Suggestion: OIL consumption & upkeep

[Deadmoon]

One vital issue of the war was OIL and that´s no reflected in the game. Germany really had a problem with this and, in late war, their panzers mobility were reduced due the lack of fuel. Same problem with Italian Navy.

This is not reflected at all in the game. You could buy unlimited armoured and mechanised units without problems...i usually forget what they are (tanks and such) and tend to see them as the most powerful unit that i could buy (like a Command&Conquer game). Since there are no restrictions and additional costs i raise much more armoured units than historically possible.

Armoured, mechanised units and maybe air&naval too need to reflect this somehow. Tanks in ww2 era consume huge amounts of fuel...they were displaced to the front in railroad and move on his own in the battlefield. They doesn´t cross Europe on his own (nothing prevents to do that in the game).

One easy way to implement this is to add an upkeep cost in PP´s at the start of the turn for each mechanised unit you have.

A more complicated way (out of the scope, i fear) is adding "oil points (OP´s)" that would be consumed by this kind of units and placing oil fields in the map that provide you with such points (each nation always produce a minimum of OP´s + oil fields). This would make WW2:RTV a much more realistic game, adding the need for Germany to take the Caucasus, for example.

[doomtrader]

As I like the idea of Oil Points I think it doesn't fit to the simplicity of the game. We are standing at the position, that the game must be easy and quick to learn and I'm afraid that if we will add oil, there will be a pressure to add manpower, and so on.
 
We have already prepared upkeep feature and it will be dependable to the unit's strength value. Clear and simple, and if somebody doesn't like it, it can be modded.

[Deadmoon]

An upkeep cost would work for me...as armoured units have the most strenght they would cost more. Very nice!

[James Ward]

Does the game allow for different unit costs per nation and for the ability for that to change? If so you could mark some resource hexes as oil and if you lose one your cost for armour goes up. This would make a reason for going into the Caucases, for defending Polesti and the mid-East.

[Deadmoon]

Maybe a little complicated. It should be implemented without the need of adding new features.

Best way to solve that: place a couple of resource centers in the Caucassus, change their icon to an oil tower and make them worth a very generous amount of PP´s.

Afer all, PP´s are like coins and oil is "black gold" isn´t?

[doomtrader]

Does the game allow for different unit costs per nation and for the ability for that to change?

Each country will have it own parameter (moddable and changable trough events).

Best way to solve that: place a couple of resource centers in the Caucassus, change their icon to an oil tower and make them worth a very generous amount of PP´s.

I can do that

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Does the game allow for different unit costs per nation and for the ability for that to change?

Each country will have it own parameter (moddable and changable trough events).

Best way to solve that: place a couple of resource centers in the Caucassus, change their icon to an oil tower and make them worth a very generous amount of PP´s.

I can do that

We'll also need one in Poloesti, and two or three in Iraq

[balto]

You guys are all thinking up things that hurt the Axis.  You see my post about challenging Chuck to be Axis.  With Chuck's house rules, no one on the planet can defeat me as the Allies.  Because I have played a few million strategy games., everyone (consciously, or unconsciously) are borrowing features from other games.  All are losing site that the play balance needs to go to the Axis.   How about you make things easier on Axis instead of thinking of other games.

[Mike Parker]

Things that are easy to add to the game that can make it better should be done.  if the feeling is they balance it against one side, then adjustments can be made for that.  I am not convinced Oil needs to be added, but it would darn sure make the North Africa game more important.
 
Such an addition would have to be coupled with a balancing effect for the Axis certainly but because something that can be done will help one side more than the other doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.. it just should be done with some care.
 
As for borrowing from other games... WWII in Europe has been done many many times... even if you had an original idea, likely someone has done something very much like it in a WWII game before, so that is also no valid criticism of folks with suggestions.
 

[doomtrader]

Why do you think that adding this oil will hurt axis?

[cpdeyoung]

The only house rules (of mine) I know of are the following :
 

I recommend playing with a house rule summarized as :

Beligerent convoys to beligerent - Ok
Beligerent convoys to neutral - Ok
Neutral convoys to neutral - Ok
Neutral convoys to beligerent -Nope, except Lend lease.

 
These rules only limit the Allies, they in no way make anything available that are not in the game mechanics.
 
I also have never shipped from a neutral to the Soviets when they are neutral.  I would recommend this be added to the "house rules", but I do play with that stipulation and have never shipped a convoy from the USA to the Soviets except event allowed Lend Lease.
 
So I will now suggest the following rules (as used in the PBEM) :
 
Beligerent convoys to beligerent - Ok
Beligerent convoys to neutral - Ok
Neutral convoys to neutral, but not the USSR - Ok
Neutral convoys to beligerent -Nope, except Lend lease.
 
Chuck

[balto]

Mr. Doom,
 
About the why I think Oil will hurt Axis.  I assumed that Germany would be limited by what they get from Romania, and everyone else has tons of oil.   So only the Axis would be affected by this. 

[doomtrader]

balto, we are not going to implement oil as oil
we would like to add it as some PP, and of course we are able to increase the output when the hex with oil field is controlled by Germany as to simulate it's importance.

[Deadmoon]

Well...why balancing things for Axis? War isn´t "balanced". Sometimes you had no chance of winning...and that´s what i like in a wargame.

Things weren´t easy for Axis. They could never defeat the industrial production levels of Allied nations so, in certain way, they were defeated right from the start...when i play a ww2 simulation i don´t want to stick firmly to history but also i don´t expect to play a game where Axis takes over the world.

If playing as Axis and manage to take over Cairo and Moscow i usually lose interest in the game quickly...it´s way more fun conquer as much as you could and then start to collapse on all fronts due Allied pressure. It´s a more challenging game, fight against all odds and see how much could you resist or even fight back and keep Germany at the end.

I don´t want things to be balanced.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: balto

Mr. Doom,

About the why I think Oil will hurt Axis.  I assumed that Germany would be limited by what they get from Romania, and everyone else has tons of oil.   So only the Axis would be affected by this. 

What I would propose for 'oil' is the loss of an oil hex hurts you, it doesn't have to also benefit your opponent.
For example if you have 10 points worth of oil hexes in your original territory and you lose 5 then your costs, both initial and replacement, for armour double. This makes you protect your territory while also giving an incentive for your opponent to take it and HOLD it. If it is possible to drop the level of all existing armour units by some level based on how much oil you control this would be another way to have it in the game but still keep the game from getting overly complex. Something along those lines.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Deadmoon

I don´t want things to be balanced.

I want it all! [:)]

I think there needs to be a 'balance' just to be able to keep your interest. If Germany can plow through Russia and knock it out of the war before the end of 1941 then that is not much fun. Conversely if Russia can capture Poland by the end of 1941 that's not fun either.
We have the luxury of hindsight. Obviously Germany THOUGHT it could win at some point and they probably thought they might not at some point, at least the realists among them. The reverse was also true for the Allies to a degree. In many games this does not occur. The 'balance' should create a little of this. Germany should be able to win, provided they have a superior strategy and have luck at the exactly right time. It should be difficult and rare for them to conquer the UK or Russia. The Allies should feel that they are hanging on by a thread until 1942 and then feel that the tide has begun to turn.
If this could be done then THAT would be some great balance.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Deadmoon

Well...why balancing things for Axis? War isn´t "balanced". Sometimes you had no chance of winning...and that´s what i like in a wargame.

Things weren´t easy for Axis. They could never defeat the industrial production levels of Allied nations so, in certain way, they were defeated right from the start...when i play a ww2 simulation i don´t want to stick firmly to history but also i don´t expect to play a game where Axis takes over the world.

If playing as Axis and manage to take over Cairo and Moscow i usually lose interest in the game quickly...it´s way more fun conquer as much as you could and then start to collapse on all fronts due Allied pressure. It´s a more challenging game, fight against all odds and see how much could you resist or even fight back and keep Germany at the end.

I don´t want things to be balanced.

As I pointed out, above, there are things we can do to re-create the "happy times" ( as the ubootmensch called it) that the Reich had during the first few years of the war until the sky fell on them. But as you say, if you pick a fight with the three biggest dogs in the yard, you may end up somewhat chewed.
Boy, and I thought that MY ancestors were the only ones who did silly stuff like that! Must be a Central European kind of thing![:'(]

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: balto

Mr. Doom,

About the why I think Oil will hurt Axis.  I assumed that Germany would be limited by what they get from Romania, and everyone else has tons of oil.   So only the Axis would be affected by this. 

What I would propose for 'oil' is the loss of an oil hex hurts you, it doesn't have to also benefit your opponent.
For example if you have 10 points worth of oil hexes in your original territory and you lose 5 then your costs, both initial and replacement, for armour double. This makes you protect your territory while also giving an incentive for your opponent to take it and HOLD it. If it is possible to drop the level of all existing armour units by some level based on how much oil you control this would be another way to have it in the game but still keep the game from getting overly complex. Something along those lines.

I like this idea, James. Taking Polesti or Baku or the Iraqi oil field (from the Royal Navy) doesn't necessarily help you, at least not for a year or more. What it DOES do is gun-butt hammer the previous proprietor.
As for the balance issue, I think that we're all on essentially the same page here. The Nazis have essentially until about 6 months after the entry of the US into the war to win it. After that, its all down the chute to the garbage disposal.

[cpdeyoung]

Gentlemen,
 
What do you know that I don't?
 
I am playing a very fine player, who has plenty of ideas for foiling my Red Army, and the Allies enjoying their fish and chips.  Has anyone ever beaten Gary's Axis?  Does he just fold in six months or do I have to find a way to take the VP cities necessary to defeat him?  From where I sit there seem to be many decisions, and a heck of a lot of battle, before that desired end with the Axis in the "garbage".
 
Has anyone played a campaign to the end against a human?  Who won, how often?  Can I just coast forward in the assurance that this game is won?  Are there mistakes I could make which would cost me dearly?  I am pretty pleased with my position, but Gary does not seem to be folding yet.  What do you think should I offer him terms, or has that "unconditional surrender" edict happened yet?
 
Remember this is not the AI I am facing, and I think both humans in this game are far from ready to call the victor.  Much more important, we are having a ball.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Gentlemen,

What do you know that I don't?

I am playing a very fine player, who has plenty of ideas for foiling my Red Army, and the Allies enjoying their fish and chips.  Has anyone ever beaten Gary's Axis?  Does he just fold in six months or do I have to find a way to take the VP cities necessary to defeat him?  From where I sit there seem to be many decisions, and a heck of a lot of battle, before that desired end with the Axis in the "garbage".

Has anyone played a campaign to the end against a human?  Who won, how often?  Can I just coast forward in the assurance that this game is won?  Are there mistakes I could make which would cost me dearly?  I am pretty pleased with my position, but Gary does not seem to be folding yet.  What do you think should I offer him terms, or has that "unconditional surrender" edict happened yet?

Remember this is not the AI I am facing, and I think both humans in this game are far from ready to call the victor.  Much more important, we are having a ball.

Chuck

Chuck,
As for cruising forward in confidence of ultimate victory, that is my approach with Balto, having no other realistic hope (or any other kind of hope, whatsoever) of victory. I console myself with Churchill's statement that the only time he was ever anxious about the eventual outcome of the war was when he was worried about the Battle of the Atlantic. I figure that if I can keep Britain or even Ireland "German-free" the advent of the American PP's will eventually save me.
However, I take your point about a non-AI opponent.
Well, we'll see.