A cross-post from Express Talk, as this was my suggested modifications to make an oiler more competitive as compared to a farmer.

1) Nerf production to 1 barrel per rig per turn.
2) Add oil tech (100-250%).
3) Add oil decay.
4) Increase base oil price from $60 to $100.
5) Optionally, make consumption 1 barrel per unit, cost $4 per barrel, production of 25 barrels per rig.

This would allow a max tech Fascist (+50% oil) to produce 3.75 barrels per rig or 3.6 barrels per rig after full days turns.

However, this make a farmer start-up more profitable 70% per acre. At max tech though, a farmer would make 11.66 bushels per acre and an oiler 3.75 barrels per acre, 3.1x the output.

At $100 per barrel, without tech, the rate per acre is $153.7 per farm or $150 per rig; with max tech, it's $338.14 per farm vs. $375 per rig.

Finally, the volatility of oil could be reduced by reducing the consumption and price rates while increasing production (the opposite as Mehul did when he nerfed food by increasing prices by 10x and production and consumption by 1/10x to allow for greater market variation).

Oil and food were two of the bigger changes. What's neat is how they both came about and evolved. It's defined two separate strats around goods that play very differently on the market. I really hate how much it costs to send jets though.

More competitive? You're just making them much more similar to each other.

I've farmed and topfed, and the amount required is ridiculous.

If you reduced the amount of oil needed without other adjustments, it would further reduce the use of an oiler as there is already. Probably as some point even a rainbow would have better income per acre.

What is wrong with having two similar, but different strategies, rather than one effective strategy and one ineffective building composition?

Without technology, an oil prices surge is limited to 150% of the income per acre of indies and farmers. Whereas oilers cannot take equal advantage of military or bushel surges due to the cost of entry needing millions in technology, at which point you aren't an oiler any more.

A split strategy of Fasc/Oiler+Farmer is effectively a farmer strategy with some oil rigs when profitable.

The only time an oiler outperforms is when 99% of the people have given up on it. It'd be like playing the only techer in tourney.

u need heaps of oil for landtrading...............................................................................

Oil tech would make oiler worse.

what chewi said... realistically the best ways to improve oilers are by creating a floor price in the private market, and by altering the amount of oil required by units in attack (or adding that they use oil in defending)

That is not to say i am pro or against any of those points, just saying that would be how to go about altering it currently.

Also changing the market goods time to 12 hours with no oil cost, and 4 or 3 hours with an oil cost related to the amount of units/tech you sell

Why would oil tech only make oiler worse? Every other building type and strategy can improve efficiency as the round goes on. Without technology, you can make up the difference with extra land, but any strategy with extra land is better than the same with less.

There is a price floor in Express, but at $60 barrel vs $29 bushel, it only takes 137% Agri tech to out perform it or 119% as a Fasc/Farmer. At a higher floor, $77 per barrel (less if you assume decay), it's more profitable for non-Fascists to do an oiler start-up instead of a farmer start. At which point, an actual oiler has 0 market for the first week.

Oil use to market would be good to balance MBRs.

Oiler's income is maximized with out the need for tech. So unlike other strats that require a production tech to maximize its efficiency tech the oiler can use money saved from this elsewhere, such as buying more military or building more.

You can't build more without more land, and more land doesn't improve your production per acre.

A 20k farmer needs 544k tech to get 227% production. Let's say tech is expensive at $5k, that's $2.72b more in stock an oiler might have by not buying tech. However, that farmer would produce 228k bushels a turn (19k farms) compared to 66.5k barrels. That's 65% extra income using private market values, $2.6m per turn, or two weeks of turns in Alliance.

The only advantage of an oiler to spend money on buildings instead of tech is to switch strategies and rebuild as a MBR. While not having technology is the strength of the weak oiler strategy we now have, the only time it can compete or outperform is during exceptional circumstances.

The problem with oil is not enough demand. If you add an oil tech, you just increase the supply even more and lower the prices even further without increasing demand.

highrock, if you read my initial post, I suggested nerfing oil production in combination with adding oil tech to increase demand by reducing the ability of famers and indies to profit off it as a secondary product. Without tech, there is no penalty for them to throw up a few rigs to cash in on peaks.

A potential for greater profit from oil offset by a greater expense to reach that level, and more exclusive production at peak rates, reducing supply from marginal oilers.

It would be interesting to have oiler feel more like a real strategy. Glad to see you're still around running numbers like this.

You are all failing to take into account the effect this would have on landgrabbing vs. exploring. More expensive oil, or a need for more oil, makes landgrabbing less beneficial vs exploring.

With the current market prices in alliance oiler is out producing farmer and the oiler didn't have to spend cash on tech?

More land = more production who cares about production per acre.

And next week after SOL vs MD/LCN is done pushing up demand? The 10-20% margin won't last as people undercut and demand smooths out. There are 56 Fascists out of ~800 countries in Alliance, that's 1 country per 2 in war and 1 LGing. A Fascist/Farmer can produce oil in these circumstances instead of building farms. If oil is over $200 in September, I will be surprised, unless there is another big war or two.

More land = more production sure, but to compare similar countries you have to compare equal land, so production per acre somes into play. It doesn't matter if you have a 5k, 20k, or 50k country, but you it isn't fair saying a 20k oiler outperforms a 5k casher, so an oiler is better than a casher.

The incremental cost of oil on LGing vs the production gained isn't much. Say a 1m jet PS, you'd need 40k barrels at $100-200 = $4-8m. For 100a over 1000t (2 weeks), it's $40/acre. Most strategies produce $400-600 per acre, so it's a 10-20% cost. Oiler prices over $200 are not sustainable, as it dampens demand as it peaks, or draws supplimental production to take advantage of the better production per acre.

I was just thinking, what about oil used in defense? This would create a large demand, so that people's military would work to defend their land when attacked. It would also dampen price spikes as a larger reserve pool could be mobilized to meet a demand surge, but wouldn't be overly motivatived to undercut the price.