Will oil be represented?

[unmerged(4959)]

Originally posted by Saladin
They wouldn´t have to waste so much time surveing since the major oilfields were surveyed and most of the oil was very easy to tap compared to other sources. And the if the German would play their cards right the locals would cooperate. And if I remember correctly there is a rail-line between Baghdad and Istanbul, maybe Hannibal can get us a link. There is also a possibility to capture the oilfields in a paradrop and thus hinder the Brits from smashing them up.

All of this is woolly conjecture. There is no evidence that the Germans were seriously interested in capturing the Middle East for its oil (the Caucasus is a different matter), and for the good reason that there was no clear way for them to exploit its resources even if they could get hold of them undamaged.

 

[unmerged(511)]

I agree with you but it would have been a very interesting scenario, even if they couldn´t have shipped the oil back by rail they could have used the oil to supply the forces that would try to break into the Caucasus. But you are right it would not changed anyting or would have made matters even worse because of the larger front they would have to defend....

 

[Prufrock451]

OIL... MUST... BE... IN... GAME.

This focus on Hitler's brilliant (cough, cough COUGH) strike towards the Caucasus while trying to simultaneously advance along the entire Russian front is drawing attention away from the real, crying need for an accurate modeling of oil.

In 1941, Roosevelt embargoed oil shipments to Japan. This set the timer on a military showdown- without US oil, Japan could NOT maintain its military readiness. This is why Japan attacked the US. This is also why Japan attacked south, to capture oil supplies in the Dutch East Indies (and rubber from Malaya), instead of joining the war against the USSR. If Japan had not attacked when it did, it would have been forced to sharply curtail its military adventurism and pull back from conquests in China, which was FDR's intention.

If you free Japan from the need for oil, you completely wreck the historicity of the game. Without oil or rubber, you can't field a modern army. Period.

 

[unmerged(6473)]

I absolutely agree with the above statement--very wise comment.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Just from reading this thread it seems that there is a consenses that Oil should be in the game. I couldn't agree more with the posts above that it was the main reason that the war in the Pacific even occured

So with that in mind would you want to just use it to fuel your panzers and ships? and/or would you want to use it along with the other resources to produce units. I.e. a Panzer Division costs x iron, y rubber and z oil.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

I think oil is the one resource which merits separate treatment. It should be used for consumption and production, just as in World in Flames (consumption being an optional rule). I am sure it's in the game.

Obviously, synthetic oil plants must be simulated. Equally, strategic bombardment should be able to destroy oil resources and synth plants. (Engineers then needed to repare those installations in a fair amount of time).

 

[Berkut]

Isn't the emphasis on obtaining resources and denying them to your enemy what seperates the operational level from the strategic?

I can't really imagine a strategic level wargame where the primary goal is not the aquisition of resources, and I can't imagine a WW2 strategic wargame that does not give special treatment to oil as the primary resource that was fought over.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(2005)]

Of course, the economic side is critical in a grand strategy game, particularly of WWII. I suggest nothing else. World in Flames does very well in portraying the close relationship of military success and production and vice versa. The question is however to what detail this should be simulated. I am personally sceptical about having a multitude of commodities.

Oil is the one big exception that has to be simulated. If more detail is in the game, then it must be taken charge of by a logistical AI, as otherwise the player will be burdened with excess micromanagement - which would wreck such an RT game.

One must simply acknowledge that RT imposes limitations not necessarily found in Turn-Based Mode. I personally would have much preferred a tunr-based game as the scale of WWII and the nature of continuous front warfare is quite different from the field campaigns of the EU era. Ok, I won't fuss about RT, but one has to bear the consequences of a more limited depth of certain aspects of the game. And quite frankly, I think with oil as a seperate resource, this particular aspect is already given enough attention. World in Flames also has no further detail and it is the pinnacle of WWII gaming, so I believe.

 

[unmerged(9129)]

Originally posted by StJaBa
I want to know as USA, will I be able to give oil to Russia and UK. I read somewhere that US provided 95% of allied Oil.

Venezuela provided 60% of the oil USA used... hmm let me explain it with other words... 60% of the oil used by USA came from Venezuela.