Unrealistic daily oil upkeep

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Unrealistic daily oil upkeep

      What is daily oil upkeep?
      How much oil does a Tank or Plane use if it is stationary all day?
      Do we have to cater for leaking oil tanks?
      I know some will say it is to stop some players building excessive amounts of tanks or planes? I say let them. This is where I would say you are incorporating too may rules to control the game. Don't use this unrealistic penality. If the ship/tank/planes moves then use oil, but if they are not moving then why would they be using oil?
      Each unit has a damage/strength counter, why not have a daily movement counter that measures how far the unit has moved that day, such that at the end of the day, a more accurate/realistic oil penalty/usage can be done. If the unit has not moved still have a very small oil upkeep to take into account generator useage/the occasional engine turn over etc.
      I realise Bytro probably want do anything if there is no money in it for them, so possibly have the more realistic daily oil usage/upkeep as part of high command.
    • Such a horrible idea.

      First, Bytro would have to implement this - keeping track of where units go isn't as simple as it seems... the can merge and split, suffer battle losses or be repaired, be composed of several types, etc etc. Weeks of programming, prone to contain bugs which are impossible to detect (are you REALLY going to keep track of all that yourself?)
      Second, the effect is marginal. Most people move their sexy stuff around anyway; and why should you be rewarded for standing in the same place anyway?
      Third, this efature would naturally give way to a similar request for other resources. For example, units which aren't fighting aren't using ammo either (I guess that would be goods). Units which are damaged eat less food. Units in the mountains need extra fuel to climb them. Units in polar regions need more clothing. The list goes on and on.

      So lets please keep this simple... and don't do this!

      BTW did you know that tank crews ran their engine for a few hours every day, even when they were stationary? If the engine wasn't used for too long, it would have trouble starting.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Oil is always the most consumed resource and a struggle to get enough of.
      If we are having to pay for the use of oil, even when we are not using it (units are not moving), because it is too hard for Bytro to manage a more realistic consumption/daily upkeep due to actual distances travelled, surely then they can increase the production rates of oil, and/or increase the availability of oil (more oil provinces).
    • Resource collection and use are a vital part of any war.
      Good Logistics are critical in any long term strategy.
      It doesn't matter how good your tanks/planes/ships are if they cant move due to having no oil.
      Another vital resource not used here is munitions (can we say it is part of goods?)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BattleIvan ().

    • In this game Oil is usually the most vital resource, in that it is used in most aspects of the game - daily upkeep, unit and building construction, combined with the least amount of resource producing provinces.
      Manpower can be a problem more so at the beginning of the game, but early barracks building on your best manpower producing provinces combined with less production at the start of manpower hungry units can help out immensely here.
      Food can go negative, but can usually be traded, or managed by concentrating on less food hungry units.
      Overall Oil is used the most compared to the limited amount that is available.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Such a horrible idea.

      First, Bytro would have to implement this - keeping track of where units go isn't as simple as it seems... the can merge and split, suffer battle losses or be repaired, be composed of several types, etc etc. Weeks of programming, prone to contain bugs which are impossible to detect (are you REALLY going to keep track of all that yourself?)
      Second, the effect is marginal. Most people move their sexy stuff around anyway; and why should you be rewarded for standing in the same place anyway?
      Third, this efature would naturally give way to a similar request for other resources. For example, units which aren't fighting aren't using ammo either (I guess that would be goods). Units which are damaged eat less food. Units in the mountains need extra fuel to climb them. Units in polar regions need more clothing. The list goes on and on.

      So lets please keep this simple... and don't do this!

      BTW did you know that tank crews ran their engine for a few hours every day, even when they were stationary? If the engine wasn't used for too long, it would have trouble starting.
      Well just wanna reply on your last sections, Tank engine starting does not have issues on whether the engine is running how long or able to run with whether it stationary or not. The Tank engine is running by the Starter Motor which that is the main critical part and if that fail all of the sub systems will fail as well. So there a reason why not to ran the engine daily but just a few occasions for engine prestart and checking sessions. If the tank were to start daily god bless the fuel upkeep as tank consume lots of fuel just saying. Especially the reverse part of the tank come to consume the most fuel upkeep. [Speaking as a former full time Armour Infantry AI perspective]
    • We remember >> CoW is not a simulation but works as a simplified (animated) board game..

      ..seen that way it makes sense that the upkeep of the units is calculated as a flat rate and not as a function of consumption - conversely, it is equally okay that units do not become directly inoperative here if daily upkeep is not sufficiently available; only their automatic regeneration is reduced / suspended accordingly then.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
      Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      We remember >> CoW is not a simulation but works as a simplified (animated) board game..

      ..seen that way it makes sense that the upkeep of the units is calculated as a flat rate and not as a function of consumption - conversely, it is equally okay that units do not become directly inoperative here if daily upkeep is not sufficiently available; only their automatic regeneration is reduced / suspended accordingly then.
      Hey if that so good luck on calculating the real factors of the amount of oils being used if the tanks, aerial and naval units started to move from point to point, in combat and also when in resting points / repairing too. Well I mean too much calculations lol. Let us take say this could be a RNG huh???
    • I dont think you guys understand the logistics involved in keeping units deployed in the field even if they are not "moving"

      First of all do you think 1 tank represents a single tank vehicle? That 1 fighter represents a single airplane? Of course NOT! It represents and entire group a fighting unit.

      Second do you know how much "non fighting" personnel is required to keep one combat unit operational? We are talking mechanics, doctors, resupply convoys, tactical planners, etc the list goes on and on. For every 1 fighting man there is a MINIMUM of 3 non fighting personnel working to keep that man fighting. For some type of units this number goes up to a dozen if not more. Thus the upkeep must br taken into account for all these supporting personnel without which the unit in the field cannot hope to have what it needs in order to fight.

      CoW is a strategic simulation not a tactical one so logistics should and DO matter. If you do not like upkeep costs this game is not for you.
    • Ha Ha - for the last 12 years, i have worked in a defence JLU (Joint Logistics Unit). Joint = Army, Navy and Air force.
      Our main customer as they call them is the service person on the front line (Operations).
      Please lets not go overboard with this whole logistics thing, after all - all units including artillery, antitank, infantry use trucks to move equipment, plus there is trucks needed to resupply ammo, food, clothing etc'.
      I am not saying in this game that OIL should be taken into consideration for this logistics element in either a motorised unit of a non-motorized unit, but if you are going to say the high oil upkeep for a motorized unit that is stationary is for its logistics element, then should we not have a daily oil upkeep for none motorized units to take into account the fuel used in their logistics daily upkeep.
      All I am saying is can we review this daily oil upkeep with the idea of possible reducing it, especially if the unit is not moving or doesn't move far in one day.
      Maybe the answer is a % of the daily upkeep of oil. If the unit is on the move all day then the standard oil upkeep is applied. If the unit is only moving half a day then only 55% of the full daily Oil upkeep and if it doesn't move maybe 10% of the full daily Oil upkeep.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by BattleIvan ().

    • Very nice ..

      ..and then each newbie or inexperienced player is building tanks and planes and whatever needs oil as much as it allows his current oil income and looks forward to the war -- and then, if he wants to roll to war with all his vehicles the wheels stand still after short time, because the consumption was befor measured on standing vehicles -- evil trap ..

      .. and at oil shortage the big calculation begins: "If I drive with these tanks for half an hour and then make a break for two hours, then I have enough oil to reach with my convoyships the opposite coast -- aaargh..; but hopefully my planes will meanwhile not attacked otherwise they will consume all the rest, and then I cant drive or fight my tanks before noon tomorrow."

      To avoid something like that >>

      Restrisiko wrote:

      >> the upkeep of the units is calculated as a flat rate and not as a function of consumption ..
      (No fussy and annoying micromanagement) :thumbup:


      And to avoid that newbies and inexperienced players are in times of resources shortage without operational troops >>

      Restrisiko wrote:

      >> units do not become directly inoperative here if daily upkeep is not sufficiently available; only their automatic regeneration is reduced / suspended accordingly then.
      (No time-consuming and complicated simulation) :thumbup:


      Basic values of the consumption of oil, food, etc. are identical for all players -- if consumption will reduced or otherwise "adjusted" or corresponding resources are available more and more effortless, this would also be the same for all players -- so or so it's the challenge with this brilliantly simple game, to get along better with the available conditions than the opponent.

      So I dont see a sense or advantage of a change, except the ability to build more units but make the game more confusing and complicated..!?

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
      Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!

    • A stockpile of stores for battle has always been an important consideration before any battle that you have a choice to commit too, especially if you want to put the odds in your favour. A good tactic if possible in battle is to starve or deny your enemy access to his resupply or reforcements whilst still maintaining yours.
      One of the biggest problems Rommel had in the desert, and even the germans in Russia had was in maintaining their stretched resupply lines.
    • I know I am old and have one foot already in the grave, and my memory is not as good as it used to be, so someone with a better memory than me, please confirm for me - back in 2016 in CoW was Oil production/consumption as difficult as it is now?
      Sorry but I am now getting the distinct impression that it is hardly worth while voicing our opinions as obviously Bytro have done their research and are right and the rest of us are wrong.
      It is our choice whether we play any game or not.
      CoW is a good game.
      We have to take the game as it is.
      No point in suggesting improvements as if it was a good suggestion Bytro would of thought of it already, and as they have not then you must be making the game more difficult that it need be.
      Have fun with how the game is - enjoy - this game cant be made any better.
      Enjoy - have fun.
    • BattleIvan wrote:

      .. please confirm for me - back in 2016 in CoW was Oil production/consumption as difficult as it is now?
      ..
      I played this game in 2015 already, and I have to say yes, it used to be more difficult, and therefore the game was better in the beginning because there was a bigger challenge.


      BattleIvan wrote:

      .. No point in suggesting improvements as if it was a good suggestion Bytro would of thought of it already, and as they have not then you must be making the game more difficult that it need be.
      ..
      Making things (the game) easier is not necessarily an improvement - I personally think that many of the simplifications made in recent years have made the game all in all already nearly too easy ..



      .. the game goes further and further away from a really challenging strategy (thinking) game towards a trivial click game

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
      Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      First, Bytro would have to implement this - keeping track of where units go isn't as simple as it seems... the can merge and split, suffer battle losses or be repaired, be composed of several types, etc etc. Weeks of programming, prone to contain bugs which are impossible to detect (are you REALLY going to keep track of all that yourself?)
      Second, the effect is marginal. Most people move their sexy stuff around anyway; and why should you be rewarded for standing in the same place anyway?
      Third, this efature would naturally give way to a similar request for other resources. For example, units which aren't fighting aren't using ammo either (I guess that would be goods). Units which are damaged eat less food. Units in the mountains need extra fuel to climb them. Units in polar regions need more clothing. The list goes on and on.

      So lets please keep this simple... and don't do this!

      BTW did you know that tank crews ran their engine for a few hours every day, even when they were stationary? If the engine wasn't used for too long, it would have trouble starting.
      It actually is smart to keep your planes moving, it's harder for them to be rocketed. So yeah, why should you be rewarded for just making your planes easy targets.
      To build, you must first destroy.