Please vote: Sub oil consumption

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Please vote: Sub oil consumption

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:56 pm

We see that one reason the Germans won't build a big wolfpack is that the subs burn too much oil and therefore you can't afford to have them attacking as much as you would. In the game against Supermax and Morris then Supermax said the main reason he didn't build more subs and used them aggressively against convoys and US transports was that he needed every oil point he could to stop the Russians. So sub oil consumption hindered him from using the subs against the Allies. That meant the Allies didn't feel the need to build DD's, CV's and other naval units to escort the transports and convoys. Thus you get the problem with big Allied land invasions in 1941 / 1942.

Subs didn't burn a lot of oil compared to e. g. air and armor units. So maybe we should alter the sub oil consumption. It seems subs pay 1 oil for movement, but not for attacking. Players seem to be reluctant to move their German subs each turn because then you burn 6 oil if you have 6 subs. Maybe you won't even find any convoys to attack. It could be better to just let the subs burn oil when they do attack. The sub patrolling was a bit different than we can simulate in GS. In the real war the subs were assigned sections to patrol and when a convoy was spotted all subs not too far from the convoy were given the order to sail to the area and attack. So subs seemed to burn most oil in attack runs and not patrolling.

Please vote

1. Sub oil consumption
a. 1 oil for each move (as now)
b. 0 oil for each move, but 1 oil for each attack instead
d. 0.5 oil for each move and 0.5 oil for each attack
e. Other solution (please suggest).

Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Post by Blathergut » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:10 pm

b..1 per attack

Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Post by Plaid » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:38 pm

e.

In my game I had endless pit of 700+ increasing oil and 6 high tech subs, and still they were full time busy fighting Morris' surface ships in atlantic without chance to go for convoys.

Am I supposed to build 6 more with some mysteriously gained PPs and send them to convoy ways? :shock:

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

vote

Post by supermax » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:06 pm

i vote b

amcdonel
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:48 pm

Post by amcdonel » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:03 pm

I vote b.

Thanks!

rkr1958
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:20 am

Post by rkr1958 » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:10 pm

1. Sub oil consumption - a. 1 oil for each move and attack (as now)

Schnurri
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:39 pm

Post by Schnurri » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:12 pm

choose b

pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Post by pk867 » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:26 pm

I vote - a as now.

leridano
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

Post by leridano » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:08 am

Vote a, as now.


    zechi
    1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
    1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
    Posts: 763
    Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:42 pm

    Post by zechi » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:05 am

    I think the oil problems Supermax faces in the game with Morris are not unusual if the Germans are constantly attacking. I had no real oil problems with the Axis in my last few games, so I do not think anything should be changed, i.e. I vote 1a, but could live with 1b.

    PanzerGeneral
    Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
    Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
    Posts: 341
    Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:03 pm
    Location: Norway

    Post by PanzerGeneral » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:13 am

    I vote a.

    PionUrpo
    Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
    Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:29 pm
    Location: Helsinki, Finland

    Post by PionUrpo » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:25 am

    1. A

    Morris
    Major-General - Tiger I
    Major-General - Tiger I
    Posts: 2278
    Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

    Post by Morris » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:59 pm

    I vote e : 1 for move ,0 for attack

    Actually , I think it is not necessary to change .

    Cybvep
    Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
    Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
    Posts: 1259
    Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

    Post by Cybvep » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:58 am

    E. 0.5 per move, 1 per attack. Moving subs around should still cost some oil. A 50% decrease in oil consumption for moving subs is generous IMO and the 1 oil consumption per attack should even things out, i.e. the total oil consumption would be similar, but less oil would be wasted on just moving subs around.

    Post Reply

    Return to “Commander Europe at War : GS Open Beta”