Oil vs non oil rules

[bo]

I know the Mwif computer version production sequence is still being worked on by Steve and it might be difficult to answer this question with the computer version. Do you as players both board game and computer players of MWIF favor the oil rule in the game.

It has to be a nightmare for Germany Italy and Japan to have to deal with the optional oil rule as the game goes on with oil lines being severed here and there. Japan would seem to me to be in the most trouble because of all the oil needed for their huge fleet, ground units outside of China are not that needy for oil I believe.

I never played the board game so my question might be, are you more conservative with the oil rule in effect or do you play the same? I would think as Germany and Japan I would want the best possible odds going for the battle I chose so as to have no units or just a few units disorganized in battle. Of course when I do that I will most likely have fewer combats during that turn.

Bo

[paulderynck]

I prefer the oil rule because it provides situations in the game that are far more representative of the grand strategic effect that oil had on WWII.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I prefer the oil rule because it provides situations in the game that are far more representative of the grand strategic effect that oil had on WWII.

That's it. It gives the Axis the problems that they historically had, especially during late war when they've got a lot of oil depending units on the map...

However, if you start playing this game (or if I would play with a new player along), I never used the oil rules. To complex for a newbie to keep track of (especially when he is playing the Axis, and personally, I believe newbies should play the Axis when playing global war for the first time).

[bo]

Ok gentlemen thank you, could you please answer the second part of my question, do you play differently depending on what rule you use?[;)]

Bo

[paulderynck]

I can't answer the second part since I've never not used oil. From other forum discussions it leads to more units in play, more unit density, more "toys". But that is tactical really. The way I suspect I would play differently would be my objectives would be much less about oil and more about victory cities and areas where concentrations of resources exist (oil or not).

[brian brian]

I've said it before but I'll say it again…playing World in Flames without an oil rule is playing an Axis-based fantasy role-playing game. I think your character is the blond tank commander in the Battle of the Bulge movie. Except this time, whenever you drive up to the fuel dump, the Allied soldiers conveniently run away.

No, I don't play any differently. I just smash the Allies to bits that much faster with the dozen+ extra units I build every year, and the Russians dissolve that much faster without their admittedly goofy oil storage bank in Siberia being magically converted to extra anti-tank guns somehow.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: bo

Ok gentlemen thank you, could you please answer the second part of my question, do you play differently depending on what rule you use?[;)]

Bo

warspite1

I only played one partial game with the oil rules - and the oil rule was seriously broken. However, I think it clear that yes, the Axis player in particular will need to think more carefully about deploying units - particularly the IJN and RM, or they will run out of oil when they really need it. Without oil, you can afford to be far more blase about what you sail/fly etc.

I strongly disagree with brian brian though. Yes, I look forward to playing with oil in due course, but without it, WIF/MWIF is still the mutts nutts of a game.

[freeboy]

lol
mutts nuts
must be a dog fan!
I think its now just a ? of budgeting the game as you have me hooked, and honestly the more I read the less hazy things are
oil forthe german player.. perhaps if adding oil is a sore point you could use a house rule and simply model the effects, ie decreased force pool etc..

[Sewerlobster]

One reason not to use the oil rules while playing the board game was that all the accounting got in the way of playing. Those non-oil games were looser and very enjoyable. But now that the computer keeps track of all the accounting minutia, it's better to play with the rules.

New players can certainly play a few games without it; and not using it can be used for play balance as not having it tends to help the Axis a little.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

One reason not to use the oil rules while playing the board game was that all the accounting got in the way of playing. Those non-oil games were looser and very enjoyable. But now that the computer keeps track of all the accounting minutia, it's better to play with the rules.

New players can certainly play a few games without it; and not using it can be used for play balance as not having it tends to help the Axis a little.

Hey Pat how is the Pagoda holding up, have not been to Spook lane in 40 years is the Stokesay castle still there?

My whole point about the oil rules was if you use them and you are Japan or Germany are you more cautious about your attack odds because of the danger of having to use so much oil to reorganize damaged units.

Bo

[paulderynck]

Since good play means trying always not to end up with disorganized units, I'm guessing this is not a big consideration in non-Oil games.

[ACMW]

In general as the Axis I am more reserved about the units used. Without oil , as Japan, I tend to keep a reserve naval stack as a threat / reaction force. With oil that reserve might be bigger! Similarly I will use less of my Italian fleet and less often. With fractional odds in China, is it really worth flying that poor LAN to add one pip to the dice? Sometimes it is. There are other modifications to your approach. First turn of war against ABDA, Japan really should focus more on all the NEI oil. Without oil rule you can be a bit more fast and loose knowing it is behind your lines and can be cleaned up more slowly. Germany ensures decent fighter cover of Ploesti and his coal-oils.

I like the oil rule but worry about game balance. Was the game balanced in the old 'pre-oil'? [Meaning, on average play / fortune, would it result in Allied victory second quarter 45?] Hard to be sure, but probably about right. Oil is introduced. Balanced now? Oil has an absolutely massive effect on Axis (particularly Japanese) production, as it basically comes off the bottom line, whilst for the Allies it is just an accountancy exercise. I wonder whether the axis should have been given some compensation - probably in terms of additional normal resources - when oil was introduced. Since the resources are essentially abstract, this is hardly ahistorical.

Cheers

Adrian

[Centuur]

Agreed. That's why you need a mix of optional rules to be used in the game. The oil rule favours the Allies a lot, that is for sure. On the other hand, it's historically right to use, just as you can defend that the "No ZOC on surprise impulse" optional rule, which so many people here dislike, is historically right.

One favours the Allies a lot, the other the Axis...

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: bo

I know the Mwif computer version production sequence is still being worked on by Steve and it might be difficult to answer this question with the computer version. Do you as players both board game and computer players of MWIF favor the oil rule in the game.

It has to be a nightmare for Germany Italy and Japan to have to deal with the optional oil rule as the game goes on with oil lines being severed here and there. Japan would seem to me to be in the most trouble because of all the oil needed for their huge fleet, ground units outside of China are not that needy for oil I believe.

I never played the board game so my question might be, are you more conservative with the oil rule in effect or do you play the same? I would think as Germany and Japan I would want the best possible odds going for the battle I chose so as to have no units or just a few units disorganized in battle. Of course when I do that I will most likely have fewer combats during that turn.

Bo

Regarding Oil for the Euro-Axis, it's relatively easy to save oil as the axis at low production multiples of .75. Personally once I have about 5 saved oil, I feel relatively safe from any big disruption, because ultimately, re-organization is more important than production. By mid-game, with Germany and Japan if you haven't built your synthetic plants you will begin to suffer. If allies play it smart and destroy your oil producing hexes, then you have major problems. I have saved large stockpiles in a few games to take advantage of the change of production multiples as they change from 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25. I had a recent game where the polish counterattacked a Prussian hex, unbeknownst to us, and at the end of the turn one we were scratching our heads at the German 1.0 production multiple, until we examined the saved game with polish attack declarations, where they had suicided against Germans in a Prussian hex, thereby boosting production. I certainly used more oil than I normally would on the first turn in that case.

However, I haven't played this game without the oil rule in at least 8-10 years.

[AndrewFW]

As a longtime player of the boardgame, I always preferred playing an Oil Rule, but hated this version of it. The counting was probably the worst part, but there are also serious flaws in it from a realism standpoint, namely, that it doesn't use oil for actions, but rather for reorganization, meaning that you're not necessarily paying for the activity.

For instance:

Under this rule, it costs more oil to move an Armor unit into a swamp hex (causing it to flip) than it does to move it from Lisbon to Vladivostok (assuming you don't flip).

As I understand, the board game version is likely to replace this rule soon with a different rule that functions on spending oil based on impulse type, instead.

[paulderynck]

That's true but as a playtester for the new oil rule, I will say there are just as many unrealistic aspects to it as there are for RAW7 oil, just different ones. Both, however, give the desired effect of making players pay if they don't manage their oil and set some objectives based on getting and keeping more oil. The new rule does succeed in reducing the overhead in having an oil rule.

And in MWiF all the horrible counting is done by the computer. Of course if you are running short, then it may still take a good deal of time deciding what gets re-orged.

[yvesp]

Even though the oil rule is usually widely seen as favoring the allies, I am a bit more balanced on that issue.
With no oil rule, the naval powers (CW, US, JP) can move a lot of ships without consequences. In particular, in the early stages of the game the Commonwealth can feel free to move most of its fleet, keeping a low reserve (because the western axis power fleet are not that impressive) ; you then see impressive and continuous use of naval power which can considerably change the game.

The same is true later in the Pacific ; I did not count, but I believe that the US fleet alone can gulp more than 10 oil a turn, not to mention the other requirements (HQ, planes...) ; so yes, no oil rule lets you feel much more free using your units and you'll see bigger naval stacks, the use of more air power (why relegate an old plane to the reserve ?)

In addition, you should have a larger production and more units to fields: instead of building synth oïl, you'll build factories to use the oïl that you used before to reorg your units. Or, as Germany, you will lend a much greater amount of resources to Italy which may well bloat exceedingly.

So yes, there is a definitive difference between using and no using oïl!

[Klydon]

My two cents from the cheap seats is I think it radically changes things for how the Axis approach the war.

First, it has a big impact on production of units for the Axis. There will be fewer generally as the Axis must save up a stock pile of oil and also use part of their resources to reorganize units. The next thing is what type of units are produced is changed because each unit must be looked at through the lens of "what does this do to the oil situation"? I think most Germans like to build all the HQ's they can, but those armored HQ's can be oil pigs that you can't play fraction games with I believe. Also, more infantry and fewer motor/mech units are likely in order. Air will be impacted as well and if the Italians go on a big aircraft building binge, they need oil to run it all.

The next part has been already touched on and that is Axis activity will be less overall. Before, there was no cost to just putting out to sea, but now there are economic impacts to doing so. It will further reduce production.

The oil rules are not all one sided, although they do heavily impact the Axis. It also makes the CW more vulnerable around the home waters and the French must not only manage their oil well early in the game, but also get help in terms of oil imports if they are to be fully functional with what air force they have and reorganizing their ground troops.

[Extraneous]

24.4.7 The Global war: Sep/Oct 1939 ~ Jul/Aug 1945
 
Germany starts with 23 factories and 3x saved oil.
 
Each turn Germany gets oil:
1x from Austria
1x from Germany
2x from Rumania
2x from the USSR
6x oil total
 
Each turn Germany gets Other resources:
9x total from Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Germany
1x from Hungary
3x from Sweden
1x from Turkey
5x from the USSR
19x Other resources
1x Other resource from Spain (you can't count on this one until France falls)
 
Using 4x oil puts all 23 German factories into production.
 
That leaves 2x saved oil for Germany per turn and produces 15.25 BP.
 

This assumes that:
Germany doesn't capture any minor country resources or red factories
There were no enemy land attacks in Germany.
There were no in-supply enemy land units in Germany.

 
(I'm not going to count the Naval units)
1x HQ-A using 0.6 oil
2x HQ-I using 0.4 oil each (0.8 total)
Corps: 2x Armor, 1x Mechanized, and 2x Motorized using use 0.2 oil each (1.0 total)
Divisions: 1x Armor, 4x Artillery, 1x Engineer, Mechanized, and Motorized using 0.1 oil (0.6 total)
12x Aircraft using 0.2 oil each (2.4 total using Pilots)
 

To Reorganize all the units using oil would expend 5.4 oil to flip them all.

 
WiF is a strategic game you have to plan ahead.
 
 

[AlbertN]

I believe the Oil rule is mandatory.
It's historical, and helps to give a realistic insight on stocking up for major operations, or having shortages of fuel that crippled Axis in the late war.

Yes, it favors the Allies. Offset by picking other rules on and about (Usually I exclude Food in Flames which turns CW overpowered).

On the math of above, not all units get disorganized every turn. If your HQ or ARM isn't disorganized, you do not need to spend oil!