Oil and Manpower

[MarkWayneClark]

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I did search it and found nothing.

First, let me say: This is NOT a criticism. I love this game! It's better than Time of Fury by a lot, and than Commander: EAW Gold also.

Not to dis the latter game: it's very, very good. But SCWiE is better in almost ever way.

However: I do like the way that CEAW--which is in most respects less complex than SCWiE--factors in oil. It seems that the game engine has some placeholder code that could enable an oil function later, but it's not now in use. Any plan to add it? It would certainly make playing Axis much harder, and complicate the task of Army Group South.

Manpower was also a very good feature of CEAW and I think accurately pressured Germany on this point. Any plans to add that?

My only other "wish" might be for a more elaborate tech tree but that's a quibble.

[PvtBenjamin]

I played Commanders quite a bit, its a good game

The oil component consumed the game tho, it was way to important, considering how important oil was more of an impact might be interesting.

[Hairog]

Hubert has addressed the manpower issue by giving the editor the ability to limit how many and what kind of units get built per side. You can also limit the research levels, how long it takes to produce a unit, the cost of the units etc.
Bottom-line is that the scenario designer can build that kind of stuff in.

I've addressed the dependence on oil by giving all my oil fields in the WWIII 1946 Mod as many points as possible. I then lowering the MPP rate of the other resources so that the oil production centers are a significant portion of a certain countries MPPs.

Hubert did build in mechanisms to address both of your concerns. The more I learn about this program the more I like it. Now if I can only figure out how to use my navies properly.

[Titan]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I played Commanders quite a bit, its a good game

The oil component consumed the game tho, it was way to important, considering how important oil was more of an impact might be interesting.

Then CAEW did a good Job, Oil should be important..In fact very. Lack of it crippled Germany's options during the war. During the battle of bulge they even had dedicated units to try and get allied fuel. At the end they had to abandon many armoured vehicles due to of it. I think they hit the nail on the head. I would love to see SC3 have same system

[sPzAbt653]

Hubert has addressed the manpower issue by giving the editor the ability to limit how many and what kind of units get built per side. You can also limit the research levels, how long it takes to produce a unit, the cost of the units etc.
Bottom-line is that the scenario designer can build that kind of stuff in.

I can't agree with this at all. Manpower Levels are not related to Industrial Production. If this were true then the USA would never have had any manpower issues. If this were true then the Axis player could rebuild many Finnish Infantry units when historically they would be hard pressed to rebuild one.

I've addressed the dependence on oil by giving all my oil fields in the WWIII 1946 Mod as many points as possible. I then lowering the MPP rate of the other resources so that the oil production centers are a significant portion of a certain countries MPPs.

I like this a lot and would like to steal it for 653N [:)]

[Titan]

I've addressed the dependence on oil by giving all my oil fields in the WWIII 1946 Mod as many points as possible. I then lowering the MPP rate of the other resources so that the oil production centers are a significant portion of a certain countries MPPs.

I like this a lot and would like to steal it for 653N [:)]
[/quote]

I don't...It does not reflect on oil consumption...what says you opt not to build to much armour or aircraft you are still affected. Oil affecting MMP's is totally unreal...Oil centers should produce there own points which are separate from MMP's and eac time you move and attack with a plane/Tanks etc it consumes those points... You buy lots of armour then u need lots of oil, makes the game more multi dimensional

[sPzAbt653]

It does not reflect on oil consumption

I agree with you, but it seems that we are not going to get Oil and Manpower in SC3, so we must do something ?

I also had CEaW and my first few plays of it I thought that M&O were silly. However, once I started minding it I saw how it affected the game Strategically, which is what is supposed to happen in a Strategic Game, I think. Therefore, I would love to see it in SC3. Maybe as and advanced type option ? Otherwise, it seems to be one of the lacking points in this great game.

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hubert has addressed the manpower issue by giving the editor the ability to limit how many and what kind of units get built per side. You can also limit the research levels, how long it takes to produce a unit, the cost of the units etc.
Bottom-line is that the scenario designer can build that kind of stuff in.

I can't agree with this at all. Manpower Levels are not related to Industrial Production. If this were true then the USA would never have had any manpower issues. If this were true then the Axis player could rebuild many Finnish Infantry units when historically they would be hard pressed to rebuild one.

I agree, manpower levels are not related to industrial production and I suggest neither is this feature. It all boils down to what units a nation can research, afford, find the necessary resources and finally produce. Germany in 1945 produced more planes than they could train pilots for. This was due to Allied air interdiction, lack of fuel, and ground crews. Slave labor was churning out plenty of planes.

The US had a hell of a situation until 1942 before the War Production Board took matters in hand. Nothing was coordinated with companies making billions of bullets without the matching guns to shoot them. The WPB took matters in hand and arguably were instrumental in winning the war.

The point is that it takes more than production capacity and manpower to create and supply the units that do the fighting. A scenario designer can take all these factors into account and can simulate the choices facing the nations leaders using Hubert's design. I would argue that this is a very accurate and realistic way of replicating the decisions that were foisted upon Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.

I find the method presented is much more elegant and ultimately more realistic than having a pile of manpower, iron, oil, food, aluminum, boot polish etc. and combining them into units. IMHO I find a little historical research involving OOBs and some Monday quarterbacking, makes it possible to much more accurately simulate what units a nation can realistically build, supply and field.

In addition I don't believe there was a modern leader who had unfettered control over what was, or could be built. Politics, unions, skilled labor, bribery, military philosophy, research and in Hitler's case, mental illness, etc. all limit the types of units a nation could or would build.

I've addressed the dependence on oil by giving all my oil fields in the WWIII 1946 Mod as many points as possible. I then lowering the MPP rate of the other resources so that the oil production centers are a significant portion of a certain countries MPPs.

I like this a lot and would like to steal it for 653N [:)]

Please do! Oil is THE resource that a WWII military could not do without. Boost the Oil Production facilities to 15 and then max the multiplier and suddenly they become very important. In addition they become a very interesting target to bomb and overrun as they were in reality. Cut back on the mines and especially the ports and cities.

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It does not reflect on oil consumption

I agree with you, but it seems that we are not going to get Oil and Manpower in SC3, so we must do something ?

I also had CEaW and my first few plays of it I thought that M&O were silly. However, once I started minding it I saw how it affected the game Strategically, which is what is supposed to happen in a Strategic Game, I think. Therefore, I would love to see it in SC3. Maybe as and advanced type option ? Otherwise, it seems to be one of the lacking points in this great game.

I don't know about you but I use Operational movement a lot. This costs MPPs. The more the unit cost to build the more MPPs it costs to move Operationally. The most expensive units to move are the ones that would use the most fuel.

Agreed the correlation is not direct but I would argue it's fairly close.

[Taxman66]

Not in the case of the Italian fleet, it isn't.

[Sugar]

Don't know what`s wrong with oil, Germany didn`t lack oil until the loss of Ploesti in 44 (and never were able to use Maikop, allthough occupied in 42). They were relying heavily on coal, all the trains ran on it, that's what required to operate troops, not oil.

If you want to know how to wreck a game completely by implementing oil, take a look at HoI 2. Last Paradox "game" I ever bought.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Don't know what`s wrong with oil, Germany didn`t lack oil until the loss of Ploesti in 44 (and never were able to use Maikop, allthough occupied in 42). They were relying heavily on coal, all the trains ran on it, that's what required to operate troops, not oil.

If you want to know how to wreck a game completely by implementing oil, take a look at HoI 2. Last Paradox "game" I ever bought.

Agreed. I've played several WW2 games that oil is far to important, overwhelms the game. The build limits really incorporate oil restrictions. I guess they could add some oil resource objectives that would increase/decrease build limits and impact air operations. Probably best off just keeping it as it is.

[sPzAbt653]

Cut back on the mines and especially the ports and cities.

Would this mess with Supply, especially changing the values for cities ?

Boost the Oil Production facilities to 15 and then max the multiplier

Not sure how to do this, would it have something to do with this screen ?

[Hairog]

Yes you are correct, it does mess up supply. My mod was different because all the cities in most of Europe were wasted in 1946. So I suggest you just make sure the cities have enough for supply but not a whole lot for MPPs.

That is the correct screen.

[sPzAbt653]

Excellent intel, thanks very much [&o]

With the 1.10 change to HQ's Supply and Chaining, we may be able to reduce city values without affecting supply too much [as long as there are HQ's around]. I haven't thought it thru in detail, but with HQ's only needing 3 to chain, and with any HQ to be chained being able to do so if within 7 movement points of the 'chainer', the 'chainee' will provide 8 supply.

I'm not sure if the game actually needs any city to be at 10 or 12. Units seem to function well with 3[8] and 5[8] HQ's nearby, even in Africa and Russia. Maybe the resource supply values of 12-10-8-5-3 could be changed to 10-8-5-3-1 without screwing things up while reducing the amount of MPP's generated. I'm referring to a mod of course, not the main game.

[Taxman66]

Instead of screwing with supply, you could get the same affect by raising the cost of everything 10-25%

[crispy131313]

150 MPP is a bit extreme, how could Maikop be more valuable then all of the Ukraine?

I see merit in this though, in fact I have had Romanian Oil set @ 5 MPP per strength point (50 MPP) and Soviet oil @ 4 MPP per strength point (40 MPP) for sometime. But it was not to make the entire game about oil, it was to highlight the significance of Ploesti to Germany and provide further incentive to succeed in Fall Blau.

I also agree with Taxman66 in that there are so many ways of manipulating MPP rather then messing with supply.

[Hairog]

I am looking for a detailed report on the different countries MPPs and how they are calculated. I can't seem to find it. I swear I used to see it flash by at the end of a turn but it's no longer showing up.

Anyone know what happened to it or where I can find out the breakdown of a countries MPPs?

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: crispy131313

150 MPP is a bit extreme, how could Maikop be more valuable then all of the Ukraine?

I see merit in this though, in fact I have had Romanian Oil set @ 5 MPP per strength point (50 MPP) and Soviet oil @ 4 MPP per strength point (40 MPP) for sometime. But it was not to make the entire game about oil, it was to highlight the significance of Ploesti to Germany and provide further incentive to succeed in Fall Blau.

I also agree with Taxman66 in that there are so many ways of manipulating MPP rather then messing with supply.

Your right about 150 being extreme. I was just showing the top end. I have mine doing 45 each in WWIII1946.

[Hairog]

For a war in 1946 pretty much all of the cities between Moscow and Vichy were wasted. There were millions of refugees, no food, armed gangs of deserters, no infrastructure etc. Capturing a city such as Warsaw was probably a drain on the economy instead of an asset.

Excellent book on the subject...in fact on of the only books on the immediate post-war period concerning 1946-47 of any note that I've come across. The immediate post war era has been neglected terribly.

Book