result? soggy wheat, ruined goods, oil slicks, sunken metals, and irradiated waters.

At first I think like you Dixie, but what about underwater oil provinces. Need to defend it with ships and subs, and a oil rig do do the extraction which would have various levels.

Underwater fossil and mineral resources could be an interesting alternativ for countries with few of those resources. The very first legitimate oilrig was only started after the war tho so it wouldn't be strictly realistic. I'm definitely in favor of further nurturing the more economic side of CoW, which imo has a lot more potential gameplay-wise than is currently utilized.

they will never do anything to speed up the game. and they will not change the game so much that you can build in the ocean.

Come on, y'all. This game is supposed to be based on World War II era technology. Offshore oil drilling was in its infancy in the 1940s, and drilling was limited to a depth of 15 or 20 feet of water. Underwater exploitation of other minerals was even more limited. This proposal is a trip down the rabbit hole. There are much, much higher priorities for changes and/or additions to the game.

This change will have little impact on the balance, but will significantly increase the role of the fleet in the game. It's nothing more offensive, than a neighbor, who pumps oil with impunity in neutral waters)) Finally, instead of useless oceans, which nobody needs and who are not controlled by anyone, there will be "hot spots" for serious sea battles. I like the idea

This is really more of a CoN idea. Oil drilling didn't really exist for the CoW era.

Maybe this could instead be improvised as so-to-speak "commercial routes" at sea, where if you control certain main points you get resources on the regular.

Fundamentally it is a very good idea imo ( and I tend to be conservative towards new ideas in this game) because it could make for some fierce naval battles.

ronon_ wrote:

This change will have little impact on the balance, but will significantly increase the role of the fleet in the game. It's nothing more offensive, than a neighbor, who pumps oil with impunity in neutral waters)) Finally, instead of useless oceans, which nobody needs and who are not controlled by anyone, there will be "hot spots" for serious sea battles. I like the idea

While we are busy implementing technology from 1970s and 1980s ( Oil rigs ) why not include satellites, have the game start with main battle tanks and submarines launching nuclear missiles as well as day 1 Jet bombers?

Nope thanks, that would ruin the WW2 feeling of the game, just like having oil rigs would.


I also disagree that navy and sea battles don't matter. In my first game I played recently I just sunk 60 land units at sea on their transports (basically the largest army on the planet) using only 2 old submarines and 10 tactical bombers. All this because my enemy thought like you that navy doesn't matter and that oceans are "useless" and not needed...


Something that would help make the oceans more important instead of oil rigs though would be having some sort of supply model, where you need transport routes and ports to be able to fight with alot of units overseas. This could help model things like the historical Battle of the Atlantic better with fierce combat between raiding battleships, cruisers and submarines trying to sink convoys and the convoy escorts trying to defend them.

Send 60 land units without a cover can only afford a foolish person. However, without your bombers they would still break through, so even in this example the fleet turned out to be secondary usually for these purposes there is enough "wolf pack" of submarines. And building a fleet to catch them, it turns out too expensive and almost meaningless

As for oil rigs, it's better to give a link to Wikipedia. Oil platforms already existed then.
If the game has nuclear missiles, nuclear battleships, then oil platforms are trifles.

However, I do not insist that it will be precisely the oil platforms. In order for the ocean to become hot, there must be an incentive. Resources are a good incentive. And oil especially.

good point. the game should not have nuclear powered naval units, nor should it have nuclear missles. please remove them from the game

ronon_ wrote:

Send 60 land units without a cover can only afford a foolish person. However, without your bombers they would still break through, so even in this example the fleet turned out to be secondary usually for these purposes there is enough "wolf pack" of submarines. And building a fleet to catch them, it turns out too expensive and almost meaningless

As for oil rigs, it's better to give a link to Wikipedia. Oil platforms already existed then.
If the game has nuclear missiles, nuclear battleships, then oil platforms are trifles.

However, I do not insist that it will be precisely the oil platforms. In order for the ocean to become hot, there must be an incentive. Resources are a good incentive. And oil especially.

Did you even read the wikipedia entry yourself?

"In 1946, Magnolia Petroleum Company (now part of ExxonMobil) erected a drilling platform in 18 ft (5.5 m) of water"

5.5 meter deep water is not even deep enough for a Battleship to steam in without running aground (Iowa class required up to 11meters)! And it would be so close to the shore anyway that land units could easily destroy it with their guns...


I also think nuclear battleships or ICBMs have no place in a WW2 game.

Of course I did. And I think that this fits into the framework of "conventions" for this game. Moreover, it covers a period slightly larger than the WWII. Only the infantry is described here 1950-52 years. With a little stretch, it would be possible to introduce oil platforms, it would add a game of strategic moves and decisions. More than that, the oil in the game in the late stages is very scarce

ronon_ wrote:

More than that, the oil in the game in the late stages is very scarce

That has nothing to do with making this a cold war game even more so then it ( sadly ) already is.

That's just bad game balance.


Although if you don't build a fleet at all you should be able to get by with much less oil thus solving your problem

This does not mean "bad balance". This is an excuse to get more.
Moreover, this fact fully corresponds to reality. Where is the oil, there are wars ...
Yes, I usually manage by submarines they are enough to solve my problems.