Hitting strategic resource supplies?

[Holy.Death]

I am interested in how strategic resources will influence the strategic planning. There are examples from war where resources like oil, iron ore led to changes in planning. For example, oil made Hitler to order his troops to capture the Crimean Peninsula as Soviet bombers were hitting Romanian oil fields from there. Soviet oil fields were also important strategic goal as they fueled most of Soviet Union's war machines. It wasn't represented in game as well as it could've been. Sweden was trading its iron ore with Germany, making it important for Germany to protect its trade route against Soviet submarines launching attacks from Leningrad. Japan was relaying on import of food and resources to keep its economy stable, so food might be made a strategic resource.

Just a few examples. What do you think?

 

[Cybvep]

It's already fully possible to bomb strategic resources and "standard" resources, too. The AI isn't very good at it, though, and that's the problem. Also, in case of oil and fuel, it's far too easy to stockpile them and the airforce doesn't use enough.

In case of Sweden, the problem is that you don't need convoys for trade, because countries on the same continent can do it without using convoys (even the UK!), no matter what is their location. Also, Narvik is useless in-game.

 

[FOARP]

I am interested in how strategic resources will influence the strategic planning. There are examples from war where resources like oil, iron ore led to changes in planning. For example, oil made Hitler to order his troops to capture the Crimean Peninsula as Soviet bombers were hitting Romanian oil fields from there. Soviet oil fields were also important strategic goal as they fueled most of Soviet Union's war machines. It wasn't represented in game as well as it could've been. Sweden was trading its iron ore with Germany, making it important for Germany to protect its trade route against Soviet submarines launching attacks from Leningrad. Japan was relaying on import of food and resources to keep its economy stable, so food might be made a strategic resource.

Just a few examples. What do you think?

Strat-resources were a minor feature that didn't really work out - the AI couldn't "see" them so it wouldn't try to get them. Maybe they could be implemented better, but they could just as easily be left out.

 

[Secret Master]

In TFH, you could also send covert ops teams to sabotage strategic resources. Between covert ops and strategic bombing, you could periodically eliminate all strategic bonuses enjoyed by the enemy.

In some cases, this makes for some hilarious scenes. I sent my covert ops guys to sabotage German... horses. I guess the covert operation consisted of NKVD operatives methodically shooting them all and sending them to the glue factory under the watchful eye of the Gestapo.

 

[Holy.Death]

It's safe to assume that resources such as oil won't be gone, because that's a way of making sure players won't make their army entirely of mechanized forces. Unless we'll see a big change regarding industry then even "minor" resources (like coal, energy, metal, etc.) will remain. It could help the game a great deal if countries were "conscious" of their resource situation thus declaring war on weaker countries possessing those resources and then adding said resources to their lists of war goals. Cities could be made important by being manpower resource so cities would increase their importance just as well (they were only significant for ports, airfields or Victory Points), because losing them means less able bodies men to enlist. You don't even need a great mechanism for AI to execute. Simple "The Dog in the Manger" philosophy should suffice. Cutting off enemy from strategically important resources (oil, manpower, etc.) by all means possible (strategic bombings if frontline is too strong, capturing them if close to the front or front is weakened) will not only add these resources to the attacker, but also deprives them to the defender.