question/possible bug about neutral ploesti resources

[joshuamnave]

This just came up in a game I'm playing and not sure if the rules even address it. Russia demanded Bessarabia and Germany refused. Russia and Rumania went to war with Germany as the controlling major power. The 3 oil in Ploesti were still allocated 1 to Italy and 2 to Germany, which I believe is correct because they were promised while Romania was still neutral. Russia strat bombed Ploesti, hitting 1 resource. Here's the question - who should lose the resource, Germany or Italy? The game automatically dinged Italy for the lost resource. Shouldn't the Axis have been given a choice?

[ACMW]

It is correct. Rule says something like lends 2 Resources to GER and remaining to IT. Remaining in this case = 0.

Cheers

Adrian

[joshuamnave]

Actually the rule says "While neutral, Rumania supplies Germany with 2 oil resources and its other oil resource to Italy..." (emphasis added). I interpret that as a division of the resources, which is slightly different than saying "2 oil to Germany, and any remaining to Italy" which would be your interpretation. But I can see both interpretations as being reasonable.

[paulderynck]

Romania is not neutral and while aligned to Germany its resources are all German.

[joshuamnave]

It was neutral during the lending phase so as I understand it, the resources are still delivered according to that rule. But if that's not accurate then there's a different bug because when Rumania denies the claim the game always splits the resources that turn. And in this case, it was Italy that had a lost resource due to strat bombing, not Germany.

[paulderynck]

Pre-defined trade agreements are not subject to the "must be delivered" clause and are pre-empted by DoWs and alignments. When Romania accepts the claim she stays neutral. When Romania fights, she is aligned with Germany, perhaps temporarily. But if it stayed that way to the end of the turn there's no oil for Italy until next turn if Germany wants to lend it.

[Centuur]

The moment Rumania is aligned to Germany, all oil goes to Germany. If it reverts to peace, the old trade agreements should be back in place.

If any of this doesn't happen, that's a bug. Do you have a gamesave for us, so we can investigate?

[ACMW]

Ooooo! What happens if:

USSR demands Bessarabia & Rumania declines, so USSR declares war.
USSR bombs Ploesti gaining a star result, trashing an oil resource.
USSR has no hexes in Rumania outside Bessarabia and Germany forces the peace.

In future turns, is it IT, GER, up to Axis or up to Allies or random who looses the leant oil?

Cheers

Adrian

[paulderynck]

Never been asked of ADG AFAIK. There was a question about partisans in Palembang in which case the CW gets screwed, but in this case both powers are axis. If a single player, he should decide, if two players and they disagree then roll for it. No idea what MWiF would do.

[joshuamnave]

Well given the information from my original post... it seems pretty clear that MWIF considers the first two oil to belong to Germany and the remaining oil as Italy's, so it stands to reason that given the scenario where a reverted to neutral Rumania has a destroyed oil resource, Italy would be denied.

However that interpretation seems to go against the clarification in the RAC on page 25, which would indicate Germany chooses which are lost. Which also applies to the scenario in my original post, although the game auto dinged Italy (and I still haven't found any rule to support the idea that the trade agreement is cancelled on the turn Russia declares war on Rumania. The Germany-Soviet trade pact rules specifically say that the agreement is cancelled, even on the turn war is declared, as does the US-Japan trade rules. The absence of such language in the other trade agreements leads me to believe that they remain in place for that turn. Interestingly the game also starts sending the Spanish resource immediately once Paris is in Axis control, even though the trade agreement shouldn't kick in until the lending stage of the following turn as I interpret the rules)

[paulderynck]

Was Peace declared by the end of the turn? If not I think MWiF did it right. You can look at Production all you want during a turn, it does not change dynamically with events during the turn. It will recalc after Preliminary Production. And in theory Germany has nothing to decide, since it was not the entity that lent to Italy.

The Spanish resource seems correct from RAW: "While Paris is Axis controlled, a neutral Spain must supply Germany with 1 resource a turn." The wording appears immediate.

[joshuamnave]

No, peace was not declared by the end of the turn. Germany had the option to enforce peace, but did not because of the bug that would have trapped any German units in Bessarabia until war with Russia. So the conflict ended by mutual agreement (helps that I'm playing solitaire) so Germany could move those units out before enforcing peace the following turn. Rumania and Russia were at war, Rumania was a German ally, and the strat bombed oil was dinged from Italy. On the following turn, following the enforced peace, Germany allied Rumania and received all 3 resources.

I could make an argument both ways on the Spanish resource, but the rules don't specifically provide for a way for a trade agreement to be initiated at any time other than the lending phase so I would lean toward the Spanish resource not being traded until the following turn. Spain must supply Germany with 1 resource a turn happens in the lending phase as I read the rules. I'm happy to concede that one though since it is somewhat ambiguous or if there has been a direct ruling from ADG.

[paulderynck]

I guess since you had to workaround the situation and let MWiF do what it thought was right, you have to work around the Italy oil resource as per Post #9. If it's important to your game, the game file could be edited to reduce the German saved oil by one and add a saved Italian oil.

I will refer the Spain wording to ADG and see what the response is.

[ACMW]

Rumania situation looks correct. But most exact interpretation of Spain seems to be as you suggest: that the resource should be available the following turn - that is following the next Lending Stage (trade agreements). Whether that is what ADG meant is another question.

[paulderynck]

Well, I suggested - from the wording - it should be available immediately. But likely it wouldn't matter in the game situation without an axis-friendly CP in the West Med.

[paulderynck]

Heard back from Harry. The intention is as the wording states - immediately.