poll do axis need more oil

[BuddyGrant]

IMO the best part of the axis oil shortage design in CEAW and GS is that it increases the strategic importance of oil regions on the map. Without the oil shortages those area's might be simply diversions on the map. The design forces the user to make some of the same difficult strategic decisions that faced WW2 leaders, without feeling too 'gamey' (like simply increasing PP's in oil rich area's). Honestly, the clever oil and manpower usage design of CEAW (and the tweaks via the GS mod) are among the strongest features of this game. Simulating these important facets of WW2 without bogging down the user with too much micro management is one of the main reasons I continue to play this game.

As others have pointed out, if users don't like this area of the game it's easy to turn oil off. Additionally, it's easy to tweak a campaign to provide more off-map or on-map oil if you prefer playing that way.

Not related to oil, but related to the game design logic of the axis oil shortages: It looks like there might be some changes in GS 2.0 to increase the value of Yugoslavia and maybe Greece as well. Without some kind of additional incentives these countries can have a negative value and ignoring them completely seems like a more common practice with CEAW-GS players. Adding incentives to attack (and defend) Norway might be a nice idea as well as it seems to me that country is also frequently ignored in CEAW-GS.

[afk_nero]

This is a tough one.

I appreciate the fact that Oil is and should be a major problem for the Axis. However there are instances of minor campaigns which was more down to logistics than the fact that oil wasnt around.

I recall that at the fall of Berlin army group Wenck had tons of oil while other groups had nothing.

Producing oil is only as good as the logistics supply behind the production.

I have voted yes for more oil - only becuase I think that there should be a very slight tweak to the starting German oil level to allow for a limited offensive in '43.

THis would prevent the switch to infantry and ground all planes process. THe german army became more motorised as the war progressed not less so. This doesnt mitigate the issue or the fact that Germany suffered throughout the war from Oil shortages and should do so.

SO yes for a slight increase (not sure on how much - but maybe another turn or two 50 oil at the start?)

[Plaid]

In GS 2.0 conquest of Greece and Yugoslavia allows you to free some axis minor troops and make axis minor powers join the axis faster. It have some benefit.

Also partisans are not this bad - its good troop-training resource, if used correctly.

[rkr1958]

This is a tough one.

I appreciate the fact that Oil is and should be a major problem for the Axis. However there are instances of minor campaigns which was more down to logistics than the fact that oil wasnt around.

I recall that at the fall of Berlin army group Wenck had tons of oil while other groups had nothing.

Producing oil is only as good as the logistics supply behind the production.

I have voted yes for more oil - only becuase I think that there should be a very slight tweak to the starting German oil level to allow for a limited offensive in '43.

THis would prevent the switch to infantry and ground all planes process. THe german army became more motorised as the war progressed not less so. This doesnt mitigate the issue or the fact that Germany suffered throughout the war from Oil shortages and should do so.

SO yes for a slight increase (not sure on how much - but maybe another turn or two 50 oil at the start?)

I think a better solution is to fix a bug, which we all knew implicitly had been there since the initial release of CEAW; but that massina defined for us in his AAR with Max. See: viewtopic.php?p=188692#188692

17. A feature that’s been in place since the initial release of the standard game is that oil consuming units at partial strength use the same amount of oil to move or attack as units at full strength. It just doesn’t make sense that moving a 1-step armor corps should consume the same amount of oil as moving a 10-step armor corps. This has now been fixed. Oil consuming units now use oil based on their strength according to the formula: oil_used = round(oil_used_by_unit* initial_unit_strength / 10). Note that the strength of the unit at the start of the action is used. For example, a 9-step air unit attacks a target and that unit is intercepted losing 3-steps. It then follows through with the attack losing another 3-steps knocking the air unit down to 3-steps. That air unit would consume oil at 90% for the intercept and 90% for the ground attack. A second example is that a 10-step armor corps makes a desperate attack and is completely lost. Oil consumption for this attack would be at the full rate. Also, note that armor and mechanized ground units on defense do not use oil.

This should add up over time and really make a difference to the axis.

By the way a great job by massina in defining this and making the suggestion. This is exactly the type of feedback we need. massina gets a gold star for this one.

[afk_nero]

Aaaah perfect - in that case let's see how these new changes affect things

[gchristie]

Self sufficiency in oil (and indeed other resources) was a major concern for the Nazi leadership from the earliest days of the Third Reich and this explains the massive investment that Goering, as head of the German economic plan, authorised for the oil from coal plants despite it being such an inefficient and highly expensive use of coal. Its the reason why Hitler was obsessed before Barbarossa in any Soviet moves towards Rumania and its vital oil fields.

I'm re-reading portions of Wm. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and the Germans had severe shortages of cereals and grains as early as 1939. Stalin and Molotov capitalized on this desperate need, and exacted all manner of concessions from the Nazis when negotiating the non-aggression pact. The Nazis even had to throw in the blueprints for the Bismark at one point in order to cut a deal with the soviets on food stuffs.

Soh, what say you to adding food shortages to the mod as well

JK as my teenagers say.

[rkr1958]

JK as my teenagers say.

For those of us who haven't been a teenage is quite some time and who don't have any, what does "JK" mean?

Since I've got a 4th grader I guess I'm going to have to learn how to speak teenager sooner or later. I might as well start now.

[Plaid]

JK as my teenagers say.

For those of us who haven't been a teenage is quite some time and who don't have any, what does "JK" mean?

Since I've got a 4th grader I guess I'm going to have to learn how to speak teenager sooner or later. I might as well start now.

I suggest its "joke", but can't be sure.

[massina_nz]

JK = just kidding

My teenager usually only speaks in grunts, let alone jargon. It's hard enough getting him to speak.

[gchristie]

JK as my teenagers say.

For those of us who haven't been a teenage is quite some time and who don't have any, what does "JK" mean?

Since I've got a 4th grader I guess I'm going to have to learn how to speak teenager sooner or later. I might as well start now.

JK = just kidding.

Don't worry, by the time your 4th grader is a teen it will be a whole new world. Enjoy, 'cause they grow up too quickly.

[soh]

Self sufficiency in oil (and indeed other resources) was a major concern for the Nazi leadership from the earliest days of the Third Reich and this explains the massive investment that Goering, as head of the German economic plan, authorised for the oil from coal plants despite it being such an inefficient and highly expensive use of coal. Its the reason why Hitler was obsessed before Barbarossa in any Soviet moves towards Rumania and its vital oil fields.

I'm re-reading portions of Wm. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and the Germans had severe shortages of cereals and grains as early as 1939. Stalin and Molotov capitalized on this desperate need, and exacted all manner of concessions from the Nazis when negotiating the non-aggression pact. The Nazis even had to throw in the blueprints for the Bismark at one point in order to cut a deal with the soviets on food stuffs.

Soh, what say you to adding food shortages to the mod as well

JK as my teenagers say.

ya it could act like the winter weather and effect some of the axis army like (due to delays in wheat for bread axis lose effectivness) but not the whole amry lol

[Wolfe1759]

I suggest "other 4998" saying nothing mostly because they find entire conversation silly. Germany has limited oil because (surprise!) it is not Saudi Aravia. There is no oil in most of the Europe and you can't do anything about it. Maybe nuclear engines for tanks and airplanes given by 6 level industry can help the situation

Agree with this and not voting - why not just turn the oil option off if you don't like how it works.

[soh]

I suggest "other 4998" saying nothing mostly because they find entire conversation silly. Germany has limited oil because (surprise!) it is not Saudi Aravia. There is no oil in most of the Europe and you can't do anything about it. Maybe nuclear engines for tanks and airplanes given by 6 level industry can help the situation

Agree with this and not voting - why not just turn the oil option off if you don't like how it works.

lets just see what the vote shows and come on guys and vote thank you

[_Augustus_]

Hi all,

The reduced oil consumption for damaged units sounds very good in number of ways. This is one those changes that just cries out for hard numbers. I'm interested if you did some sample taking on this before you implemented for the beta testing group? Care to share those numbers? I think the change ought to be a postive one. I'm just curious about the numbers. Stats and numbers are cool

I couldn't resist but to make notes while playing a turn to keep track what kind of difference the new feature would had made in the turn's oil consumption.

This was a very late '41 turn just before the severe winter. Hence there was no action in the Ostfront, but I did push in Libya. Nor were the most oil hungry units operated damaged. Ceteris paribus my save of oil would had been just under 2 oil points for the turn and over 2 with expected interceptions during the opponent's turn. That doesn't sound a lot, but even, say, 3 points per turn saves a nice pile of oil during one year. I imagine the average save is quite a bit greater than that, tough. With some damage to TACs and ARMs and the ammount saved increases very fast.

Anyone else care take notes and share the ammount they would had saved (or did save if you're a beta tester)? to maybe a get some feel how this effects the Axis oil pile?

_augustus_

[ncali]

I voted no to an oil increase. But it looks like you are getting one anyway for GS 2.0! With the proportionate cost reduction for damaged units, this will likely cause a significant increase in oil reserves over the course of a game. I'd estimate the "average" unit moving or attacking in the case of air units has about 8 steps or so (maybe a little more or less depending on play style), so that would be a reduction in oil costs of 20%!

[massina_nz]

I voted no to an oil increase. But it looks like you are getting one anyway for GS 2.0! With the proportionate cost reduction for damaged units, this will likely cause a significant increase in oil reserves over the course of a game. I'd estimate the "average" unit moving or attacking in the case of air units has about 8 steps or so (maybe a little more or less depending on play style), so that would be a reduction in oil costs of 20%!

Yes one of the outcomes of my earlier suggestion. But it just bugged me when as the Russians I had no qualms over attacking with a 5-step TAC, but as the Germans I had to think real hard about it, and generally would rebuild all my Tanks and TACs to 10 steps over winter so they were more fuel effiicient in the Summer offensive, I hope it doesn't unduly affect the play balance.

[AC67]

I voted no because I feel that the actual oil level for the Axis is more or less correct. As I stated in another thread, however, I would support reduced oil consumption for reduced unit, just because it feels logical to me. Considering the abstraction level of the game, the reduction should probably not be proprotional to the unit's strenght, but somewhat smaller, as the units on corps level include lots of support units which would work and consume fuel no matter how many combat vehicles the corps can field.
Anyway, the whole issue could seriously hamper game balance if it is true that the Axis could save some 3 points per turn: 150 over a year, more than 750 over the whole war. This would make a huge difference. So better be careful with this one.

AC

[_Augustus_]

Anyway, the whole issue could seriously hamper game balance if it is true that the Axis could save some 3 points per turn: 150 over a year, more than 750 over the whole war. This would make a huge difference. So better be careful with this one.

~18 turns per year, right? So 3 oil saved per turn gives 54 per year.

I agree the reduced oil consumption feature can change the game balance. I don't know what the actual average ammount would be. For that reason it would be very cool to if people would post how much they would had saved oil in their games with details of year, date and how much action there was.

_augustus_

[Plaid]

Game have 105 turns, absolutely sure.

[AC67]

Anyway, the whole issue could seriously hamper game balance if it is true that the Axis could save some 3 points per turn: 150 over a year, more than 750 over the whole war. This would make a huge difference. So better be careful with this one.

~18 turns per year, right? So 3 oil saved per turn gives 54 per year.

I agree the reduced oil consumption feature can change the game balance. I don't know what the actual average ammount would be. For that reason it would be very cool to if people would post how much they would had saved oil in their games with details of year, date and how much action there was.

_augustus_

Sorry _augustus_, you're right. I assumed a game turn to equal a week, which is obviously wrong. 54 oil plus every year is then more or less a turns' production. Don't think that this would change the game balance much.

AC