Iron War - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

The HardAI Axis played a pretty impressive game. USA took the TKO with 20 VCs in the 11th round. I bypassed Truk to take Japan which screwed their pacific game, but they did manage to link up at the center and encircle Siberia. Seems like they might have a bit of fight left in them, although we got the nukes coming in hot now so pretty much a done deal hehe.

0_1542180597464_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 120 Russia round 12.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Started another vs the HardAI Axis, with a scripted German opener this time at 133%. Tried to play to the German AI's strengths in the first round, so heavy on artillery and aircraft without any kind of naval expansion. So far its pretty nice press from the machine. I went after Finland early, to punish them for the last game, so the center will probably collapse in short order, but wanted to see how hard I could swing at the minors. Here it is in the third round, still using .12949.

0_1542233730217_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 3.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Some thoughts, notes on possible tweaks

ANZAC: I think the secondary +5 spot should be moved from Melbourne to Darwin. This would serve the dual purpose of allowing ANZAC a viable way to shorten their supplies lines (via factory purchase) and also attracting a potential Japanese campaign vs Australia. I think it makes sense from a game-play perspective, since it would allow for Naval support somewhere other than the Sydney sea zone. Right now there isn't much difference between a having a factory in Melbourne vs the one in Sydney (probably Anzac will never have more than 5 units in a given round anyway), but Darwin would have some strategic advantages closer to the front that might encourage the expense of 25 pu to activate it. Also ANZAC is pretty fuel thirsty (they are mainly purchasing aircraft or ships), I think it makes sense for the USA to have an Aid option to support them. Right now Britain can send fuel, but Britain is already thirsty, so its basically a 2 step process of sending Fuel from the USA to Britain, and then from Britain to Anzac, which is kind of cumbersome. Simpler I think to just add a field for Anzac to the USA phase.

Balkans: They are fun on the Eastern Front punching holes, but it would be cool if they had some other options for expansion. Maybe worth thinking about increasing the value of Greece or Ankara to +5, so that it could potentially allow Balkans more options to expand? The same territories could also overlap a bit with the British Colonies and the Middle east factions, or Russia, or even USA late game with another road into/out of Europe

Brazil: This nation still feels a little cash poor. The 5 PUs/5 oil from USA is nice, but I think often the USA player will be hard pressed to send it along given all the other demands on their cash. Maybe it would make sense to raise the value of some outlying Brazilian territories? Another option would be to increase the Pro-Axis territory of Buenos Aires to +5, which might encourage some more activity in South America from the Allies. I think a total income of 20-25, with the option to expand that to like 30 PUs if you take over the Pro-Axis spaces would help those Smoking Cobras to develop a more viable expeditionary force.

Britain: I think they need at least one starting transport in the Atlantic to get the ball rolling. Even if it's not in a SZ where it can be immediately used, just having it at the ready would be nice. I think the British Aid phase might include a 10 spot to Russia. Perhaps you can split the difference between USA aid to Russia by giving the Brits 10 and USA 10 to send, making it a harder decision, since Britain has less cash to throw around. Right now I think the main gameplay decision for Britain is whether to take Scandinavia or North Africa (choosing just one focus and leaving the other for USA), which is something I like.

British-Colonies: They are fun to play. I think Egypt might be a little light vs the Axis crush, but that's sort of always a feature of these games hehe. I think if anything their game might be bolstered by having a few more +5 target territories in and around the Med, so they have a reason to press back vs Italy. Otherwise its just dropping back to Nigeria and holding on with the French. I think South Africa could be absorbed into British-Colonies and the larger faction would be more interesting to play.
The way I see it right now we have 5 British factions, the Atlantic one that includes UK/Canada (British), the African/South American one with a few Pacific islands (British-Colonies), the South African one (South Africa), the South Asian one (British-India), and the South Pacific one (ANZAC). But the political/national divisions can feel a bit arbitrary for the Empire at the time. I think it's simpler to have just 4 British Empire factions, which basically correspond to the North Atlantic (British), South Atlantic/Africa (British-Colonies), India/South Asia (India), and the South Pacific (ANZAC). It's easier to imagine them as like faraway Imperial regional commands that way rather than as separate independent nations.

China: The Chinese could use a buff. Right now it's pretty simple for Japan to come at them really heavy and force them out of Chunking in fairly short order. The total hitpoints needed just to stall Japan for a couple rounds is very narrow, which makes it hard for them to expand into Tibet. I think some combination of more starting Artillery and a larger aid amount from USA would help, or perhaps just raising the value of the territories in the neighborhood from 1-2 PUs up to 3s or 4s. The artillery mainly so they can deadzone spots like Lanchow, and the increased aid/cash so they can drop a few more hitpoints per round. Right now China is maxing at like 2-3 hitpoints per round, whereas Japan can probably push like 6 hitpoints plus all their starting heavy hitters, which is a lot to defend against. I think it requires almost all the Soviet Far east forces just to prop them up currently, which doesn't leave anything to deal with Japanese push out of Manchuria vs Irkutsk.

Finland: kinda feels like a German problem to prop up, but I'm not sure I'd do anything there. Basically Finland has to survive and then snag Archangel or Leningrad to get big enough to be of much use elsewhere, but that seems only fair hehe. I think the dream is probably like some ships in the White Sea or something, but G has to do a lot of work to make that happen.

France: I think France right now is kinda weak and spread a bit too thin to be of much interest. I wonder if Algeria might be bumped up to +5, so it can serve as a contested midpoint between Morocco and Libya? I think it would be a fun springboard, not just for the German player, but also a reason for the Allies to take French North Africa more seriously, and force early actions there. Otherwise I think France could be bolstered by ditching French-Colonies.

French Colonies: Right now they feel kinda outsized in terms of influence. Functionally the main role is to do some early naval action, and then build a factory in French India to try and help with the Indian multi-national stack fest. If that factory gets knocked off then I guess you buy fighters out French Guiana. But it seems to me that the overall strength in India is kinda disproportionately French-Colonies for the fodder, when it should probably just be more British India dudes. If the concern for French Indochina is getting a big influx of troops early, I'd maybe just ditch the starting factory and give the space to France directly, same deal Guiana. Basically I think having a more potent France would be more fun overall than keeping the colonies as a separate faction.

Germany: I like the German set up, for the most part feels pretty solid. The only thing I can think of to add some more interest would be to maybe give Benelux to the KNIL faction as a +5 spot. Right now its sort of a throwaway spot since the Allies can't build there, but it could give the KNIL faction some life if the Allies make a press into Western Europe. I think that in combination with a potential snag in Algeria might help Germany springboard a bit more to west for variety, since right now its definitely centered on Russia.

KNIL: They are surprisingly fun to play in the Pacific, right up until the point when Japan cracks Sumatra. If you can keep them alive, they can transport to help the situation in India. But when the factory gets knocked off, which probably happens sooner rather than later, their game is pretty much done. Fighters out of Dutch Guiana I guess is the play after that. But if Benelux was activated for KNIL, it would give the game some Market Garden flavor for liberation days, and put the port of Antwerp in play for both teams at the start or at the end.

Iraq/Iran: maybe could be combined into "Axis Near East" faction or something like that is kinda all-encompassing. I'd keep the light green territory, but use the Iraq unit set, since it's a little easier to distinguish. (I sometimes confuse the Iranian units for the Italian ones when they start to converge, but the black in the Iraqi units makes them pop a bit more.) Anyhow, if combined then it would be easier for the Axis Near East player to trade one production hub for another, and better absorb a crush. I still like the idea of the Axis Near East potentially expanding to a more significant power if they can take over Arabia, Egypt or press farther afield. Maybe it would be worth considering Afghanistan as a true neutral instead of pro-Axis so that the Near East faction has a chance at it.

Italy: Italy is pretty fun. I wouldn't touch much there. Their fleet in Mombasa feels kind of vulnerable, so maybe its worth giving them a cruiser or something to help deal with the British Colonies/South Africa/India fleets. Libya can stack pretty heavy. I'm thinking a few more +5 spots in the med might make their game a bit more interesting. Prime candidates I think are Algeria, Greece, Ankara and Syria. I think the way the gameplay works the more potential factory spots in play the more interesting the map becomes strategically. Essentially I think that the +5 territories are sort of the only ones that matter, so it makes sense to me to consider added a few more in the Med, since there are a lot of factions in the area that could contest them.

Japan: I like Japan's opener. They might be a bit too deadly with the 6 transports for the home fleet. Maybe one of them should be peeled off? Otherwise I like how they work. There are a lot of springboards and things to keep you busy. I think China might be a bit too simple to roll over, but I think that can be fixed with just a few more units coming in each round for the Chinese. I think the only real areas of improvement would be to give Japan more of a reason to consider Australia as an alternative to the India crush.

USA: Most of my thoughts on the USA have to do with the Aid phase. Right now I think it makes sense for the USA player to send the max fuel they can early on to prevent everyone other than Russia from running out of gas immediately. On the cash front though using the USA as the Allied banker can be kind of tough. Even clocking 90-110 PUs per round, you can burn through that pretty quickly if trying to spread the cash around (especially since you need transports). This is difficult because as Redrum pointed out, some of the aid packages are no-brainers, which can lead the USA player unable to mobilize enough units to actually move out towards the front. I'm not sure what the best solution is... Part of me thinks that the Aid amounts for USA should be increased so that they can't be used every round. For that latter idea, instead of sending China 10 PUs every round, maybe you send them like 50 PUs once during the entire game. Basically the idea there would be to make the aid amounts much larger so that the player has to choose just one buddy to prop up in a given round. So basically you can send maybe half the pie in aid, and are forced to use the remainder on units. Of course in that case, the situation with Russia is problematic, because they are always the player on the Allied team that can do the most with the cash.

I am wondering if an aid rotation of some sort might make sense? Like maybe every round the USA gets a different pair of Allied aid packages for PUs. Doing this you might be able to create a historical theme to the aid year by year. So maybe in Early 1940 its a choice between Britain or China, where the aid amount for each is too large to give to both. In Late 1940 maybe its a choice between China and Russia, again with the total for both packages exceeding USA income (so they have to choose just one.) As time goes on the pair might change to account for what happened historically, so perhaps ANZAC would come up in 1941 as the Pacific heats up. Or Brazil in 1942, just before Operation Torch gets underway. Maybe France hits in 1944 so it pairs up with Normandy etc. Basically what I'm driving at is trying to force a more significant gameplay decision each round. Over time perhaps the total aid amounts diminish to represent the USA entry into the conflict proper, where they start keeping more of the pie to build their own forces.

USSR: I like Russia right now. I wouldn't do too much there. They are entertaining. There is some sprawl in the middle that can be hard to hold down if the Axis punch through, but its fun for the back and forth with the mobile units. I think the air-transports help to connect Siberia with the rest of the Soviet Union over all those tiles.

Thailand: Its probably a little overpowered and out-sized historically, but fun to play for the only Pacific Axis minor. Basically its a choice of how far to extend at Japan's expense, but if you can take a +5 spot in India or China, you can start churning out fighters or ships for the team. To add some more strategic interest to the expansion maybe Singapore or Bengal at +5 as well.

All I can think of at the moment for a faction by faction recap. I dig all the changes of the last build including the Air-Transport spawn. Will play some more AI games while I wait for redrum. Catch you in a few dude

[Black_Elk]

ps. here is that game from earlier vs Axis at 133%. It took 11 rounds to stabilize the Russian front. So far its been a pretty conservative push to take Africa and Scandinavia to consolidate the early Russian gains. Light footprint in the Pacific from USA, India and China trying to holding it together with big stacks in Urimichi and Burma Road. But seems like the Axis still have some good fight left.

0_1542353147820_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 12.tsvg

I noticed that the German AI spawns subs in Lake Onega if they take Leningrad. Not sure that that connection is necessary since its landlocked.

Kept it going for another couple hours. Victory in Europe is almost at hand, but Japan is still pretty thick in Asia. I sent the Australians globe trotting to knock off South America. Finally took Thailand, KNIL got the prize. About to start letting the nukes fly.

0_1542362155131_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 USA round 15.tsvg

Against all hope AI Japan is still trying to bring it at the center. They've got a bunch of nice 30 stacks balling around, trying to sweat the Russian backfield. They just tried to force their way back into Burma too. Ultimately doomed but still kicking, I think this is probably the highpoint of their press into Asia hehe. Most of the IJN surface fleet was nuked out of the water, but they still got a gang of subs prowling the pacific. The 133% boost has been pretty enjoyable for the long slog.

0_1542366330595_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 18.tsvg

[Frostion]

What should be done about lake Onega? Make it impassable? Could ships sail back and forth to and from the sea from those lakes?

[Black_Elk]

I would say impassable, since a connection between the lakes and the Baltic/White sea would not be intuitive at glance. Another connection that might be worth ditching to prevent confusion is the one between Scotland and Hebrides, since right now Hebrides looks like an island. I had it happen a couple games back where I landed some German dude's there thinking it was a safe island only to have some mobile artillery blitz over at it from England. Otherwise I think you need some kind of graphical feature to indicate on the map that a particular island or lake is connected to another tile that might not be immediately apparent. I don't know though, if you leave one spot then it opens things up, like why Hebrides but not Sicily... Or Lake Onega but not Ontario etc. Easier to just remove the suspect connections I would think.

Any thoughts on some those suggestions regarding +5 spots?

I think it really opens things up, and is the simplest method to make the map more entertaining for both teams. The way the game is set, it's the +5s tiles that really allow for more dynamic play patterns, since they give factions a way to gain new foothold bases. Having them in contested areas gives both sides more to consider. Every time we add one into the mix it seems to enhance the strategic nuance in the region, so I think the map could support a few more just to help with the spring-boarding. Here are my top candidates...

Afghanistan (true neutral)
Alaska
Algeria
Ankara
Benelux
Buenos Aires
Darwin
Greece
Okinawa
Papua New Guinea

[redrum]

@Black_Elk I generally agree with most of your feedback across the nations. Though I think you are a bit too pro-allies. I personally think Allies are a bit OP in the current version though figure I'll wait to say too much until we finish our game and switch sides.

[Cernel]

I like the absence of names in the map; it keeps it cleaner for the actual gaming stuff to be seen and it easily allows for changing them. On the other hand, I'm not sure what is your method for naming territories? I see like a mix of territories and cities, and also a practice of naming the less important portion of a territory with the name of the same.

For example, Canada, by your borders, I would rather name this way:

Fort Norman->Yukon
Yellowknife->Western Mackenzie
Boothia->Eastern Mackenzie
Melville->Keewatin
Canadian Northwest->Northern Baffin
Baffin->Southern Baffin
British Columbia->Northern British Columbia
Victoria->Southern British Columbia
Alberta->Northern Saskatchewan/Northern Alberta
Calgary->Southern Saskatchewan/Southern Alberta
Saskatchewan->Southern Manitoba
Manitoba->Northern Manitoba
Wabakimi->South-Western Ontario
Ontario->Northern Ontario
Toronto->South-Eastern Ontario
Ungave->Northern Quebec
Quebec->Central Quebec
Halifax->Southern Quebec
Labrador->.
Newfoundland->.

The United States of America, my take would be:

USA North Atlantic->Middle Atlantic USA
USA South Atlantic->South Atlantic USA
USA North->Northern North Central USA
USA Midwest->Central North Central USA
USA Central->Southern North Central USA
Gulf Coast->Eastern South Central USA
Texas->Western South Central USA
Montana->Northern Mountain USA
Great Plains->Central Mountain USA
USA Southwest->Southern Mountain USA
USA Northwest->Northern Pacific USA
California->Southern Pacific USA

("Central Noth Central USA" doesn't sound great, and "Central Midwest USA" would sound much better, but at the time those regions were called "North Central", but further divided into "West North Central" and "East North Central" (that may be mapping too badly to be used, as the division here is in 3 parts, north to south))

Also, I would find more correct either "US America" or "US of America", instead of "USA" (as "USA" can mean whatever like that; for example, "Union of South Africa").

Just making some examples, starting from the upper-left portion of the map. Nothing specifically intended. Just letting you know what I would do with naming. Nothing really important. I see that your way keeps it easier to reference, tho it is arbitrarily jumping from city names, to States names, to region names, to purely geographical names, pure cardinals (like "USA North"), and also broad statistical "area" concepts (like "Gulf Coast" (that would be more defined as "USA Gulf Coast")).

[Black_Elk]

@redrum Yeah I think though that the trick for Axis is achieving income/fuel parity in the early-mid game, I guess the idea being that with more +5 spots in contention that Axis would then have more avenues to pump it up. I think the Axis team would also be easier to balance for changes once the Allies are tweaked since the Axis drive is more straight forward, but right now I was thinking mainly of ways to accelerate the pace somewhat on the Allied end, and have more back and forth attrition rather than big stack build ups at the core. What I think happens now is that Axis gets bogged down slogging away vs huge armies in Russia, Central/South Asia, and Central Africa, where the Axis income and fuel is only barely enough to stabilize what you snag initially, rather than going for continued expansion. That's where I see those other +5 spots coming into play.

I also agree about some of territory names, though I imagine its probably too much of a rework at this point, since it would be a ton of xml entries to rehash.

I put in another 18 rounds last night, this time vs HardAI Allies at 150%. I put the Shah to work and got Iran about as large as I could hehe. There's been a ton of Allied aircraft giving me headaches. The Axis fleets are so large that I can only move them once every other round lol. I found that if you put a teammates friendly aircraft on the carriers for defense, it helps to keep them moving. Kinda gimmicky, but does the trick in a pinch...

0_1542497611341_elk vs hardAI Allies 150 Germany round 18.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

ps. just to elaborate a bit more on the rationale for more +5 tiles. I think Iron War does really well at implementing the idea of production lilly pads, something that A&A never did all that well. Mainly because the factory cost here is relatively low and because it can be destroyed, all those +5 tiles serve as like goal posts, allowing the various faction to get out into the periphery and push the fronts. They create pockets of activity, like stepping stones around the globe. Most nations don't have anywhere near the cash to max production on a given turn, so it becomes a game of move out, taking over new +5 spots to produce out of while the ones in the backfield lie more dormant. I think the more of them we have situated in intermediate/contested areas, the more strategic depth it provides in the back and forth between the two teams. I think right now most of locations should go in range of the european axis side/around the med, though I think there is room in the pacific for a couple more too, to orient the fighting there as opposed to just all in for Asia. That way both sides always have somewhere to drive against next in the pacific periphery.

Also, related to production, just a quick note, carrier placement can be tough if there are multiple factories in a given sea zone. As an example, for Germany it can be complicated if you build a factory in East Prussia then want to place a carrier in the baltic sea from West Germany. Moving fighters from West Germany onto the deck I mean. It also happens sometimes between Italy and Libya, where if you don't have enough hitpoints to fill the other factory you can't drop the deck in a way that allows to move fighters on board. Or same deal for Japan and Manchuria.

Maybe a prompt asking which coastal factory you want to produce the carrier/ship from would help? (Like the same deal as the bombardment prompt, with a selection of bordering coastal territories.) Often there is more than one option, and the default might not let you get the aircraft you want onto deck.

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk @redrum "Maybe a prompt asking which coastal factory you want to produce the carrier/ship from would help? (Like the same deal as the bombardment prompt, with a selection of bordering coastal territories.)"
This sounds like a great fix.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah in the last game it came up more than once, on account of the extensive naval build up hehe. Went 25 rounds to invasion USA, just nuclear winter forever...

0_1542524813641_elk vs hardAI Allies 150 Japan round 25.tsvg

I think the option to move fighters onboard ala classic is an entertaining throwback, but it makes the carrier placement out of the right coastal territory pretty significant.

[Black_Elk]

Aden might also be interesting for a +5. It would give British colonies a fall back point, or maybe more of a way to coordinate with British-India. Egypt is a struggle. Esp if the Near East Axis get a buff, so that Russia can't slam them so hard initially. Thing is for play balance its probably British-Colonies or British-India that need to be taking on the middle east income/oil moreso than Russia, but right now only Russia has the juice to come at them with the mobile units out of Aktobe. Wondering if Punjab or Bengal might be more interesting for the +5 as opposed to Nepal?

[redrum]

@Frostion @Black_Elk Given that I think that carrier rule is outdated and shouldn't really be used, its pretty low on the list to add a prompt like that.

@Black_Elk I tend to agree that a few more +5 spots would probably help the map. Regarding Nepal, I think Punjab is too close to Afghanistan and Bengal is too easy for Axis to capture. The one benefit of Nepal is that if India is captured by sea then it could be used as a land locked factory to try to hold northern India.

[Frostion]

@redrum @Black_Elk
After following your match I have prepared a slightly updated new version of Iron War. If you are going to go head to head again, you could use this version. Among other changes, Darwin is now a capturable spot that can hold a factory. I see this as fitting since it could both simulate an good potential landing area / beach head for a Japanese invasion of Australia, and at the same time the 5 PUs shows the town’s military importance for the Allies during WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin
At the same time I have lowered som other ANZAC territory PUs, so to not affect the map’s overall PU balance. Before doing something like this I would really like to hear from you guys about which alliance the map currently favours PU-wise.

There are no revolutionary game changers in the update Just smaller fixes, and they seems to be leaning pro-axis. Here is the XML. I will probably also update the downloadable map at github with this same XML, especially if you also approve of the changes and start a new match.

Iron War Version 0.2.7 changes:
• Airfields no longer give +1 move to aircraft.
• "Units Can Load In Hostile Sea Zones" is now "true".
• Hebrides no longer has a land connection to Scotland.
• Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are now impassible land territories, so naval placements in these territories are no longer possible. (This does not affect air moves as there was never any tactical advantage in flying over them anyway.)
• Darwin is now a 5 PUs territory, not 2. (Factory placement is now possible here.)
• Melbourne is now a 3 PUs territory, not 5.
• North Queensland is now a 2 PUs territory, not 3.

0_1542655461029_0.2.7-XML.zip

[redrum]

@Frostion Those changes look good to me and definitely are a bit pro-Axis (though IMO Allies are OP in 0.2.6 so that's ok). I'm fine updating to use those for our next game. I'm holding back most of my feedback til I play both sides as don't want to be biased having only played Axis.

[Frostion]

@Cernel
On the world map of Iron War I am mostly satisfied with the names, and they are mostly taken from WW2 era maps. And yes, there is no single system in use like “only territory names”, “only city names” etc. It is a mix of names consisting of relevant, important, well know places, and there is NO emphasis on “localization” of names. On the contrary, it is probably WW2 era Anglo-Saxon naming (mostly). Though I have not named places like "Ryojun" as "Port Arthur" or its Chineese name. Some places I have taken into account who actually controlled the area at the time.

In the case of Canada, some territories have been named after the only settlements in the area. When that is said, there is a potential for name changing some of the territories in Canada. I am more satisfied with the current USA territory naming. I like that the large states have their own names, and I like short names like “USA Central” over your proposed “Southern North Central USA” and also “Gulf Coast” over “Eastern South Central USA”.

“Fort Norman” is names so because of the Oil refineries in Yukon. It was the only place of real importance and also the reason why there is an oil barrel placed in the territory. Players maybe think “why is there an oil barrel placed here”. The name Fort Norman (or Norman Wells) gives the player a hint, and the player is free to investigate. (From Wiki: ”Imperial Oil, a major employer in the town, was established in the area in 1937 with a refinery built in 1939. During the Second World War, Norman Wells was deemed important as a source of oil for military operations in Alaska and the Yukon.”) It was important enough to be the only place marked on the maps I have available.

“Calgary” is also named for the oil barrels located on the map. Turner Valley / Calgary was a small Canadian “oil capital” during ww2.

“Victoria” should probably have a name change to “Vancouver”, as it probably was a bigger ship producer in WW2 (even thought Victoria also had shipyards). In iron War the territory is a 5PU territory, meaning that it is a potential factory placement spot.

“Saskatchewan” should perhaps be renamed “Winnipeg”, as it was the largest city there in WW2.

“Wabakimi” should maybe be renamed “Port Arthur”, as it was the area’s most important place at the time.

[redrum]

@Frostion I think most of the names are actually pretty good. Only thing that irks me is not seeing Poland as a territory on the map. I also much prefer the names being displayed on the map so its easier to see and refer to territories.

[Frostion]

@redrum Well, “Poland” being named “East Prussia” is perhaps an example of a name based on who controlled the territory at the time. I guess a lot of inhabitants of “Transjordan”, “French Indochina” etc. feel that their territories have been given strange names also

[Cernel]

@Frostion So, I know that you (already told me that you) don't have primary focus on historicity; so chances are that you already know what I'm going to say (I infer it also from the fact that you said "small Canadian "oil capital" during WW2"), and decided otherwise, for gameplay reasons, but, since the matter got opened, just fyi, Canada was a small oil producer. In 1939 Canada produced 997 Gg of oil, while Venezuela produced 30,534 Gg, and the US of America produced 171,053 Gg.
So, assuming the ratios being constant from 1939 onwards, if you give 8 Fuel-Barrels to Canada, in total, then you should put about 250 Fuel-Barrels in Venezuela. 1940 shares are fairly similar, but Venezuela goes down some (used 1939 for reliability).
Looking at the game, having between 200 and 300 Fuel-Barrels in total, if one would want to be historical, I think Canada could have only 1 Fuel-Barrel (in Calgary), as that Dominion gave the 0.35% of the world's oil in 1939.

But I see that probably the ratios have been adjusted mainly on gameplay motivations, since Romania gets more oil than Caucasus, and Italy gets as much oil as all the Dutch East Indies (realistically here Italy would have 0 oil, or 1 in Albania, if Romania is 15).

Plus I don't know most of the oil productions after 1940; so it could be that Canada's oil surged at some point, as I see it was over 1% of the world in 1951.