[Vote] (9-70) Lategame Unit Strategics Rejiggle: Mainly Fighter + Bomber Lines Always Require Aluminum & Mobile Ranged Line Requires Oil At Light Tank

[L. Vern]

Proposal

Unit Class Required Strategic Resources:

• Triplane, Fighter, Bomber, Heavy Bomber : Oil → Aluminum (Jet Fighter, Stealth Bomber unchanged at Aluminum)
• Light Tank, Helicopter Gunship: Aluminum → Oil
• Submarine, Attack Submarine: Aluminum → Oil
• Nuclear Submarine: Aluminum → Uranium

MAGI NOTE: All UUs of this type are also assumed to change their strategics, except in cases where no strategic was required.

Motivation

• Opens up more army compositions and strategies in the late game
  • Tanks are generally better in small numbers than planes, so when oil is limited (which is often), players just build those
  • With planes no longer competing with tanks directly for strategics, more opportunities for full combined-arms gameplay becomes possible
• Removes the jarring information age strategic transition where you suddenly go from needing a ton of oil to a ton of aluminum
  • All 3 tiers of horse units use the same strategic so that seems reasonable to apply consistency here too
• More realism with regards to resource usage by unit
  • Submarines requiring aluminum is odd, as these are primarily built from high-strength steels when used for military applications
  • Unlike nuclear submarines being made from aluminum (lol), a case can definitely be made for aluminum being a limiting factor for fighters, especially of ww2 era

 

[hokath]

All 3 tiers of horse units use the same strategic so that seems reasonable to apply consistency here too

Very that.

I am a fan

 

[Stalker0]

Aluminum is very common in most maps. All this really does is make planes not strategic. The fact I have to decide between tanks and planes IS the strategic decision!

And if consistency is king for your proposal...changing nuclear subs to uranium is a no go. Uranium is way too precious to be spent on a sub.

 

[L. Vern]

Aluminum is very common in most maps. All this really does is make planes not strategic. The fact I have to decide between tanks and planes IS the strategic decision!

In the current state there's really not much of a decision to be made, If we made a poll of "You have 4 oil left over what you making planes or tanks?" I think overwhelmingly people feel tanks are the superior option. I talked about this on the discord a while back and mostly agreed with proponents of that position; I feel that while there's still useful tiles for tanks and maybe some reserve then yea tanks are better but after that, since VP is a 1UPT game, the only way to concentrate more firepower at the point of contact is ranged units and then planes, so ideally you want to have both eventually. Though resource-wise it's hard without third alternative or whatever the authority branch multipliers are, plus a lot of conquered resources lol.

There's basically no choice in the current state of the mod, whereas unless you're swimming in oil this change actually does introduce the choice of whether you want to use your to build planes or tanks, both of which can get quite pricy. Not to mention aluminum can definitely still sometimes be a limiting factor for air force expansion, though yea not as rare as oil shortage.

And if consistency is king for your proposal...changing nuclear subs to uranium is a no go. Uranium is way too precious to be spent on a sub.

Yea I thought about it for a while and since those are basically huge steel hulls I thought iron would be a totally fine strategic replacement as well. But it's in the name, and less high tier subs might be better for lategame overall lol. Though feel free to make a counterproposal that addresses that particular point, I think it would be great to get a vote on more granular issues as well

 

[Stalker0]

In the current state there's really not much of a decision to be made, If we made a poll of "You have 4 oil left over what you making planes or tanks?" I think overwhelmingly people feel tanks are the superior option. I talked about this on the discord a while back and mostly agreed with proponents of that position; I feel that while there's still useful tiles for tanks and maybe some reserve then yea tanks are better but after that, since VP is a 1UPT game, the only way to concentrate more firepower at the point of contact is ranged units and then planes, so ideally you want to have both eventually. Though resource-wise it's hard without third alternative or whatever the authority branch multipliers are, plus a lot of conquered resources lol.

Funny enough I guess I'm one of those wacky people that would take early planes anyday over a couple of landships. Now later game (heavy bomber vs tank), probably tank just because interception is so strong....but early bombers are way better than landships if I only get a few.

 

[redrum68]

Aluminum is very common in most maps. All this really does is make planes not strategic. The fact I have to decide between tanks and planes IS the strategic decision!

And if consistency is king for your proposal...changing nuclear subs to uranium is a no go. Uranium is way too precious to be spent on a sub.

This feels more like a map generation issue though. Maps should have a reasonable amount of aluminum and oil regardless.

 

[azum4roll]

If this passes, I'll have to modify AssignStartingPlots to rebalance the oil/aluminum numbers (again). Generally there will be more oil usage and less aluminum.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Tanks and bombers are the best units of their era. They compete for oil. If they run on different resources, I would build even more tanks and bombers than now and fewer other unit lines.

I would rather have planes keep running on oil up until the most advanced units to keep thet trade-off.

Heck, even ranged ships could run on oil to make choices harder and force you into submarines.

 

[azum4roll]

I'd rather be changing Information Era planes to Oil to keep the lines consistent. Then we have main combat units = Oil and skirmishers = Aluminum.

 

[Alpakinator]

I like all the changes except the historical accuracy of aircraft Oil -> Aluminum change, cause it's pretty bad. Yes i know gameplay is clearly more important than historical accuracy.

Edited cause of errors:

Aircraft during WW1 and interwar used little aluminum and were made mostly of wood/fabric.
In WWII Germany, Italy and Japan were struggling with fuel a lot though the entire war. Germans had to make good quality fuel by synthesising it from coal. Germany and Japan resorted to wooden aircraft in the last months of the war due to lack of aluminum, but had bad quality fuel due to low oil availability throughout the war.

Aluminum shortages were a problem too:
Eg. Britain making wooden Mosquitoes to use their big woodworking industry 1st and lower aluminum demand 2nd, althou they never reached aluminum shortage. If not for US fuel imports, Britain would be limited by Oil first, aluminum second.

USSR is afaik the only big example of lacking aluminum but having plenty of oil. All their fighters were made mostly from wood throughout the war cause they had too little aluminum and were damn good at efficient wooden designs. Still, they made the most produced airplane in history - IL-2 from aluminum steel and wood.

 

[azum4roll]

I like all the changes except the historical accuracy of aircraft Oil -> Aluminum change, cause it's pretty bad. Yes i know gameplay is clearly more important than historical accuracy.

Edited cause of errors:

Aircraft during WW1 and interwar used little aluminum and were made mostly of wood/fabric.
In WWII Germany, Italy and Japan were struggling with fuel a lot though the entire war. Germans had to make good quality fuel by synthesising it from coal. Germany and Japan resorted to wooden aircraft in the last months of the war due to lack of aluminum, but had bad quality fuel due to low oil availability throughout the war.

Aluminum shortages were a problem too:
Eg. Britain making wooden Mosquitoes to use their big woodworking industry 1st and lower aluminum demand 2nd, althou they never reached aluminum shortage. If not for US fuel imports, Britain would be limited by Oil first, aluminum second.

USSR is afaik the only big example of lacking aluminum but having plenty of oil. All their fighters were made mostly from wood throughout the war cause they had too little aluminum and were damn good at efficient wooden designs. Still, they made the most produced airplane in history - IL-2 from aluminum steel and wood.

This sounds like if we follow realism, planes should cost both oil and aluminum.

 

[Alpakinator]

But more oil than aluminum since it's the more crucial resource. It's like knights requiring both horse and iron. Horse is the major part.

 

[hokath]

MAGI have voted this as too speculative.

Proposal Vetoed

Because Vern submitted this, it cannot be vetoed

Unanimous Votes
Certain votes must be unanimous:
- A vote for Fast-Track Acceptance of a proposal.
- A vote to veto a proposal because it modifies game mechanics which are currently bugged.
- Any decision-making vote which involves a proposal that was submitted by one of the 3 Magi.

 

[Legen]

I sponsor this.

 

[redrum68]

I assume this means any UUs would be updated as well to the proposed strategic resource (SPAD for example)? That should probably be noted.

 

[hokath]

Yes it does. I think SPAD is only example (Hashemite Raider uses Horses instead)

 

[paul_soryu]

Why would I build a Nuclear Submarine if it costs Uranium? It competes with Atomic Bomb, Nuclear Missile, Nuclear Power Plant, Supercarrier and Giant Death Robot, all of which are much better than a Nuclear Sub?

 

[L. Vern]

Why would I build a Nuclear Submarine if it costs Uranium? It competes with Atomic Bomb, Nuclear Missile, Nuclear Power Plant, Supercarrier and Giant Death Robot, all of which are much better than a Nuclear Sub?

Yea in retrospect nuclear sub clearly should have been iron, not uranium. Too late to change now but next congress I'm either proposing "change nuclear sub from uranium->iron" or this proposal again with the nuclear submarine portion changed lol

 

[paul_soryu]

Yea in retrospect nuclear sub clearly should have been iron, not uranium. Too late to change now but next congress I'm either proposing "change nuclear sub from uranium->iron" or this proposal again with the nuclear submarine portion changed lol

Why not Oil like Attack Submarines? I know it doesn't make sense from realism standpoint, but making it require Iron would create the same situation as there is currently with going from WW2 planes to modern planes, it would be competing with Siege and Naval Ranged units. All Iron is probably already in use by that point.

 

[L. Vern]

Why not Oil like Attack Submarines? I know it doesn't make sense from realism standpoint, but making it require Iron would create the same situation as there is currently with going from WW2 planes to modern planes, it would be competing with Siege and Naval Ranged units. All Iron is probably already in use by that point.

It's an interesting idea. A couple years ago I visited the museum submarine USS Growler, which had a didactic stating that nuclear submarines were those that could launch weapons with a nuclear warhead (Growler itself was diesel powered, and considered itself a nuclear submarine). I can see the argument for it gameplay-wise too, but ultimately I think iron isn't too out of place as submarines are somewhat ranged naval units themselves