenge I think is in tracking, since 1 fuel = 1 movement per unit is a lot to keep tabs on.
Anyhow, just wanted to give some background there for context with the previous post, in case it’s helpful adapting ideas into Global. Good thread!
Ok. Got something going now and looking at for each resource you have can lower the the cost of 1 unit.
Just kinda looking at a chart now. OK.
At the begining of your turn see how many resource tokens you have control of for Oil, Iron, wheat and copper. These are all worth 1 icp each.
Say you have 3 irons, 3 oils and 1 copper. OK now you have 3 icps from iron and 3 icps for oil and 1 icp for copper. But can only use 1 resource each for each unit up to 3.
So for 1 iron,1 oil and 1 copper it cost a BB would be 17.
So for 1 iron and 1 oil cost of a cruiser be 10. You get the copper one used as ammo. This goes for planes to and Art and AAA guns.
For inf it be for each wheat get cost is 2 and if a copper too cost be 1. But mostly copper will go for the better units while wheat just lower inf costs.
This is just an idea of a icp value for tokens. It may be increased to 2 each.
But I think if you made them worth 3 icps each be to much.
I have played using resource tokens but some had different values each. So like since rubber and copper are hard to have or get give them a value of 3, Iron and oil 2 and wheat 1 then you can limit the resource ones on map for control.
Make it so all countries get a discount ( US max cap) and once you start capturing get a bit more discount.
I can see like OK I don’t need a battleship but for 6 icps I can get a CR and a DD cheaper where I need it etc.
The idea here is to find the happy medium with more resources on map and or costs for them 1,2 or 3.
I do have a setup chart for all 5 resources for map.
I do have 3 territories that do have rubber and 1 helps USA and 2 are UK but Japan can get. So I could add them too.
You actually could go crazy with the imports and exports of these resources too. I do have a book that shows all that.
But then it F’s up time. LOL
Well based on 1940 records not hardly any iron ore being produced. 42 there was a ton of it. Can’t find a 41 record yet.
But if G40 starts in 1940 lol then Sweden didn’t produce it yet so now where do you draw the line. Ain’t worth doing anything if no iron in 40.
Found another 40 chart. Show different story.
Chart 1 1940
USA 29.200
New Foundland .797
Chile 1.062
Manchuria .225
Philliphines .700
USSR 14.000
Spain 1.350
Hungary .230
Chez .278
Yugo .300
Chart 2 1940
France 12.731
Germany 17.171
Luxenburg 4.656
USSR 29.866
Sweden 11.295
UK 17.986
Ok The chart 2 most are right with 1942 records. Still need 41. But where you draw the line for G40 game or 50 ?
Here’s 1942
Sierra Leone .623
UK 19.905
New Foundland 1.192
India 3.217
Australia 2.128
Austria 2.716
Chez 2.008
France 24.601
Germany 13.068
Italy 1.097
Luxemburg 5.029
Poland 796.00
USA 107.103
Brazil .693
Japan 2.389
Korea 2.242
Manchuria 4.400
Sweden 9.922
Spain 1.580
I’m assuming Russia is up there. Not in this record but in above chart.
@general-6-stars said in House Rules Compilation & Discussion: Oil!:
Well based on 1940 records not hardly any iron ore being produced. 42 there was a ton of it. Can’t find a 41 record yet.
But if G40 starts in 1940 lol then Sweden didn’t produce it yet so now where do you draw the line. Ain’t worth doing anything if no iron in 40.
Obviously if there is a “Metals” or “Iron” resource in the game and any kind of Neutrals rules, Sweden is one of the most important territories to have it; so important that the Allies had almost invaded Sweden a couple times already by 1940, neutrality be damned! Which chart were you not finding it on?
