Page 1 of 1

Please vote: Sub oil consumption

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:56 pm
by Peter Stauffenberg
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).

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:10 pm
by Blathergut
b..1 per attack

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:38 pm
by Plaid

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:


Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:06 pm
by supermax
i vote b

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:03 pm
by amcdonel
I vote b.


Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:10 pm
by rkr1958
1. Sub oil consumption - a. 1 oil for each move and attack (as now)

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:12 pm
by Schnurri
choose b

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:26 pm
by pk867
I vote - a as now.

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:08 am
by leridano
Vote a, as now.

    Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:05 am
    by zechi
    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.

    Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:13 am
    by PanzerGeneral
    I vote a.

    Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:25 am
    by PionUrpo
    1. A

    Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:59 pm
    by Morris
    I vote e : 1 for move ,0 for attack

    Actually , I think it is not necessary to change .

    Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:58 am
    by Cybvep
    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.