Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:10 pm
by xtiaan72
"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."
Good stuff. Creates more strategic opportunities for players by making places like Middle East, Romania and Albania important.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:12 pm
by vveedd
I absolutely agree. It should be something simple but good. Idea about reducing movement to half and oil stockpile sounds very good.
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:30 pm
by tora_tora_tora
I guess if Allies secure Suez canal, and never let Axis touch it, it means a lot to the after World War 2.
So securing and holding the canal tight means lots more of Victory Point for Allies.
And there are small german u-boats in Indian ocean, Monsun Gruppe somewhere in South East Asia.
It really is world war. and German even think of bombing continental US, Imperial Japan made baloon bombs to fly across Pacific Ocean.
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:56 am
by SMK-at-work
Yes there were U-boats in the Indian ocean, but small numbers (literally less than a handful) and only the longer ranged models and only those that survived teh trip around Sth Africa - having the Suez would mean standard types could get there with ease and with much less risk.
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:50 am
by xtiaan72
I absolutely agree. It should be something simple but good. Idea about reducing movement to half and oil stockpile sounds very good. -VVEEDD
Great minds think alike! We are all WWII buffs. But balance between gameplay and history is key. Commander could have all the historical accuracy in the world but does that really matter if it's not fun to play?
And thank you to Slitherine and Firepower for letting us at least "feel" like we are part of the process. As a firm believer that great computer games are works of art.... as valid as any form. I wish you the best of luck and I hope you are having a great time making the game. There is no genius without passion. Mad Props!
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:59 pm
by SMK-at-work
I was reading somethign about German oil production yesterday, and the article noted that the only way that German ymanaged to keep going with it's low production was to ensure no section of the economy got as much oil as it needed!!
For example the Agricultural sector got about as much in 1942 as it did in 1941, but actually needed more because of the thousands of horses drafted for the army's needs on the Russian front - hence farmers needed to make moer use of tractors in 1942 than they did in 1941!
So oil shortages should affect every part of the economy - right down to basic food production!
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:50 am
by SMK-at-work
Another example of hte power of oil.
When Hitler was negotiating with Franco for Spain to join the war in 1940 one of Franco's demands was oil for hte Spanish army. Spains main source for imported oil was the USA, and Franco feared that entering the war would cut that off. Of course he didn't really want to enter the war anyway, and this was a good excuse not to, but it was still a real concern.
Hitler knew well that there was no possibility of Germany supplying Spain's oil needs.
There were other considerations too of course - eg Franco also asked for French possessions in morrocco, which hte Vichy would never have agreed to, and with the British bombardment of the French fleets in Africa Hitler thought that anti-British sentiment in vichy would result in increased co-o0peration from them so perhaps he didn't need Spain afterall - and certainly not at the price demanded!
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:32 am
by malthaussen
I note that Wavell wrote a strategic appreciation of the probable course of the war shortly after assuming command in the Mideast, and it boiled down to "we have the oil and they have not, therefore Germany is bound to lose." (I simplify, of course) So something along the lines of what is being suggested here would certainly be worthwhile.
-- Mal
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:22 pm
by GogTheMild
A deliberate reference to Belloc?
"Whatever happens we have got,
the Gatling gun and they have not."
An interesting appreciation by Wavell, which seems to have been shared by the Axis.
Slitherine going with Pompousdivinus' suggestion has to be one of the greatest game designer pick ups ever

.
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:09 pm
by rkr1958
GogTheMild wrote:A deliberate reference to Belloc?
"Whatever happens we have got,
the Gatling gun and they have not."
An interesting appreciation by Wavell, which seems to have been shared by the Axis.
Slitherine going with Pompousdivinus' suggestion has to be one of the greatest game designer pick ups ever

.
I'm not sure what this is about but it's definitely off topic and in a thread that hasn't been posted in for 6-years! Can you, or someone else, enlighten me as to if this is a legitimate post?
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:34 am
by Samhain
It looks legitimate to me.
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:02 pm
by GogTheMild
It was meant to be legitimate. I intended it to be on topic for the thread. Being very new to CEAW (and thus more likely to have broken some written or unwritten rule of posting - if so apologies) I found it interesting to see how the original game was not going to have an oil constraint and that the suggestion came from a forum post. My comment was mostly meant as a compliment to the game design team, but I can see how me also picking up on the immediately previous post - 6 years old - could be misconstrued.
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:02 pm
by BuddyGrant
I agree it was a very smart design decision to include oil usage in the final game, and it was interesting to see this old pre-release thread where the decision was initially discussed.
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:50 am
by rkr1958
GogTheMild wrote:It was meant to be legitimate. I intended it to be on topic for the thread. Being very new to CEAW (and thus more likely to have broken some written or unwritten rule of posting - if so apologies) I found it interesting to see how the original game was not going to have an oil constraint and that the suggestion came from a forum post. My comment was mostly meant as a compliment to the game design team, but I can see how me also picking up on the immediately previous post - 6 years old - could be misconstrued.
Thanks for the explanation and welcome to the forum! Please feel free to continue your discussion in this thread.
Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:51 am
by rkr1958
BuddyGrant wrote:I agree it was a very smart design decision to include oil usage in the final game, and it was interesting to see this old pre-release thread where the decision was initially discussed.
I wasn't even aware of this thread or the history of the inclusion of oil usage in the game until a very days ago. Interesting and all thanks to
GogTheMild.

Re: Oil and resources?
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:16 pm
by pk867
Hi this thread (about oil) was before the vanilla version was released. It is totally updated in the CEAW-GS versions of the expansion.