Slitherine

Aryaman wrote:Allied player shouldn´t be penalised so ahistorically.

I'm not nearly convinced that the current model is so ahistorical. Do you have any hard data to show that the lost of the Middle Eastern oil fields would NOT have had a significant impact on the British war effort? Remember, Britain and US share the same oil stockpile.

We strive to made things in GS as historically realistic as possible and it that respect sound arguments supported by solid data is the best way to "convince" the development team and the community that a potential change will enhance realism.

rkr1958 wrote: We strive to made things in GS as historically realistic as possible and it that respect sound arguments supported by solid data is the best way to "convince" the development team and the community that a potential change will enhance realism.

No problem. Kuz has already post here a link to an article in which it is explained how American oil made 6/7 of the total Allied oil consume.
Here you have another link with oil production (and other raw materials as well if you are interested) during ww2. As you can see America outproduced anyone else by an enormous ammount, shortages because of losing British oil in the Middel East should not be damaging at all for the Allied war effort.
http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Product ... erials.htm

This link shows that British Empire produces slightly more, then USA.
Middle east must be one of major sources for British Empire, with asian territories being confested by Japan.

Also is USA oil really from USA? Isn't it from latin America countries partly?

Plaid wrote:This link shows that British Empire produces slightly more, then USA.
Middle east must be one of major sources for British Empire, with asian territories being confested by Japan.

Also is USA oil really from USA? Isn't it from latin America countries partly?

You are reading that incorrectly, USA produces a total of 833,2 millions of metric tons during the war. UK+Canada just 99.2

To what we are discussing it doesn´t matter if it is from Latin America or Texas, what matters is that it is not in the Middle East

Aryaman wrote:

Plaid wrote:This link shows that British Empire produces slightly more, then USA.
Middle east must be one of major sources for British Empire, with asian territories being confested by Japan.

Also is USA oil really from USA? Isn't it from latin America countries partly?

You are reading that incorrectly, USA produces a total of 833,2 millions of metric tons during the war. UK+Canada just 99.2

To what we are discussing it doesn´t matter if it is from Latin America or Texas, what matters is that it is not in the Middle East

True. Found it.

I still thing that its very good for game balance, if allies suffer from loss of middle east, but its only my thoughts, and axis efforts about conquering middle east should be rewarded properly. But looks like statistics prove opposite.

US produced enough oil for the rest of the world and then some back in '40s. And refined the highest quality fuel as well. The limiting factor would have more to do with the ability to ship all that fuel over two oceans to the various theaters of operation.

I'm interested, how many air/CVs/tanks you've had when there has been Allied oil problems? Just incase I'll find myself losing Mid-East

I don´t recall exactly, but I can tell you for sure that they were only air assets, I built no tanks and had lost all CVs. About 6 Strategic bombers and maybe 8 tacticals