Allies running out of fuel

[Aryaman]

Hi
I am in a PBEM match in which my opponent took the oilfields in the Middle East. I didn´t worry too much, thinking oil should be availbale for allies from the rest of the world, but later in the game I received a warning that my oil reserves were running low, and so now I am forced to build infantry in 1944 for lack of fuel. I think that is not right, the Allies should never run out of fuel, there were plenty of oilfields in the rest of the world available to them, Taking the Middle East oilfields should allow the German player enough fuel but not a shortage for the allies.

Another thing I will like to point, the use of planes to prevent units from disembarking is still a viable tactic in GS 2.00 despite planes being weakened in defense, even depleted air units with less than 5 CP still hold against disembarking units

[Schnurri]

I agree on both points. I had a similar experience as Axis playing Neil where he said he was running low on oil late in the game. As I recall the bulk of his oil usage was bombers in North America attacking subs. I can't see the western allies running short on oil in North America.

I'm the one placing the air units to defend beaches and I agree the air units should always retreat or be destroyed when used in this way. Can't we just lower the air units defense against ground attack to near zero?

[LOGAN5]

Another thing I will like to point, the use of planes to prevent units from disembarking is still a viable tactic in GS 2.00 despite planes being weakened in defense, even depleted air units with less than 5 CP still hold against disembarking units

this is a gamey tactic wouldn't you say?

[Schnurri]

definitely. But if it works and your back is against the wall you do it. Better to make it a pointless tactic by reducing defense against ground attack.

[LOGAN5]

You can also drop a fighter in an undefended city to buy yourself enough time to bring troops up next turn, unless the fighters is destroyed you have time to move it and reinforce. I agree with you this should be changed, air units should be crushed by land units.

and as far as oil goes, I have been low on oil with allies but you never seem to run out, you will probably stay in the 200s.

[schwerpunkt]

You can also drop a fighter in an undefended city to buy yourself enough time to bring troops up next turn, unless the fighters is destroyed you have time to move it and reinforce. I agree with you this should be changed, air units should be crushed by land units.

and as far as oil goes, I have been low on oil with allies but you never seem to run out, you will probably stay in the 200s.

I personally dont have a big issue with the use of air units to defend locations as they are weak enough that they sustain heavy damage if attacked by a corps. My rationale is that an air unit has inherent ground assets that can be moved by transports so them having a weak ground defence capability isnt too big an assumption.

With respect to oil, if the allies lose Iraq and cannot reconquer it (eg because the russians are required to capture it) then it is highly likely that oil will become a problem for them. STRs and CVs especially burn huge amounts of oil. Then add late war armour into the mix and the allied player is forced to go MECH heavy and save oil for TAC operations. Quite tricky....

[JimR]

But if the Russians recapture Iraq, isn't the recovered Iraqi oil counted in the Western Allies' column? That would be because Iraq enters the war as a British ally, and if the Russians recapture Kirkuk from the Germans, its oil production is counted as "British." Am I right?

[schwerpunkt]

But if the Russians recapture Iraq, isn't the recovered Iraqi oil counted in the Western Allies' column? That would be because Iraq enters the war as a British ally, and if the Russians recapture Kirkuk from the Germans, its oil production is counted as "British." Am I right?

In my recent game that wasnt the case. Because the minor had surrendered, any territory captured by the russians went russian controlled red. Persia on the other hand, which I managed to prevent from surrendering, was different in that its territory recaptured by the russians went allied green, so its oil wells were allied for the rest of the game.

[Plaid]

Its really hard for axis to capture all middle east oil. And axis player deserves good result, which will little limit allied oil.
You can't say its "no oil", western allies with no middle east gather ~95 oil, as I remember, which is still MORE, then germans gather WITH middle east conquered (~60-70).
Its not like allies run out of oil, really, but you can't ignore oil consumption any more.
And I guess its way fair play.

[richardsd]

Its easy for the Axis to capture mid east oil, the question is - is it worth it?

[Aryaman]

You can also drop a fighter in an undefended city to buy yourself enough time to bring troops up next turn, unless the fighters is destroyed you have time to move it and reinforce. I agree with you this should be changed, air units should be crushed by land units.

and as far as oil goes, I have been low on oil with allies but you never seem to run out, you will probably stay in the 200s.

I personally dont have a big issue with the use of air units to defend locations as they are weak enough that they sustain heavy damage if attacked by a corps. My rationale is that an air unit has inherent ground assets that can be moved by transports so them having a weak ground defence capability isnt too big an assumption.
.

Enough to avoid 2 army corps disembarking? even if the Air Unit is below 5 CP strength?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You have amph corps that can land on the occupied air unit. If you first bombard it with a CV then you can get it so far down the amph can either kill the unit or force a retreat. So it doesn't work so well anymore to use air units to block the coast line.

[Aryaman]

Its really hard for axis to capture all middle east oil. And axis player deserves good result, which will little limit allied oil.
You can't say its "no oil", western allies with no middle east gather ~95 oil, as I remember, which is still MORE, then germans gather WITH middle east conquered (~60-70).
Its not like allies run out of oil, really, but you can't ignore oil consumption any more.
And I guess its way fair play.

It is not that hard in 2.0 if Axis waits until May 42 to attack Russia, meanwhile he can put a lot of effort in Africa.

Well, I am in 1944 and my oil reserve is under 100 despite my measures to cut consum, if that is not running out of oil...

[Plaid]

Its easy for the Axis to capture mid east oil, the question is - is it worth it?

Is there any special way to do it easy? To secure middle east good you need to reach Basra before USA (or even soviet) reinforcements arrive.
And all this with limited NA supply.

[Aryaman]

You have amph corps that can land on the occupied air unit. If you first bombard it with a CV then you can get it so far down the amph can either kill the unit or force a retreat. So it doesn't work so well anymore to use air units to block the coast line.

How much down is required? I have tried amphibious attacks against Air Units down to 3 and failed to do any damage

[Plaid]

Well, I am in 1944 and my oil reserve is under 100 despite my measures to cut consum, if that is not running out of oil...

If you lose middle east you supposed to start play like germans do regarding oil. No hordes of strategic bombers/CVs and so on.
If you keep ignoring oil you will face troubles.

[Aryaman]

If you lose middle east you supposed to start play like germans do regarding oil. No hordes of strategic bombers/CVs and so on.
If you keep ignoring oil you will face troubles.

And do you think that is historically sound? The Allies had the rest of the world reserves to get oil from

[Kuz]

The point is that the Allies were NOT dependent on oil from the middle east at this point in history and should not suffer any penality if they loose any oil field represented in the game unless America is defeated. The allies were sufficiently supplied by the U.S. not only in oil but in synthetic rubber as well.

"American oil, which amounted in all to 6 billion barrels, out of a total of 7 billion barrels consumed by the Allies for the period of World War Two, brought victory! Without the prodigious delivery of oil from the U. S. this global war, quite frankly, could never have been won. " http://hnn.us/articles/339.html

[rkr1958]

There's a difference between raw materials, or oil from the group, and fuel delivered to vehicles and planes in the field. The allies did suffer from fuel shortages in France in 1944. Patton's 3rd army was stopped cold because of fuel. There wasn't enough coming through to continue to support his offensive and Monty's Operation Market Garden. We all know who go priority and how things turned out.

I know that you'll argue that this is logistics and not raw materials but personally I think the current model in GS works quite well. I think you need to expand how you're looking at oil to include refined oil delivered to the front and ready to be used.

Also, there was another conflict going on in the Pacific being fought by huge naval and air fleets that also put demands on allied fuel and transport resources.

[Aryaman]

I know that you'll argue that this is logistics and not raw materials but personally I think the current model in GS works quite well. I think you need to expand how you're looking at oil to include refined oil delivered to the front and ready to be used.

But it was no shortage of refined oil, but the lack of enough port facilities in the French coast and a poorly organized supply network what caused that. I don´t think it has nothing to do with losing some oilfields in the Middle East, in fact no oilfield had been lost.
I think the current model in GS doesn´t work in this scenario, and I think no big change is required, simply allow to the Allies enough oil each turn so they don´t have to worry about the oilfifelds in the Middel East, they are a key target for an Axis player, and he should get the benefit if he gets to them, but the Allied player shouldn´t be penalised so ahistorically.