[GS] Oil to build Units?

[Tony.Uk]

This is really hampering my late game war effort. I have 4 oil wells, not built any oil plants, most of my offensive units are just sitting around doing nothing as I cannot repair them. Why do you need oil to build a basic infantry unit? No point in rushing replaceable parts as oil comes later. Where is the logic for needing oil to build artillery, tanks etc. You should only need oil to run mechanised units, not to build them. There really needs a patch to fix this. I cannot trade for oil either so I am really stuck, makes the game unplayable towards the end. I have to use bombers, battleships to launch most of my attacks and finish off with a unhealed unit.

 

[Wizard-Bob]

Discussed at length in this thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/infantry-artillery-now-require-oil.644991/

 

[King Abbas]

Search for oil on the map and either settle near it , conquer it or if it belongs to a city state befriend it.. you could also run the policy that increases oil per well or disband unnecessary oil consuming units.

I actually like the challenge of acquiring the resourses I need, but I do agree that sometimes the RNG gods can be cruel.

 

[Aristos]

Oil for BUILDING modern units is OK (think Plastic, and the energy needed to build anything)... what is wrong is oil as FUEL for any non-mechanized non-flying non-swimming unit.

 

[criZp]

think Plastic, and the energy needed to build anything

but you get power from many other sources than oil, and you don't need plastic to make rifles and cannons either.

 

[Victoria]

Disband some units is another option, also there is a card for more oil.
Don’t get me wrong, the logic behind why an infantryman needs oil is lost on me and game wise it’s just quite stifling.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think it's really great when I randomly get Replaceable Parts from Oxford which requires a resource I can't even have yet.

 

[NukeAJS]

Yeah, infantry requiring oil per turn is weird. You could make an argument that infantry could require a flat -20 (or whatever) units of oil when they're built just like iron, horses, and niter units; but oil per turn seems like overkill. Did WW1 to Vietnam era soldiers use vehicles to get around? Of course they did. But most of them, once deployed, did most everything on foot.

If you really wanted to stretch it, you could argue that while that era infantry didn't use much oil, it did cost a lot of oil to supply them. Personally, I don't buy it and I think oil per turn for infantry should be removed from the game.

Regarding artillery, I usually have two maybe three artillery so it's not that big of a deal. Artillery fill a niche so you usually don't need many of them. The infantry thing is a big deal though. Why should anyone ever build the entire melee line of units and NOT the heavy/light cavalry line? Light cavalry are great in that horsemen are very good and only helicopters have a maintenance per turn. That maintenance is NOT oil but aluminum instead meaning you're not dipping into your tanks and artillery's resources. The only other units that use aluminum are air units and I almost never build them because early air units have such terrible range and I've basically won the game by the time fighters and jets come online.

I like that units require resources and I don't mind the oil per turn either. I just really think that it shouldn't apply to infantry. The scrabble to get more oil is a neat sub-strategy but it too often falls victim to RNG in addition to too many units requiring oil.

 

[gooberman]

It does kinda ruin the game if playing domination. Too many things require it and it is pretty sparse to get.

 

[MrRadar]

Yes, I agree that oil requirement for infantry and artillery should be removed. At the same time air units requiring consumption of aluminium per turn, which is also just too bizarre, should be replaced by oil consumption.

It would be a neat touch, if fuel consumption would kick in only when units actually move. Another suggestion - all units should consume coal when moving embarked as of Industrial era, and this consumption should be replaced by oil as of Modern era.
If niter is there to represent gunpowder, any shots fired should consume niter. And I'll repeat my old idea - any combat action by a unit should also cost some amount of gold, based on its melee or ranged attack strength. Gold is abundant anyway, there should be more ways to waste it, and war shouldn't be as cheap as it is now in Civ 6.

 

[Tony.Uk]

Disband some units is another option, also there is a card for more oil.
Don’t get me wrong, the logic behind why an infantryman needs oil is lost on me and game wise it’s just quite stifling.

Yes I found the card, it gives a marginal improvement and I was able to heal my units. Oil for basic infantry needs fixing. Not much point in building many of these, and I agree is not game breaking but restricts playability.

 

[Zenstrive]

The things with oil is that sometimes, when you are a sprawling empire, you get lots of it.
Or you get almost none, which is crazy, and forcing you to sprawl even more to your neighbors.

 

[Victoria]

You can always trade for oil I guess.
If you are struggling with the game by the time you need oil you can trade for it.
If you are good at the game and are ahead you not only have oil visibility but the ability to get it.
The problem lies with a lack of oil.

To me the lack of oil mean you cannot have large numbers of tanks.
If you make infantry require oil you get the outcry that is happening and if determined to keep infantry requiring oil you end up increasing the oil on maps allowing large tank armies.
You shoot yourself in the foot

 

[Pietato]

Increase the amount of oil on the map, balance the modern units better, and make tanks use 2 oil a turn.

 

[Bee7]

You can always trade for oil I guess.

To me the lack of oil mean you cannot have large numbers of tanks.
If you make infantry require oil you get the outcry that is happening and if determined to keep infantry requiring oil you end up increasing the oil on maps allowing large tank armies.
You shoot yourself in the foot

How about, if the extended range of mechanised units was made dependent on starting next to a supply convoy, and supply convoys needed two or more oil per turn, rather than the units themselves? That would constrain the use of the units in a way that semi reflected reality. You would be able to repair mech units as much as you liked, but without adequate logistics, they would grind to a halt, able to fight but not move, and sitting ducks for aircraft and infantry. It would also force players to defend supply convoys, which would mean that at last I would have a reason to build AA guns. Right now, there isn’t that much need for sophisticated tactics in Civ, but if I could take out supply convoys using encircling attacks with light cav or helicopters, the end game would acquire a whole new order of fun.

 

[Victoria]

Supply logistics has not been in the game. While I like it for historical recreations I am not so sure on how logistics would be welcomed in VI. It would also be another AI nail in the coffin. KISS principals are probably required. @Pietato idea above for example.
I have no issue with mech infantry using oil obviously but not infantry

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Supply logistics don't really work on Civ's time/turn scale. It would be like micromanaging fights between units, a major break in the usual level of abstraction.

 

[Zenstrive]

There are Great people who can give you oil per turn.
Example for random oil scarcity: my last winning with Dido I had ~ 100 oil per turn, allowing me to field many many units
My latest winning with Kristina, I only got 6 oil per turn with one oil resource and one great people. Granted I won a CV, but I had like 12 cities and oil only found on one land tile inside my border. Usually there are plenty offshore.

I am using two mods when playing as Kristina: Detailed Maps (love this mod, plenty of trees and rainforests to chop) and Civ V look mods (for aesthetics).

 

[Bee7]

Supply logistics has not been in the game. While I like it for historical recreations I am not so sure on how logistics would be welcomed in VI. It would also be another AI nail in the coffin. KISS principals are probably required. @Pietato idea above for example.
I have no issue with mech infantry using oil obviously but not infantry

The idea of KISS principles and Civ coexisting leaves me feeling slightly hysterical but we have supply logistics now, whether we like it or not, in the form of oil, coal, and iron. The problem many people seem to be having is the abstract way in which logistics have been implemented, and I can understand that.

 

[Victoria]

but we have supply logistics now,

I guess it comes down to wording.
To me we have supplies but we do not have logistics around them. They magically appear where needed, no fuel depots or lines of supply required.
I do appreciate your point @Bee7 and as said appreciate the challenge such an addition would make, I just feel they will not do so in this game.