Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I played SC, SC2 and the bought all the expansions up to Patton, but Commander Europe at war then ruined SC for me. Why? Oil is the answer.

With oil as a major resource, Germany is no longer able to field massive panzer and motorized forces and likewise has to be careful with its air force, sub and surface fleets. While Commander Europe at war is not the best grand strategy game, the oil factor makes it the best European grand strategy game I’ve played. So my question to Carter is ‘will oil be included in this new game?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played SC, SC2 and the bought all the expansions up to Patton, but Commander Europe at war then ruined SC for me. Why? Oil is the answer.

With oil as a major resource, Germany is no longer able to field massive panzer and motorized forces and likewise has to be careful with its air force, sub and surface fleets. While Commander Europe at war is not the best grand strategy game, the oil factor makes it the best European grand strategy game I’ve played. So my question to Carter is ‘will oil be included in this new game?”

You may misunderstand the Oil Factor. It is Right, that Oil was THE primary goal in Axis ( and Allied ) Grand Strategy, but you may underestimate the capacity of Coal to Liquid processes that Axis developped, and the resources they actually archieved.

If most of the Facilities would not have been bombarded by UK/US the Oil problem for Axis would have stand as a low Priority.

Following Capacities: Polands Oilfields, Romanian Well Known Oilfields, and IG Farben AG, the Coal to Liquid Company, the biggest ever German Shareholder Company with enormous capacities.

For Japan it was a similar situation, as soon as the Dutch East Indies where under Control, and the resources would not have been sabotaged ever, the Oil problem would have been at a low priority.

The "oil Factor" is in fact a tactical issue, not a Strategical, as the resources are "there" but must be hold on a low productivity if Allies want to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some precision on the Axis "Resources" independization.

Axis forced this with the production not only of Synthetic Gasoline / Diesel, but also Syntetic Rubber ( Buna ) as well as Syntetic Plastics ( Polyamide Called: Perlon )

Also mention a detail on the US Rubber that is not mentionned in the English Wiki, but only the German ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber )

is that Standart Oil of New Jersey was accused of Homeland Treachery as it posessed the Patents of IG Farben and didn t want to give them for free for the US War Machinery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of my original post has been lost. Germany did not have the fuel resources available to build a highly motorized/mechanized army, hence most of the German army was horse drawn. This also affected strategic planning (not just tactical) as fuel supplies played a critical part in offensive operations. In the game, as oil is not included, Germany is able to have massed motorized formations that fly through the Russian countryside. In truth the vast bulk of the infantry was never able to keep up with the Panzer divisions. Also bringing fuel to the front required use of motorized transport that in itself used fuel, not a problem if you have oodles of the stuff. I read somewhere that in North Africa the amount of fuel delivered to Rommel’s troops was equal to amount needed to move it.

This also brings us to the point raised by PowerGmbH that oil wasn’t really all that important as the axis had enough?!? Germany never had enough and was living off its pre-war reserves right up to 1943 when for the first time its domestic production exceeded that of its consumption. Prior to that oil received from the soviets and captured in France was what kept it mobile. After 1943 the allies started to bomb fuel facilities heavily and hence the fuel shortage. In short, if you are using 125% of what you produce then at some point you will have curtail operations and offensives, and even reduce commitments on fronts to favor others, strategic concerns, not tactical ones.

I found this an interesting read: http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-role-of-synthetic-fuel-in-world-war-ii-germany-implications-for-today/

Now I know that for these games to be fun you need to have the ability to make choices that the real combatants didn’t, for example, spend massive amounts on equipping you divisions with trucks. But in truth the only totally mechanized army in the world in 1939 was the British and later the Americans, even the Russians never fully equipped their regiments with motor transport.

I also agree with Nupremal that the manpower modelling in CEAW is one of the best I’ve seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just made motorization a +30% cost. For the allies this isnt a problem to motorize, for the axis... its a problem... their strength is in their initial military might and training early in the game. They must advance as far as possible before the allied industrial machine overwhelms them.

As for oil. Well there are elegant solutions to it without making the game complex.

#1 oil limits how many air/naval missions you can do in a turn.

#2 oil limits how many air units you can have on the board.

#3 oil affects the quality of combat for air units based on the # of units on the board.

#4 oil affects production (as it is now).... abstractly it works because the Axis will build more land units than anything else and sacrifice airpower and ships... so it works well.

Fairly easy to implement.

Just my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, oil and manpower is definately good for this type of game. I never had time to get into the Commander series but what would u say is the difference in gameplay, is that game as good as SC? Who played CEAW? I've heard nothing but good things.

Did CEAW have some "pool" of manpower for the entire game? Along with "oil"? Guess it just divided out resources.

I never played commander series due to lack of time. In addition to oil and manpower, what was the good sides and bad sides compared to SC series?

Please let me know, battlefront since '02,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple is nice, and yes other games have some preferred features. I remember Grigsby's WaW build Q, pay as you go with manpower restrictions, and CEAW's convoy system, all good.

But overall, however abstracted, you can emphasize what you as a gameplayer feels is important in SC. The editor is the best out there. I clamored like hell for Hubert to get the editor done well with scripts and design flexibility back in the SC1 days. He did not disappoint me.

Many times I have played as Axis and got to Mobility 2 level and no way could I afford to upgrade all my units, abstracted yes, but SC captures the feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The downside of CEAW was no diplomacy and limited options for editing and map making - i.e. designing your own stuff is harder. No special scripts and incidents. Also, invasion was too easy (amphibious). Advantages were the combat system, tech system, the manpower and oil rules. Weather was also absent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maverik if you were to have oils true historical effect included in the game(s)then there really would be no point.The Axis would loose everytime.

Here are the production figures for the two sides:

Total Allied production:1Billion 43 million metric tons

Total Axis production:67 Million metric tons

Japan even after they had conquerd all that they did were always in a deficit of about 11 million barrels a year.So the fact that Japan is even allowed to move let alone use all her naval forces towards the end of the war in SC.P.T.O.is WAY off base,especially if the Allies have re-captured or bombed into submission all the oil fields Japan conquers.

Germany was actually in a small surplus untill near the end.Problem with Germany is that she couldnt refine it all because her refinerys were being bombed.

With Japan the Allies were simply sinking her oil tankers.Oil is no good to you if you cant get it to the refinerys and the refinerys have to be in working order and you have to have enough of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aesopo it would be more historically accurate but it really would have a HUGE effect on the game.All the Allies have to do is just bomb all of Japans oil wells and Japan is done.They would be so restricted in movement that they would need to add sails to all their warships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello gentlemen, here is masterclaude , humble servant in the Wargame Kingdom. First of all, I must say it is a pleasure to see Real Global finally on the menu. After some years of uncertainty, you bet our appetite got stronger and I guess for many guys the plate will have to be full to meet higher and higher expectations. With an Oil taste for instance! I do agree with them to some extent but let’s have a second look!

As the SC serie unfold with a set of improvements, not ground-breaking thorough changes but all good in essence, I kind of feel SC has its Market niche well established and should not drift away. I mean this a low-complexity game giving a good playground for the average wargame customer. Fine and I will buy Global no matter what it’s included or discarded.

It is probably unwise and premature to compare Global to other games according to the Battlefront public pages displaying some classical selling sentences stuff but I will! . All in all, it seems we have continuity here, a safe approach with a familiar design and gameplay. Maybe there is a lot more invisible candies in the bag. but let’s face it : THIS SERIE IS ABOUT GOOD GAMING EXPERIENCE NOT ABOUT A DEEP RESEARCHED WW2 REALISTIC SIMULATION.

We are talking here of a game inspired by a WW2 thematic not a project to bring into a game a detailed and 100% faithful political and military model of WW2 on a strategic or operationnal scale. This has yet to be seen in the computer Wargame kingdom although we have some serious operationnal designs contenders out there deserving some stars., not so much on a strategic scale:

- Commanders at War?

Yes, It has good points but what a poor AI! At least SC2 AI can hold a front or launch an offensive. Don’t forget: in our hobby, games played against a computer opponent count for more than ¾ of all the play time spent.

Moreover, SC2 editor makes the other ones laughable

- Making History?

Very good looking! ( but I prefer ladies) Yes, the map is outstanding, the ecomic model very interesting – despite totally incorrect figures- but is it a wargame at all? From a strict point of view , I would say No. Warfare is just a side show in this game, not a Patton or Guderian challenge, more a Marshall or Speer ones

- Time of Wrath?

Not a Winner but , despite what have been said, the potential is there. Matrix didn’t do its job and let the hard-working Polish team struggling with an incredibly unfriendly interface to handle a montruous package of units, hexes and loads of economical and political factors blended into microscopic windows. Still, the game beats SC2 in many areas but is not as FUN and EASY. In short, too much with too little too early

A World Divided, GGrigsby ?

Well done job, for sure. Clean and Professional. Fun and Easy! Just a small problem here: replayability. I read in a review somewhere ( The Gamers or Armchairs general ) saying a strong point of GGWD was its replayability! I pinched myself! With no less than 10 games behind, any half-awaked player has found out the optimal strategy for both the Axis and the Allies and thereafter games just look like a script running and repeating itself time after time ( one typical phrase of AAR over that forum is Same old Same! Pretty telling isnt it?) To be fair, I must point out, GGWD patches not only fix bugs but bring substantial well-thought changes .

- Hearts of Iron3

I have not played HoH3, only HoH2. Players are quickly submerged by these realtime games huge flow of data to deal with second after second, in the end loosing the big picture and loosing control of their own units. You like or dislike it. I had a good time with shorter scenarios and, say, the first 2 years of grand campaigns then it becomes increasingly tedious as you chase and gather reports on every unit ( a lot!) , in a galaxy of changing percentage with the time of the day, the weather for each operation, the evermoving enemy not to mention your own guys often loose like butterflies and the bombarding pop-ups about economical and political affairs evolution. In brief, the real problem, as far as I am concerned, is not the work load of a game like that but, as an intellectual challenge, does it really bring into life the kind of war management leaders based their decision on or is it just a brain drill like a gigantic colourful Sudoku? It could be forgiven if HoH2 would be based on authentic specs and figures of WW2 and gives players a better feel of battles than just throwing numbers at other numbers but , beyond all this celebrated massiv encyclopedia, there is not much realism. Just for the record, Russians sometimes run out of oil after 6 months while Germans achieve Barbarossa without oil worries. How strange? In conclusion, like Making History, HoH is not a warfare simulation ( even Paradox warns people on the very first pages of the game manual: not a WW2 simulation, just a game) . What do I mean by warfare simulation? As the High command incarnation, I can set my units in specific spots with specific support to reach a specific objective in a given period and ADJUST my main effort to the circumstances of the battle developping before my eyes with assets and info available to commanders within a detailed front context . With HoH, you know the initial conditions of the battle. Once it has begun, you live or die with the result since there is no way to truly analyze what is going on. You get the traditionnal “ our troops won!” or the reverse and then look for a cup of coffee and aspirins

But that is a game of another magnitude with a different and larger crowd to support it.. In that sense, Paradox can afford to take some risk with its revamped 3rd edition.

We know SC2 has reached more or less its Engine limit and scenario limit. In plain words, operationnal SC2 scenarios are entertaining but cannot compete with dedicated operationnal games for realism. There’s a feel of déjà vu, once you played, say 10 scenarios, so adding every WW2 battles does not make the game more appealing. New features do. So, What about Oil? Would that give SC2 the edge on a strategic level?

I know how primordial is Oil as a resource ( apart from the generic economic points pool called ppm here) with specific effects on units mobility, units strength through supply level – less fuel, less trucks for rear lifeline- and countries war industrial output as well ( think of indispensable lubricants and chemicals needed for so many weapons production ) Modeling that adequatly would be rather tough and a bit of a structural imbalance in any grand WW2 scenario as Sir Arado underlined. As a matter of fact , we all know it is rather easy to deprive Axis powers from Oil. Then, I hear you say: “ So what! Aren’t we playing a WW2 game with straigth WW2 political, economical, military conditions?”

The answer is: no, we are not. As I wrote above, SC2 is a playground with military units for toys. Take SC2 maps for instance, roughly representing countries, islands, landscape, economic centers. Obviously theses maps have been drawned to help gameplay with regards to SC2 mechanisms and requirements of a balanced campaign so, for instance, 4 units can land onto french Bretagne shores even though Bretagne has a grotesque size compared to English shores almost unrecognizable as such, etc. Have a glance at the Global screenshots. Believe it or not, a unit ( 50 000 men minimum at Global scale) can cross the entire 2500 km Australian Western Desert with a road there and a providential supply source, thanks to Alicesprings! You have tons of those gamey WW2 shaped-like fantasy melted into this game system for players entertainment and the sake of simplicity. You get my point. Bringing Oil and other goodies into play means more micro-management, terrible turn-length for players and AI while the game engine pushed to limits deals with bigger campaigns crawling its way through hundreds of units and supply or tactical values calculation. No, let’s keep it simple. That said, I have to rectify, for Sir PowerGbh benefit, some of his statement.

Oil is defenitely a strategic issue much more than a tactical one since operationnal- tactical games portray battles where antagonists have pre-determined oil depot value. So the player has control over his units oil consumption not the quantity of oil available each turn. It is beyond the battlefield commander power. On a strategic scale, access to oil is one of the main if not The MAIN economic concern guiding political and military moves of countries leaders. Having Oil sprite with a 30 ppm value does not translate for the economy and at the front into real effects of oil shortage. Let’s say, as Germany, you loose Rumania to the Russians in 42 but you conquered UK. Good, you have as many ppm as you had before Bucharest fell to the Soviet but , actually, the real German economy and troops fighting capacity would be greatly impaired. SC2 cannot reproduce this with a generic ppm system.

As for the question of German and Japan oil autarky, your sources or your reading of the WW2 economic statistic might have misled you. Ertzatz oil as they called it was, indeed, produce on a large scale in Germany but hydrohygenisation plants until Stalingrad defeat were not contributing significantly to Oil reserve for military operations. Without Rumanian oil, Germany would have had to sue peace. Yes, with her early conquests Germany plundered huge quantity of fuel but reserves had always been low even on the ewe of Barbarossa. Resorting massivly to rail transport kept the army operationnal but many of the most dramatic decisions in large offensive planning as soon as 42 have been based on Oil supply limitation.

Zidatelle plan, for instance, was chosen, among other reasons, because Germans East front HQs staff including Manstein were well aware that No deep armor penetration was possible in the light of the catastrophic shortcomings in fuel supply during Fall Blau and the winter 42-43. This was a Tactical issue.

The decision of waiting until July 43 to launch the attack and stay on the defensive everywhere else was based, among others, on a STRATEGIC planning taking into account the necessity for higher oil reserve before engaging in major operations. So the OKW wasn’t just waiting for new tanks as we currently read on Zitadelle. It had to make sure Oil was available for intense activity on both front in that summer43. This was a Strategic issue.

Now should a strategic wargame devote a special place to OIL? Of course. Should SC2 includes an OIL feature affecting units capacity and countries unit production? I dont think so, not in its present state. Many other aspects of SC2 would then need to be changed .

People wants to have a bigger gloves compartment or anti-fog lights, air-conditionning, GPS, but no one seems to care much for the fact the Car has no radiator, no brakes, no suspension but the Car is comfortable for a short drive in an empty parking lot . Why going on the higways or in heavy traffic? Much less intimidating to drive slowly up and down a parking lot, isnt’it?

No serious strategic WW2 game can ignore theses basic features:

- Limited strategic transportation capacity for both Sea and Land

-Replenishment limitations for units and resources rebuild limitations

-Manpower limitation for both military forces and industrial capacity

-Convoy shipping limitations ( tonnage availability) for trade

-Separated industrial capacity for Naval, Land and Air unit construction with technological level for each type and each center to determine where and which units can be built or refit.

-Isolated supply source( not connected to another city or port) with automatic decreasing value

-Port capacity limitations for type and size of fleet, type and size of unit embarked or disembarked , size of convoy

There are many more and, you see, bringing all theses features to the present SC2 engine would not be possible even if M. Cater would try. So, no oil!

What is a “beer and Pretzels” game? Every one comes with its definition so I can’t tell! But, for sure, I don’t want Global to become a “coffee and aspirins” game. So, I stick to my first opinion stated last summer: Keep the game simple but give as many options as possible in the Editor. Wow! Congratulations Gentlemen you read me until the end! Thank you and have a good time with or without oil!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

How refreshing it is masterclaude to read your summation, we are obviously on a parallel plain here.

My one question. When will you design a WW2 simulation?:)

OK, one is never enough. Don't you think that ToW's strong suit is its land combat model? Seems to me it was originated as an operational scale game that tried to expand into the strategic role, but just didn't quite make it. Maybe SoP!:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

masterclaude how long did it take for you to type that,Wow.Very well thought out.

Re-my source on oil.It came from John Ellis book:WW2The Encyclopedia of facts and figures.

The quotes I gave were for Crude only.Even(like you say)if you include all synthetic and captured stocks the Axis(especially Japan)had no hope.The synthetics did help but it was never enough.Oil if included as an absolute would make it impossible for the Axis to even have a hope to win.What then would be the point of playing.

Sc2 and SC P.T.O.(havent played the world game yet)are fun and are still real hard(Germany does have an easier time then Japan)for the Axis to win(as they should be).Imho maybe they could use some tweeking but overall they are great(the best ive ever played)at being real fun and not to complicated.I dont know if you masterclaude have ever played Squad Leader,but that was the closet ive ever come to playing a game with absolute realism.Another game I really enjoyed was Third Reich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is masterclaude. I played Squad leader a long long time ago but tactical games are not my cup of tee. Many old fans switched to ASL and the new generation prefers Combat Mission type action games. Squad leader is a good school though that provides familiar not too abstract wargaming tasks most people may enjoy. There has never been too many wargamers, you know! Squad leader helped it that department. Recruiting guys for grand strategy games is an achievement in itself and after years of preaching in the desert, I realized accessible games like SC2 were the only solution.. Yes, SC2 is not realistic but any addition that would complicate matters should be weighted carefully or we are going to end up in a no man’s land facing mister AI again. As for realism, I guess Squad leader got closer to a playable model than any other boardgame but Grand strategy games are much more demanding in design terms. When creating a game like 3dR, You have to integrate so many variables and deal with so much data, it is unavoidable to err one way or the other and who can afford to spend years of testing a design? I did my own WW2 Grand strategic board games on a 30 km scale map as large as 2 ping pong tables. It took 10 years to get it right and needless to say, no one beside me can play it. Way too complex! But very realistic! After 1½ years of solitaire gaming where I managed to reach spring 42 after nearly 70 turns ( 2 weeks/ turns) I threw the towel! It is somewhere in a box...

That brings me to Sir Sea Monkey speculation over a Toaw Grand strategy scenario.

You bet I tried to make one! But, as you said, Toaw design improperly catches the feel of the 3 arms ( even SC2 has a better naval and air system) and, above all, has no political or economical factors players may consider other than script events that could change replacement rates or supply. Some modders scenarios( like Europaflame, tested and refined for 10 years) are interesting for Pbem as long as the players agree on many house rules, stuff like “you can’t invade Norway before april 40”. So, you see, no political consequence. No strategic warfare ( bombers or U-boat) is possible so, for instance, modders have scripts reducing your reinforcement at some point. Well, it works somehow but SC2 is better. On the other hand, most operationnal scenarios ( there hundreds of them!) are fine but bigger ones ( 1000 to 2000 units with 300 to 400 turns) are not playable neither by Pbem or against the AI. By the way, Toaw AI can deliver good punch if well scripted. I rewrote some scenarios AI like Fall Gelb and it plays historical now but 90% of Toaw scenarios I played (around 35) simply lacks any decent AI scripting. Well! Hot seat is what I really like since you can share right away your gaming session emotions with your opponent and beat him up for real if he’s doing too well ! Fortunatly, I have a good lawyer and a good nurse. I’d rather have more wargamers in town!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masterclaude, I see your talents run into the amusing arena also, what a hoot! I'm especially fond of the Hotseat, playing against my son and two nephews sometimes does involve a wrestling match. Luckily its been awhile, at my age the pain doesn't retire quickly enough.:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey masterclaude - my global version of the Pacific version works well I think - take a look at it from the downloads repository. I have completed a good number of games. Now, my latest is set up for an "objectives" style game - which I am about to test. The game mechanism does not support this so that has to be done manually - but it should be workable if we play mirror games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the oil and manpower features of CEAW are somewhat overrated. Do they have so much to offer in comparison to hard build limits? As Germany, you can basically either build more infantry (save oil and burn manpower) or more armour (save manpower and burn oil). In the end, you have to settle for a compromise, just like with hard build limits. When the germans take the Caucasus and ME the oil constraints are lifted, but then again, it's game over for the allies anyway, just like in SC.

CEAW and ToW lack headquarters (very big minus, since it's one of the best features of SC), roads and railways. And it's impossible to bomb supply sources. And there are no convoy lanes (I've seen no other system which manages to reproduce the "hide and seek game" of sub warfare).

In SC, the maps are made with gameplay in mind. For example, Copenhagen is exactly 12 tiles away from the nearest UK port (transport movement limit). Oslo is 11 tiles away (so you can land and invade from the UK in two turns) and so on. This makes the game more compelling and interesting. In ToW (and to a lesser extent in CEAW) I often get the feeling of simply pushing vast number of units in the general direction of the enemy. I guess I'm just overwhelmed, I'm certainly bored. What does the huge map add to strategy and gaming experience? IMO nothing SC doesn't already have.

I never had the courage to finish a game of ToW. Actually, the longest I made was late 1940. It's boring. And the system whereby you have to play different countries one after another is no good. Just makes everything last much longer.

SC2 is by far the best game for pbem gaming. Matrixgames GoA is another excellent little game.

I own all the games in the SC series, CEAW, ToW and HOI3. HOI3 is IMO a totally unplayable game. Invariably, you just end up adjusting sliders. It's just anoying. And I would imagine quite unplayable online. As someone already wrote, the "encyclopedia" feel adds nothing to realism.

I think stategy games have to be somehow credible, but they can't ever be historical. At least unecessary detail shouldn't be confused with historicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...