simple clarification on lending

A sub-forum for players new to WIF, containing information on how to get started and become an experienced player.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
IBender
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:44 pm

simple clarification on lending

Post by IBender »

If America decides that it will send 1 oil each turn to England, is it also correct that America must put 1 American convoy point into each of the 3 sea spaces leading from America to England? in order for that oil to arrive in England?

If this is true, is there a 'best time' to put those 3 convoy points into place so there is no delay in getting that oil to England?
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by Joseignacio »

I guess America is at war by then. If not, we should see if there is a special rule for the American options that may have been selected to allow this.

If USA is at war as well, any of them can put the convoys or even the Free French.

The best moment would be just before turn end, to minimize the probability of them being sunk. However, there are considerations:

- You don't know when that will happen, so don't wait too much.
- You are getting obliged to use a naval impulse at the end of your turn that may be not what you want at that moment, so you are tying your hands if you wait too much.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

If America decides that it will send 1 oil each turn to England, is it also correct that America must put 1 American convoy point into each of the 3 sea spaces leading from America to England? in order for that oil to arrive in England?

If this is true, is there a 'best time' to put those 3 convoy points into place so there is no delay in getting that oil to England?

No. It is the recepient (or his allies, which might include the US when at war) who must provide the convoys to receive that oil, unless the US has chosen an option to do so herself.

The exceptions of this rule are the joint US-Japanese convoy line and if you are lending resources to China.
Peter
IBender
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:44 pm

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by IBender »

Is this a fair understanding of what you have said and the rules "Resources to western Allies - The US can give up to 5 resources per turn each to the Commonwealth and France in future turns (unlimited while the USA is at war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport these resources while the US is a neutral major power. "

If America chose this option and if American decided it would send 2 oil to England is it the following a true statement "England would need to have 2 extra/ new convoys in each sea zone leading from America to England in order to get these 2 oil points?

Thanks
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

Is this a fair understanding of what you have said and the rules "Resources to western Allies - The US can give up to 5 resources per turn each to the Commonwealth and France in future turns (unlimited while the USA is at war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport these resources while the US is a neutral major power. "

If America chose this option and if American decided it would send 2 oil to England is it the following a true statement "England would need to have 2 extra/ new convoys in each sea zone leading from America to England in order to get these 2 oil points?

Thanks
England or any active Allied power, which usually means France or Free France, but if the USSR is at war with an Axis major power, you can use her CPs as well.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by Joseignacio »

So, what Centuur said was exactly whayt I old you from another point of view, I said "yes if the USA is at war" and he said "no if the USA is not at war". [:)]

I also mentioned that there were or could be a ruling if the country is neutral and the supply of resources or BP had been selected as an US option (action?). As you understood and Courtenay confirmed afterwards, any allied (not neutral, like by then USA still is) could move those resources.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by paulderynck »

Or yes if the USA is not at war but has passed the right entry options.
Paul
IBender
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:44 pm

RE: simple clarification on lending

Post by IBender »

Thanks for all the clarifications on this.
Post Reply

Return to “WIF School”