Is UK's Secure the Oil Imports focus too OP and makes no sense?

[Zeprion]

Isn't that focus a bit too OP and at the same time makes no sense?

It's OP because you get an easy wargoal on 4 different countries. Not even Germany has that kind of focus.

It doesn't make any sense because UK is democratic. I understand the rationale behind getting a wargoal in Iran and Iraq, but not for Netherlands and Venesuela, when considering that UK is democratic. If UK was fascist or communist, it would have made sense.

USA's old focus tree had a "Preemptive Intervention" focus that gives a wargoal on Venesuela was removed because it was deemed too OP. It wasn't changed to be exclusive for fascists or communist, it was completly removed. While UK's "Secure the Oil Imports" focus gives wargoals on: Netherlands, Venesuela, Iran and Iraq as a democratic nation and can be a achieved a lot earlier in the game than America's "Preemptive Intervention", this seems 10 times more OP.

 

[el nora]

It doesnt give a wargoal against Venezuela, merely claims. And democratic UK won't act on those claims.

The wargoals against Iraq and Iran can be justified by historical accuracy. The UK did invade both Iraq and Iran during WWII to secure their oil.

 

[Dlin369]

UK and France could be fairly cynical about who they invade - just because they were democracies didn’t mean they weren’t still colonial powers and were fighting a world war.

They invaded Iraq and Iran to secure oil imports and also had plans to invade Norway which they didn’t act upon. I’d say invading Venezuela would be more impractical but it’s a reasonable strategy for the government/national spirit the player represents to consider. Netherlands I don’t think should be invadeable unless they go fascist/axis

 

[Rashie]

A focus granting war goals on the Netherlands in the democratic branch should be locked under the prerequisite of the Dutch having gone communist or fascist, but there's historical basis for both Iran and Iraq there.

 

[Fulmen]

Isn't this in the Global Defense path where you prematurely replace Chamberlain with Churchill? The fact you eat -30% stability essentially for nothing you can't get from the regular historical path around the same time except for the oil focus, makes it just about the only somewhat decent one in an otherwise garbage sub-tree (shame because they could've done a lot more with the only at least mildly plausible alt-history tree they've made for Britain).

The UK did invade both Iraq and Iran during WWII to secure their oil.

It's worth mentioning that Iraq had a pro-German coup and Persia was being influenced by the Germans.

 

[bitmode]

USA's old focus tree had a "Preemptive Intervention" focus that gives a wargoal on Venesuela was removed because it was deemed too OP. It wasn't changed to be exclusive for fascists or communist, it was completly removed.

The justification for that focus was "stabilizing" the region against non-democratic threats. So it never made much sense for non-democratic USA to have it (nor was non-democratic USA really a consideration prior to MtG). For democratic USA it was OP because of the fast removal of huge national debuffs. Hence I don't think its removal indicates pre-emptive war goals being undesirable design-wise for democracies in general.

and also had plans to invade Norway which they didn’t act upon

I agree with you. Not wanting to go too philosophical, but the description of the NF Weserübung goes like this:

Norway is a critical strategic point and would be an obvious point of attack for any enemy wanting to disrupt our steel trade with Sweden. We cannot risk our enemies setting up bases in this region. To obtain a good staging area for the invasion of Norway we need to move on Denmark first.

If nothing else, the possibility of democracies to make aggressive choices serves is the sand-box translation of the other sides motivations.
Take the Purge as another, non-wargoal example. The civil war that results from not doing the purge is kind of dumb and does not have much justification when taken by itself. It is mostly intended to motivate the historical choice.

But as is usual in hoi4, there is a stark contrast between an abstract idea and its actual implementation:

        prerequisite = { focus = ENG_kickstart_the_war_industry }
        available = { 
            is_subject = no
            OR = {
                country_exists = IRQ
                country_exists = PER
                country_exists = HOL
                country_exists = VEN
            }
        }

That's hardly enough conditions to prevent the most obvious errors the focus might throw, not the (likely complex) requirements to make this focus a balanced choice.

 

[Zeprion]

It doesnt give a wargoal against Venezuela, merely claims. And democratic UK won't act on those claims.

The wargoals against Iraq and Iran can be justified by historical accuracy. The UK did invade both Iraq and Iran during WWII to secure their oil.

What about the Netherlands? UK gets a wargoal on the Netherlands. The UK AI may not act on it, but the UK player will. Unlike Iran and Iraq, this is not justified by historical accuracy.

As for alternative history. Iraq and Iraq had Axis-leanings, Netherlands did not.

 

[DicRoNero]

They invaded Iraq and Iran to secure oil imports and also had plans to invade Norway which they didn’t act upon. I’d say invading Venezuela would be more impractical but it’s a reasonable strategy for the government/national spirit the player represents to consider. Netherlands I don’t think should be invadeable unless they go fascist/axis

Far from just plans, as the landings and ensuing battles were often fairly simultaneous for both offensive sides.

You also miss Iceland in that list. A country of some 200k population in total was obviously a great threat for democracy.

 

[ThaHoward]

Naturally it was a threat. Once Germany had Norway they could much easier disrupt Allied shipping lanes and send bombers over north England. With Iceland they could even further threaten UK and the shipping.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Doesn't the US guarantee all of Latin America?

 

[Iskulya]

Nope, not OP in the slightest.

You have to go down the "No Further Appeasement" path, which includes a total stability hit of 45% and precludes having a silent workhorse(making this path a non-starter if you want to have the imperial federation in any reasonable amount of time). The ability to get wargoals on Iraq and Iran are one of the few things that make the path compelling, and it still comes out behind the normal historical route because you lose the silent workhorse. You'll also get fairly sizeable World Tension opinion penalties with democracies if you end up puppeting or annexing Iraq and Iran, which itself is a decent price to pay, especially if you plan on taking 'Maintaining Imperial Integrity"(which further reduces US opinion by -50, permanently).

What about the Netherlands? UK gets a wargoal on the Netherlands. The UK AI may not act on it, but the UK player will. Unlike Iran and Iraq, this is not justified by historical accuracy.

As for alternative history. Iraq and Iraq had Axis-leanings, Netherlands did not.

It's alternate history so there no point in talking about historical accuracy in the first place.

By the way, since this scenario is based on Churchill taking power, a pre-emptive war against another Democracy is hardly something unlikely. In fact, Churchill had contingency plans to declare war on Norway and considered the fact that the liberal democratic governments of Norway and Sweden could join the Axis in this scenario would be an acceptable price to pay for the strategic benefits. Churchill was a reckless strategist oftentimes, it's really not that far fetched at all imo; what is far fetched is him ousting chamberlain in 38 in the first place.

The Dutch part of it may have worked better and been more plausible if it was an ultimatum for either 1. Netherland joining the Allies immediately, or 2. Surrendering their colonies to the UK.

 

[Axe99]

UK and France could be fairly cynical about who they invade - just because they were democracies didn’t mean they weren’t still colonial powers and were fighting a world war.

They invaded Iraq and Iran to secure oil imports and also had plans to invade Norway which they didn’t act upon. I’d say invading Venezuela would be more impractical but it’s a reasonable strategy for the government/national spirit the player represents to consider. Netherlands I don’t think should be invadeable unless they go fascist/axis

While they (and, indeed, every nation, ever) followed perceived self-interest when it came to who they invaded, there were good reasons for Iraq and Iran, as others have mentioned. In Iraq and Iran, the UK had a substantial share of ownership* of the oil assets - as has been mentioned, Iraq had just had a pro-Axis coup, and was receiving aircraft from Germany via Syria. Iran was being influenced by German advisers at a time when the USSR was being pushed hard by the German invasion, and Iran also was the location of British-owned oilfields that were very important to their oil supply. The Iranian oilfields/refinery at Abidjan (from memory - could be off - can look up as necessary) were arguably the most prominent reason for the importance of the Indian Ocean in British strategy.

* There are, of course, all sorts of complicated questions of what counts as fair ownership in the colonial era - I'd argue that's a bit too much for this thread, and unnecessary, as the point is the UK considered it had a right to access those supplies.

Far from just plans, as the landings and ensuing battles were often fairly simultaneous for both offensive sides.

You also miss Iceland in that list. A country of some 200k population in total was obviously a great threat for democracy.

There's no question the Germans moved first, and had far more polished plans - in many cases the British units sent over had been hastily arranged and were poorly equipped for the job at hand. Britain had plans, but Germany moved first. In both cases, they had an interest - Germany to protect its iron ore trade (which relied on ships being able to transit the Norwegian coast in winter, which British mining of those coastal lanes threatened) and to give it U-boat bases with better access to the Atlantic (at the time of the invasion no-one expected France to collapse like it did). As @ThaHoward well points out, there were concerns a similar German move on Iceland would create substantial issues for the Atlantic supply routes on which Britain depended - while supplying Iceland would have been a challenging ask for Germany as well, the occupation of Iceland was a defensive move by the British (while their plans for Norway would have very much been an aggressive move).

 

[Caeric]

Whilst probably not overpowered, I think the situation could probably be handled better via an ultimatum event chain, where if said nations do not comply with demands or cannot negotiate a compromise Brittain gets a wargoal rather than gaining it straight away. Whilst strong-arming a nation into doing whichever they wish is definately in character, I do not think war would be the first solution to the problem unless negotiations break down.

 

[goodcigar]

I play 1936 startdate Historic mode. And I never see UK invade Iraq/Iran. It not work right.

Did UK own Oil in Iran too? I thought reason they invade Iran was to protect the Persian Lend Lease route to USSR.

 

[--Yigito123--]

Whilst probably not overpowered, I think the situation could probably be handled better via an ultimatum event chain, where if said nations do not comply with demands or cannot negotiate a compromise Brittain gets a wargoal rather than gaining it straight away. Whilst strong-arming a nation into doing whichever they wish is definately in character, I do no think war would be the first solution to the problem unless negotiations break down.

Maybe the ultimatum could involve Britain automatically winning the trade influence minigame of the Netherlands if they accept. The focus "Cave to the British" forces the Dutch to export less resources, decreases trade relations with Germany and locks them out of going down any non-democratic focus path. Demanding the Netherlands to complete this focus via event seems pretty fitting for a "No Further Appeasement" Britain.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

There are technically focuses on the historical route for the UK to intervene in Iraq and Iran if they begin going communist/fascist (will basically never happen outside of MP, but it’s the intent).

The oil imports securing on the Churchill No More Appeasement route is more-so about pre-emptively securing the loyalty and oil of the already heavily-British-influenced regimes to secure oil supply during or as prelude to a broader war to prevent any nationalist adventures (as happened in historical WWII). As others have said, it should probably send an ultimatum demanding puppeting.

As for the Netherlands, as others have said, an ultimatum to stop trading with the Axis would probably make more sense, perhaps backed by the threat of occupying the Curaçao oil refineries (remember in WWI the Entente basically blockaded the mainland Netherlands beyond what was needed for domestic consumption to maintain the integrity of their blockade on Germany).

As to the other question of the OP though, as others have said, it isn’t overpowered at all given the costs/missed opportunities the route comes with compared to Home Defence.

 

[Zeprion]

There are technically focuses on the historical route for the UK to intervene in Iraq and Iran if they begin going communist/fascist (will basically never happen outside of MP, but it’s the intent).

The oil imports securing on the Churchill No More Appeasement route is more-so about pre-emptively securing the loyalty and oil of the already heavily-British-influenced regimes to secure oil supply during or as prelude to a broader war to prevent any nationalist adventures (as happened in historical WWII). As others have said, it should probably send an ultimatum demanding puppeting.

As for the Netherlands, as others have said, an ultimatum to stop trading with the Axis would probably make more sense, perhaps backed by the threat of occupying the Curaçao oil refineries (remember in WWI the Entente basically blockaded the mainland Netherlands beyond what was needed for domestic consumption to maintain the integrity of their blockade on Germany).

As to the other question of the OP though, as others have said, it isn’t overpowered at all given the costs/missed opportunities the route comes with compared to Home Defence.

Good points.
You get wargoal on Iran and Iraq which is historical.
You get claims on Venezuela which is not a wargoal.
The only one I still have a problem with and find too OP is the wargoal on Netherlands.

An ultimatum to stop trading with Germany that the Dutch AI will always accept seems more balanced and reasonable.
Only get a wargoal if Netherlands goes for "Cave in to the Germans" or becomes fascist/communist.

I find that taking this focus early and having a foothold in mainland Europe before Germany invades France quite OP.

 

[Axe99]

I play 1936 startdate Historic mode. And I never see UK invade Iraq/Iran. It not work right.

Did UK own Oil in Iran too? I thought reason they invade Iran was to protect the Persian Lend Lease route to USSR.

The British had specifically developed the Abadan oilfields as a key source of British-owned (The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) petroleum products in case of war or disruption to other supplies. In 1939, Abadan produced about as much oil as the Dutch East Indies, and not much less than Royal Dutch-Shell in Venezuela (the British ownership component of Royal Dutch-Shell may well be where the Netherlands wargoal comes from, although I'm far too iffy on the details to be confident of this). Going from memory (but it can be looked up if necessary), while there had been plans to use the Abadan oil more broadly, due to shortages of tankers, and the availability of oil from the US and the Caribbean, the Abadan fields were primarily used to meet oil needs in the Middle East and Indian Ocean areas. In terms of it scale, Abadan produced more oil in the first 12 months of Japan's war on the Western Allies than Japan used herself (and, as Japan's activity declined, far more in the later years of the Pacific War).

The data used to make the comparisons above are from Peyton's Oil. A Study of War-time Policy and Administration, while the Japanese figures are from Evans' and Peattie's Kaigun.

Edit: Sorry if I sound a bit flat - it's not you Very much post-Christmas here! Iirc, the Persian lend-lease route wasn't established until after the Allies had taken over Iran, but (again, iirc), there was some concern that Iran falling into the Axis sphere of influence could let to big issues for the USSR, with many of their key oilfields not too far north of Iran's border (thus, securing Iran helped ensure that the Axis had to come at those oilfields the long way).

 

[Synicus]

I had been avoiding 'steady as she goes' starts when playing Turkey. This made for some very tough games, (SP alt) resulting in UK/Italy alliance most of the time.
I'm ok with 'Home defense' having conditions for the war goals, but 'Global defense' is just flat whether or not they exist all in one focus. The hope is Ai UK tries this after full decolonization and not in war time, but mostly not before I can conquer Iraq and Iran.
I have mixed feeling about it and don't know if the AI will consider logistics and timing. Player UK gaining an early foot hold does sound op if you can hold it.

 

[STABBY5]

It makes plenty of sense given that the British cared about neutrality about as much as the Germans. They invaded or threaten to invade all of these counties. Really the ideology restrictions and inability to declare war for democracies doesn't match up with how the world actually worked.