Oil and resources?

[xtiaan72]

Was wondering if oil or resources were going to be modeled into the game?

[IainMcNeil]

We decided not to include them other than as places that provide extra production. We felt that it could add too much micro management if we added multiple types of resources. If there are any ideas on how they could be integrated without adding extra management for the player then we're always interested to hear them!

[malthaussen]

For some reason, this reminds me of Hitler's famous complaint: "My commanders understand nothing of the economic realities of war." Looks like, in this game, the commanders won't need to.

-- Mal

[tora_tora_tora]

according to developers diary, there are two kind of resorces.
Manpower and abstracted Resorces, and somekind of tech research system management.

If there could be a little bit more details, somekind of economic investment points might be good.
If you had put more emphasis on aerocraft productions, you would have more fighters.
Or if you choose to invest in underground factories, then production line is somewhat more stout against strategic bombing.
Though, these kind of industrial production tech is rather hamstring game, in some cases, as allies are industrial giants.

[pompousdivinus]

Imo oil is not an important factor...but the lack of oil definitely is(Battle of the Bulge, German airforce). Why not have this automated. Each country has a certain amount of oil-production points modified by the industry tech level factor(refineries) and oilfields (imports via convoys, Rumania, Caucasus). This adds up every month and is used up according to the amount of mechanized/motorized/fighter/bomber/submarine/battleship etc. units of the faction.
Strategic bombing of industry centres/oilfields automatically reduces the oil production as well.
To make it simple: If there is a deficit the faction has a reduced mobility of all motorised etc. ground units and air units that turn.
In case of a constant deficit he human player can be given the possibility not to move motorised etc units for a turn to have full movement capacity for a turn in the future (save his oil for the Battle of the Bulge...)
Sounds reasonably simple doesn't it ?

[SMK-at-work]

Oil should be a basic supply resource rather than a production one - or possibly a bit of both - mechanised units just ain't mechanised if you don't have enough oil!!

so mobile operations should require a certain amount of stockpile in the general area, national oil resources should be able to be
moved" around various general areas for such use and/or into production/internal transport.

[xtiaan72]

Having control of Romania or the Middle East should make some kind of difference for resources. Also the Suez isn't active? Then why fight in Africa at all? If the Axis gains control of it, the allies should be cut off from colonial reinforcements and resources.

[IainMcNeil]

If the Suez is cut everything must be shipped around Africa which takes longer, though the player may choose to do this while they control the suez if the risk of attack by the Italian fleet is too high.

[xtiaan72]

It's good you've got that in there.

[IainMcNeil]

Apart from taking longer should the Africa route result in reduced resource collection for the British?

Should Britain's man power be reduced if they cannot receive the convoys from the commonwealth, or would those troops primarily been used for fighting in their own theatres?

[xtiaan72]

From what I've gathered convoys are physical units so if they have to go around Africa resources and manpower are going to be delayed. They would pop up somewhere in the S. Atlantic no? They would be much more vulnerable to Axis sub attack. Perhaps when they arrived in the S. Atlantic the allies could get an option to rout them to the U.K or to territory still held in the med ( if the allies still held Gibraltor) where they could fall pray to the Italian Navy. Both options would be extremely dangerous for those convoys.

in other words, if the Allied player has lost the Suez and is being out fought in the Atlantic. Yes he should loose loads of colonial man power and resources. And he should be forced to expend even more resources to reverse the trend. ( Replace convoys, invest in advanced destroyers and naval aviation.)

Because the map Commander is using is so big. The tech/resource convoy battles between the axis and allies could really be fantastic. . This had not been modeled properly in any game I can think of yet. If the axis doesn't invest enough in subs and tech it should really affect they're chances. Consequently the allies should get hammered badly ( Like they were early in the war) if they don't invest in destroyers and ASW tech. Looking forward to seeing how you guys handle this part of the war.

Questions, at the moment is there any naval aviation or ASW tech?

[SMK-at-work]

The entry of Italy into the war stopped convoys passing through the Suez from Australia/New Zealand and India to the UK - convoys to the Mid-east were unaffected.

AFAIK the main effect of this was the requirement to provide larger escorts in the Atlantic. Of course transit time was also increased, hence more resources were required (fuel, food, ships).

So as long as there's limited resources (only so many convoys avaialble, only so many escorts) then the "problem" will sort itself out as you say - once Italy is at war the allied player will have to choose betwen a fast passage and a safe one!

there's some correspondance on the matter of troop convoy routing from Australia & NZ at http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2-1Doc.html, but it's having problems today

Rememer also you have to have reverse convoys - more or less empty ships going back to the place of origin!!

[xtiaan72]

Good stuff. So when the Italians entered the war the convoys had to go around but not before...

But for game play purposes shouldn't Axis occupation of the Suez mean something?


People need a tangible reason in game terms to duke it out in Africa. It would give more strategic depth to the game and still be grounded in historical reality. The Brits did everything they could to hold on to the Suez for obvious strategic reasons.

But in gameplay terms why should the Germans divert precious resources to Africa if capturing the Suez does not affect their situation in the game?

Italian entry does trigger convoy rerout. But in addition Axis control of Suez disrupts convoy activity to the Middle East as well, Simulating Axis ability to move warships and subs into the Indian ocean. In other word if the Axis gets control of Suez, resources and colonial units are not just delayed but choked off to some degree.

[SMK-at-work]

Allowing easy u-boat access to the Indian ocean would be the main thing IMO - hence requiring more RN resources be diverted there for convoy protection.

also taking Egypt protects the Med from allied interference, reduces the ability of allied submarines to attack Italian shipping, reduces the ability of hte allies to support partisans in Crete, Greece & Yugoslavia.

[xtiaan72]

So in game terms would that mean less RN available for the Atlantic? There for more trouble defending convoys in Atlantic.


stalins_organ- Let me give you a gameplay scenerio. The Axis has occupied the Suez and has teched up subs in the Atlantic. The Allies have neglected their ASW techs. How badly do the Allies get punished in the Atlantic. Should this situation truly begin to "Starve out" the U.K in your opinion?

[SMK-at-work]

I don't think the allies get any more punished in the scenario you have described.

It is up to the Axis player to make use of his new territory - if he doesn't put any subs into eth Indian ocean then teh Allies won't have to divert any more resources there and so nothing will change - losing the Suez will make no difference.

If he puts a few subs in the Indian ocean and convoy losses increase then the allied player has to figure out a riposte, if he can.

I like game systems where players have to take oadvantage of opportunities, not just get the benefits handed to them on a plate.

[xtiaan72]

I agree but we'll have to see if the game system allows for that level of player involvement. ( placing subs in the indian ocean if you have the Suez ) Naval combat in the indian ocean will probably be excluded or abstracted. If it isn't included then why not model some abstracted effects that hurt the allies. At least that gives some incentive for the allies to hang on in Egypt. And for serious fighting in Africa to happen in general.

That was a serious problem with the original unpatched SC. There was no compelling reason to commit decisive forces in Africa. So very few people did.

[IainMcNeil]

As India is off map what we might want to do is just say that the capture of the Suez results in some damage to convoys before they appear in the Atlantic to give axis an incentive to take it? Is there any logic to giving axis a convoy from anywhere if they take the suez, however small it may be?

[vveedd]

I respect your decision that oil resources provide only extra resources but just one notice. The most important resources in WWII were oil. That??™s why Romania was so important to Germany, that??™s why Hitler first went for Russian oil fields instead of Moscow etc, etc. In generally speaking this resource was important for sequence of WWII. Maybe you should consider some additional oil effects to make oil fields more strategic important then other resources for gameplay purposes.

[IainMcNeil]

We can make them artifically high in their contribution of resources, but this does not feel like a good solution.

I'm wondering if we could do something simple saying that moving units more than half speed uses up oil points. If you have no oil points you can only move half speed. Oil points are in stockpiles at the start of the war & replenished from oil fields. We'd probably need to add in a base value for each nation to represent trade, or Germany without Romania would be immobile. Later on germany should be able to get some bonus oil for synthesised coal, though I have no idea of the quantities they were manufacturing. Different units could use different amounts, maybe none for infantry, 1 for armour, air & subs, 2 for other naval.

I'll talk to Johan about it. It's worth some consideration but absolutely no promises we'll include it! We need to be careful we don't try and over extend ourselves with new features as we're suffering from serious feature creep right now! We also need to be careful that we don't add features that add micro management that many players would prefer not to have to worry about. We've already got resources and manpower & this may just be a step too far for many players.