Page 4 of 10

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:48 pm
by Nikademus
Speedy is the proud owner of a field full of debris.....my bombers are meering pissing on the ashes.

[:D]

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:54 pm
by Speedysteve
[;)]

I planned a decent honourable capture. The war crime g*t Nik is the heathen. Ask the Thread.............

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:56 pm
by Mynok

I told you to threaten his blowup dolls before you steal anything of his. Gotta threaten them where it hurts, ya know. [;)]

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:08 pm
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Mynok


Was someone a little too speedy in his capture of Palembang? [:D]

You know your girlfriend knows you far too well when she says that to you in bed afterwards....

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:20 pm
by Mynok

Hey, he is called Speedy, ya know. [:D]

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:31 pm
by Speedysteve
[:D]

Trust me my girl knows i'm not speedy in bed............

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:32 pm
by Oznoyng
ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ouch.....maybe it was the Shock attack...
I had read that shock attacks were less likely to allow damage to the fields, so I shock attacked... I also put pins in my Mogami voodoo doll and performed various other rituals.

In retrospect, I would have attacked deliberately a few times with lesser forces to get the forts down. Also, the forces at Palembang retreated to the Southeast (to an out of supply hex). In both cases where Oil centers were damaged severely for me, the defending troops retreated rather than surrendered. I am wondering if anyone else has noticed a corellation between fort level/surrender/retreat and the degree of damage to the oil centers.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:54 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it was Mogami who mentioned that a certain percentage of supply at a base gets destroyed when captured. I can't find any reference to this anywhere...
Well? Anyone got an answer for me?[:)]

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:56 pm
by AmiralLaurent
From my own test deliberate attacks are definetly better to avoid damage to oil centers. And you're right about the surrendering vs retreating issue. I always took Palembang intact (or 1-2% intact) in my games but I always surrounded it before, the pain being to have units in the jungle inside Sumatra, but for seizing such a gem I take all my time. And I may have been lucky everytime but I think there is not only random in the rol.

One last thing I forgot to say, the troops I use to take Palembang are all (Div, Eng and HQ) preparing for Palembang since day 1 and so are at or near 100% prep in February when I take it. I think it has also an effect of the destruction or the lack of it, at least again in my own experience.

So far all reports I have seen of Japan seizing quickly Palembang said that oil and ressource centers were badly damaged, so it's not a good idea IMHO.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:20 am
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it was Mogami who mentioned that a certain percentage of supply at a base gets destroyed when captured. I can't find any reference to this anywhere...
Well? Anyone got an answer for me?[:)]

Did you honestly expect to get one?

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:34 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it was Mogami who mentioned that a certain percentage of supply at a base gets destroyed when captured. I can't find any reference to this anywhere...
Well? Anyone got an answer for me?[:)]

Did you honestly expect to get one?

Why not?

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:57 am
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



Well? Anyone got an answer for me?[:)]

Did you honestly expect to get one?

Why not?

A nearly two year long pattern of ignoring questions from players by the developers.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:30 am
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: Roman Jr.

The oil Balikpapan oil refinery was blown up by Dutch civilians, so maybe the game is accurate if it allows for the possibility of oil being destroyed even if there are no engineers there. Amiral, how many times did you conduct your test? Maybe there's only a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 chance for the civilians to blow up the facilities, so you may have just been lucky.

I made no extensive test but I took Palembang five times in AI or PBEM games and never had more than 20 centers disabled here. When I applied the same method elsewhere (Balikpapan for example, or Java) it works too, while when I didn't I usually took bases with at least partial damage. So I would say for all big ressource/oil centers I have applied it about 15 times and it always worked.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:00 am
by pauk
ORIGINAL: Roman Jr.

The oil Balikpapan oil refinery was blown up by Dutch civilians, so maybe the game is accurate if it allows for the possibility of oil being destroyed even if there are no engineers there.

It's modeled in the game - you could get oilfields damaged although no eng are present there - it happends to me several times.

I agree what Amiral, Ozyong and others said about caputring oilfields. But certainly there is some dice roll too.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:25 am
by tabpub
ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Thanks i will try to go for Palabang Quikly[:)]

Ask Herbie what happened to Palembang in our game....it's Jan '43 and I don't think that he has it back over 100 producing yet...
Notice that you lost over 200 of 300 in Brunei in our game it looks like based on reports.

<goes back to wiring charges in Palembang in game with Przemcio231>

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:43 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel




Did you honestly expect to get one?

Why not?

A nearly two year long pattern of ignoring questions from players by the developers.

You may be right! HEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYY!! Answer the damned question.

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:21 pm
by Mr.Frag
ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think it was Mogami who mentioned that a certain percentage of supply at a base gets destroyed when captured. I can't find any reference to this anywhere...
Well? Anyone got an answer for me?[:)]

Did you honestly expect to get one?


Hmm, so ... you get an answer from mogami and thats not good enough? [:D]


RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:23 pm
by Mr.Frag
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker




Why not?

A nearly two year long pattern of ignoring questions from players by the developers.

You may be right! HEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYY!! Answer the damned question.


And now we get hostile about it [:D]

To re-answer again (and probably get acused on not answering later [:D]

Yes, damage is done to supplys/fuel when a base is captured. It is built in ... you can't influence it (aka this is not Russia playing scorched earth)

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:28 pm
by Nick E
How about an official answer to the question of whether the number of engineers influence oilfield damage, and if so whether disrupted engineers count for that number? Are engineer squads any more effective than ordinary engineers?

RE: Oil Fields Damage...

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:34 pm
by Mr.Frag
How about an official answer to the question of whether the number of engineers influence oilfield damage, and if so whether disrupted engineers count for that number?


Official On

Yes, No

Official Off