Expansion 1917.5

[Desertfox]

I've long wondered what it would have been like had we in the 1912.5 adjustment
"gone back" to 1910 and reselected.

Japan would have been alot more North Atlantic focused. You might not have a California or Hawaii colony, I probably wouldn't have Australia.

As a much longer term project, I AM musing about tracking down 1910ish oil production and putting Black Dots/Triangles on the map for those spots. I think most of them have Gold Triangles already. While all the Player nations have oil... not so much all the colonies. So that may matter.

Shouldn't make a difference IC but should be very interesting from an OOC curiosity point. Unless... Player's oil supply "vanishes" IC forcing everyone to use colony oil supplies...

Hence the Aztec focus on building what at the moment might be the most capable and largest force of fleet oilers/replenishment ships, despite the current lack of ability to properly refuel underway.

Capable yes, largest not yet... The Japanese fleet is built around the idea of operating outside of fixed, established naval bases.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Had we reset expansion to 1910 and run several quick rounds, I don't think I'd get further east than Borneo and the Moluccas (which Iberia scooped me on).
The Ceylon-Sumatra-Borneo route would guard the maritime "silk road" to China/Japan while the "Spice islands" had cachet.

The Trans-Pacific was conceived in a setting where Byzantine was my active opponent, and so I could sprawl East.
Storyline, Kalifern/Oregon is exactly what the Parthians are looking for - lots of agricultural space lightly used, great for population expansion, and lots of resources.
Practically ...sprawling makes naval planning difficult. Snip's much more focused approach is more practical.

PC oil...that is a pregame guarantee - every player has "Enough" in their homeland.  But as Tac has observed, that doesn't mean all the colonies have it.
Which could make convoy escorts a "thing" ala the Malta runs.
I know Parthia's expansion overlapped several 1910 producers, as for me that was part of my storyline - Tarakan in Borneo needs minimal refinement to serve as bunker fuel...and in a pinch can be used straight out of the ground. Perfect for the Pacific leap.  Africa on the other hand I think has diddly and..um..squat.

[snip]

I kinda dropped the storyline a bit, but the huge Texas oilfield were responsible for birthing a ANSCA analog into Roman politics.

[The Rock Doctor]

I do have a few references to oil development in the Niger delta.

Re:  colonial reset:  I'd probably have focused on N. America and Africa.  Not sure I'd have ventured in to Central/South America as much, hard to say.

The Indo/Pacific was just too far away given how short-legged I'd built up my fleet as.

[TacCovert4]

If I had gotten in sooner, I would have gone straight for Cuba,  Jamaica,  and Hispaniola. Plus the land expansion in North America.  Mostly to have trade lanes that aren't completely bestraddled by superpowers. 

[Desertfox]

The "race" for the Moluccas would have been interesting, as Japan would also have an eye on them.

Im wondering, if we make sure all the player countries have a colonial oil supply, how about having their in-country oil supply "vanish"? As a way to push further conflict. Oil, or shall we say the lack thereof, played a huge part in causing and influencing WWII. It makes sense to have nations not worry about it during the colonization stage, but we are rapidly approaching the end of that stage.

[The Rock Doctor]

The "race" for the Moluccas would have been interesting, as Japan would also have an eye on them.

Im wondering, if we make sure all the player countries have a colonial oil supply, how about having their in-country oil supply "vanish"? As a way to push further conflict. Oil, or shall we say the lack thereof, played a huge part in causing and influencing WWII. It makes sense to have nations not worry about it during the colonization stage, but we are rapidly approaching the end of that stage.

Given my interior position in Europe, I'd probably have to revert to coal in that scenario.  Boo!

[Desertfox]

Just gotta protect those SLOC down to Nigeria! Easy peasy.

[Jefgte]

Byzantine ships had oil fired boilers and also coal-fired boilers therefore capable of burning coal or wood. Wood can be loaded in large quantities if necessary.
All Byzantine colonies had large forest...
I know, that's not pleasant to massacre forest but always possible.

--------------------

We can think that colonies harbors have built up reserves of fuel brought by our supply ships.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Byzantine ships had oil fired boilers and also coal-fired boilers therefore capable of burning coal or wood. Wood can be loaded in large quantities if necessary.
All Byzantine colonies had large forest...
I know, that's not pleasant to massacre forest but always possible.

--------------------

We can think that colonies harbors have built up reserves of fuel brought by our supply ships.

The presumption is that there are fuel stores at the various colonies.
In a war the evaluation of quantity will vary with the size of the force regularly deployed there and the infrastructure.  A Cruiser Squadron (4xpc), a capital ship, or ~15000 mixed tons and a drydock sufficient for a cruiser is the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point for saying ""hey thats a naval base".

However, one would expect no more than ~6mo of combat operations to be stored there. 
What if a small fleet base has the main fleet shoved in? Or the Air points are reinforced from 1 to 8...  or the war goes more than 6mo.
And then how to evaluate naval bombardment of those stores...  I have ideas, I have WWII supply rate information,  but nothing firm right now. Lots of random dice.

The Parthians are fielding mixed firing for many vessels with many running 25% oil-sprayed coal : 25% * .90= 23% coal.
The idea being that - like the Byzantines, we can burn local coal, or in a pinch wood, for day-to-day operations, while conserving bunker fuel for conflicts.

Im wondering, if we make sure all the player countries have a colonial oil supply, how about having their in-country oil supply "vanish"? As a way to push further conflict. Oil, or shall we say the lack thereof, played a huge part in causing and influencing WWII. It makes sense to have nations not worry about it during the colonization stage, but we are rapidly approaching the end of that stage.

Part of Snip's goal efforts were to simplify and eliminate tracking, plus eliminate argument.  So the "Sufficient" guarantee  won out over resource tracking and is baked in.

Conceptually, as colonies develop and become valuable, they are worth fighting over. While the need to preserve a main fleet "at home" means colonial wars need to be limited.
Some factors - such as a semi-active "opponent" country- like a busy player or an NPC, or sudden treaties with your neighbors, remove that homefleet need. Which is an issue.

While the 1905 amphibious tech was intended to be restrictive so that amphibious invasions were problematic - which fits history - folks did not do opposed landings
as it gets better countries will be more able to field the force to gain what they want in the teeth of a defense...but will have to fight a naval war for it, in order to keep the supplies flowing. 
Meanwhile the defender will need to try to get supplies to the defense in a long fight.
Guadalcanal :)

[The Rock Doctor]

Out of curiosity, did the Byzantines simply withdraw from the contested spot in South America?

Or was there outrageous bloodshed?

[Jefgte]

Out of curiosity, did the Byzantines simply withdraw from the contested spot in South America?

Or was there outrageous bloodshed?

Byzantines withdraw.