Too much GS?

[pgr]

At the risk of going over my request quota... what do people think of reducing a bit general supply production in a 1.05? I know that in 1.03 (or 4?), the GS production of cities was reduced 20%, but most areas of the map (excluding the west of course) tend to be swimming in supplies.

A delicate thing though...because if one goes overboard then there are supply shortages everywhere.

[ohms_law]

Would supply shortages everywhere (especially in '61 and '62) be a bad thing?

[minipol]

To me it's fairly obvious: the situation in the game should be as near as what historically happened.
If there were many supplies in other parts of the country not immediately on the frontline, then this would mean that there would have been a good amount of supply.
If those areas also suffered, then we might need to evaluate the supplies.
But this could have a big impact on the game and the balance.

[pgr]

But this could have a big impact on the game and the balance.

Yep, it could easily be over done. Another thing to consider, instead of nerfing production, what if unit consumption was increased? (just brainstorming here) Again, one wouldn't want to over do it

[Captain_Orso]

Which sides supply do you want to reduce? Both?

I would not suggest trying to increase consumption. You would kill any ability to move more than 1 turn from a supply source.

[ohms_law]

Yea, I think that consumption is pretty much perfect, actually. Surprisingly so, even.
I just tend to think that there's too much supply available.
Actually, the availability of flatboats (and therefore easy supply depots throughout the South) is probably one of the biggest problems, here. The amount of supply isn't really off (Grant, or someone in his stead, ought to be able to march around Mississippi and live off the land, after all), but the ease of getting it to where you want it is a bit off. The situation in the Far West is probably more accurate for everywhere else (with the possible exception of the Mid Atlantic seaboard).

[pgr]

Which sides supply do you want to reduce? Both?

Not both, either one or the other. Trying to spark a conversation on the pros-and cons of either approach.

Ohms, I actually don't mind flatboats being so cheap. I find supply wagons to be dreadfully expensive (esp for the CSA), and the "raid depot" card can really mess up a southern supply network.

[ohms_law]

I like the flatboats too, but they certainly have upset the balance of things. That supply wagons are "dreadfully expensive" was a pretty decent balancing mechanism. The Union generally doesn't have problems with his supply network (which is pretty well set up from jump) or in purchasing wagons either for new depots or for his armies/corps. The south used to have to choose between industrializing or building a supply network, which I thought was a pretty accurate design.

[Captain_Orso]

Ohms, I think your point about the movement of supplies and not the abundance is probably the most correct. Sherman proved that he could "live off the land" already on his Meridian campaign. In Foote's The Civil War he actually describes that his men got tried of eating all the rich food they were "procuring" from the local citizens. A similar tail is told of Sherman's March to the Sea.

So it seems that the Confederate situation in general (see the Bread Riots in Richmond and Mobile) and specific to the military (especially toward the end of the war, and especially around besieged Petersburg and Richmond) were caused by a lack of government procurement and distribution and not of a lack of resources (at least when food is concerned).

The issue is, how to portrait this more realistically.

[ohms_law]

Virginia (especially Richmond) suffered a lot from the ravages of war. One thing that I've noticed missing is that there are few permanent effects from pillaging.

[tripax]

I'd have to think about it/do some research, but weren't the bread riots related more to inflation than to a lack of food. There wasn't much international confidence in the southern dollar and the supply of imports was low, so prices went up - which extended to everything. By the way, was there ever rationing anywhere in the south?

[Merlin]

One thing I've come to understand through the various histories is the vast amount of supply available to the armies. It wasn't so much the inability to move supplies as it was warehousing them and getting them to an army moving far from its depots. More battles were fought and more retreats were ordered to protect accumulated supplies than any other single cause in the war. I think the system is pretty balanced as it is, particularly when depots accumulate thousands of points of supply which can be wiped off the map and/or captured.

As for pillaging, I'll say it once more and then shut up about it. Having the plunder card reduce every structure in the region by one level would accomplish the simulation of things like Sherman's march and Sheridan's Valley campaign as well as simulate some of the "what-if" effects of the early war plans proposed by Johnston and Beauregard.

[Merlin]

I'd have to think about it/do some research, but weren't the bread riots related more to inflation than to a lack of food. There wasn't much international confidence in the southern dollar and the supply of imports was low, so prices went up - which extended to everything. By the way, was there ever rationing anywhere in the south?

Pretty much. There was enough food, but prices skyrocketed. The only comparison I can find are prices for goods and foodstuffs in the California gold fields at the height of the rush.

[ohms_law]

A lot of the price problems apparently had a lot to do with "speculators" hording stocks, too. It struck me, reading a description of the Richmond bread riots, just how much was suddenly available to people who were literally starving.

[Captain_Orso]

Going by the premise that historically inflation is the largest factor in the Confederate military not keeping it armies supplied, what can be done to bring this into the way the game works? Resources that "grow" because the Confederacy controls certain regions basically work as if the structures and farmlands belong to the government. Everything these structures produce is added to the Confederacy's pools without regard to inflation and without the government having to pay any of its own money to procure it. This also is the case with income through blockade runners.

In the game inflation is only caused by economic decisions such as printing money. But inflation was actually caused by the blockade of trade, on which the South depended, both of import and export.

Blockade runners generally traded cotton and gold for good to smuggle in the Bahamas and elsewhere around the Gulf of Mexico. These were traded at the value of the world market. I'm not sure how the price of gold varied during the war, but the price of cotton skyrocketed because of the scarcity and difficulty of obtaining the high quality cotton from the Southern States. As long as the plantations were still being worked, it was a renewable resource for the world market--if you could get it out of the country. Gold however was a limited resource.

And then there was the issue of what the blockade runners were importing. They were out for profits and not concerned with the needs of the Confederate government. They imported what the public was willing to buy once it was smuggled into the South. And often it with no more than prestige value. Until the last half of the war Southern women insisted on demonstrating that they were "above" the influences of the war. The wanted dresses from Paris and bonnets from London; silk ribbons and shoes. It was the more common women who started movements to ban imported silks and ribbons from their garments--even if they were purchased before the war--and proudly wear only attire produced entirely in the South as a demonstration of their efforts to support their men in the military and the "cause".

I believe it was in Charleston that one point enacted a regulation that at least half of the good smuggled in by blockade runners must be of certain military value, such as weapons, powder, medicine, etc.

The question is, how can all this be taken into account in the game?

[Merlin]

Honestly I think you'd have to encourage players to play the South like I do. Using flatboats and a few precious, precious wagons, I usually build a vast depot network. My rail and river transport pools are for moving men, and the supplies can take care of themselves with depots everywhere. I'll increase the river and rail pools as my armies grow, particularly the river pool, but I'd rather buy artillery with the WSU. This leads to situations where regions can get depleted through operations and the destruction of depots, but it's never serious enough for me to change the way I play.

If you want an historically transport-strapped South, make the river, and rail in particular, pools much more expensive, especially in terms of WSU. I really don't think people will like that, though.

[Captain_Orso]

I really don't know, what should be done. It seems to me that the game has removed nearly all of the complex questions which were confounding the South in reality. She swims in resources, and has no issues with their transportation. The only disadvantage she really suffers is the limited number of troops she can field; at least that's what the players are all saying.

When I read about all the issues that the Confederate Government faced and how many of Davis' contemporaries would have rather watched the Confederacy burn that give up one inch of their "State's Rights" for the benefit of the whole, I can only feeling a great urge to go through them with a baseball bat until my arms were so tired I couldn't lift them anymore; and I'm not even a sympathizer to the cause.

Okay, enough of my ranting.

[Merlin]

Lol. Probably the worst examples, Brown and Vance, were characters unto themselves.

As far as simulating the South, I'm not certain we should try to make it better. You'd have to introduce some sort of handicap system so the Confederate player could win early battles and get rifles from the field. The blockade system would have to be changed. You'd have to allow for contraband from the North. You'd have to put WSU on the map just like supplies, etc. I really do think, for all the little things we'd all love to have, CW2 has settled into an elegant abstraction of the war.

[pgr]

Ohms, I think your point about the movement of supplies and not the abundance is probably the most correct. Sherman proved that he could "live off the land" already on his Meridian campaign. In Foote's The Civil War he actually describes that his men got tried of eating all the rich food they were "procuring" from the local citizens. A similar tail is told of Sherman's March to the Sea.

So it seems that the Confederate situation in general (see the Bread Riots in Richmond and Mobile) and specific to the military (especially toward the end of the war, and especially around besieged Petersburg and Richmond) were caused by a lack of government procurement and distribution and not of a lack of resources (at least when food is concerned).

The issue is, how to portrait this more realistically.

Just to be a bit argumentative. I think one has to draw a distinction between agricultural prosperity and the ability to produce military supplies. It's not MREs, but the quartermaster corps dealt in "processed" supplies. We are talking salt meat, hard-tack bread, "desiccated mixed vegetables" (yummy), and dried beans, or rice etc.

The game is correct in making a distinction between "pillaging" of local farm potential, by a stack scrounging for food (à la Sherman) and the formal GS that is produced in harbors, cities (i'm assuming that means bakeries, butchers etc), arsenals and other "industry." The South had a big problem converting its cotton monoculture economy into a military supply system. From what I understand, Lee's supply situation in from 63-65 was greatly dependent on supply coming up through North Carolina and from the port in Wilmington (though i'm not exactly sure what it was that is coming through Wilmington...)

All I know is that in game, Va (and even just South-Central VA) produces enough supply for a large ANV without supplies coming in from outside. Playing CSA, there really isn't much need to build a depot network, or really invest in industry for GS. Assuming you hold your territory, you don't really build anything.

From a Union perspective, it does seem that economic warfare (and I'm thinking mostly the blockade) is a bit pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the blockade % and brown water blockade only cut production in harbors, right? Harbors basically produce GS, of which there is tons anyway.

So I think there would be room to nerf GS production a bit (say what City Structures produce) so that supplies will move more "regionally." (I'm thinking a confederate army of 90,000 in Va will consume more that Va alone produces, therefore surplus supply from the Carolinas and Georgia would be flowing "up").

Then, the Union would have something to "aim" for, and the the industry choices would be a bit more relevant than they seem to be now.

[ohms_law]

My understanding is that, by 1863, Virginia was war torn to the point that it wasn't really producing agriculturally. As far as I'm aware, the game doesn't really model the effect that the various armies (both Confed and Union) had on the landscape. I've read, from a couple of different sources, descriptions of northern Virginia as "a barren wasteland" (or something similar), that turned into a muddy unnavigable mess whenever it rained, with fields torn up and obstructed by a mess of trenches and breastworks.

...maybe the cities themselves should have GC consumption added to them? If that need isn't fulfilled, then that could trigger unrest and ultimately rioting.
I've always thought that there should be more "bite" to having disloyal cities/regions anyway. There's currently no need to keep troops in eastern Tennessee, for example. Or Baltimore (other than for strategic reasons), for that matter.

[Pocus]

Any region seeing a battle has a % chance of being pillaged equals to the number of elements participating in a battle. This is the extend of our rule on the effect of war on agriculture, but a rule there is at least

[pgr]

My understanding is that, by 1863, Virginia was war torn to the point that it wasn't really producing agriculturally. As far as I'm aware, the game doesn't really model the effect that the various armies (both Confed and Union) had on the landscape. I've read, from a couple of different sources, descriptions of northern Virginia as "a barren wasteland" (or something similar), that turned into a muddy unnavigable mess whenever it rained, with fields torn up and obstructed by a mess of trenches and breastworks.

...maybe the cities themselves should have GC consumption added to them? If that need isn't fulfilled, then that could trigger unrest and ultimately rioting.
I've always thought that there should be more "bite" to having disloyal cities/regions anyway. There's currently no need to keep troops in eastern Tennessee, for example. Or Baltimore (other than for strategic reasons), for that matter.

Here again, the game does not really model agricultural production as GS. The game is really modeling the industries that process raw agricultural products into supplies (food, uniforms, shoes, etc.) Apart from those regions that have "X State Farmlands," all GS is being produced in city based industries.

The city based production model doesn't really deal with how the wheat is getting to the mill if you will. I suppose one could attempt to have metric that reduces the GS production of all structures in a state by the same % of the number of regions in the state that are pillaged. Concretely, that would mean that if VA is a pillaged mess, the GS structures in Richmond won't run at max efficiency. (With perhaps coastal harbors being unaffected, to portray overseas support.)

Of course that is a bit beyond the scope of a simple patch...it's basically a new feature... but it would be cool .

[Captain_Orso]

I have to agree with you pgr, at least to the greatest extent. Not completely, but that only because I don't know myself , if that makes any sense

As far as I recall, in AACW only the towns and cities produced GS and that regardless of what non-town/cities regions belonged to whom. There may have been some counting of regions adjusting the GS production of a state's cities, but I may be just dreaming too.

In CW2 the Farmlands were added to represent the actual farming regions where the staple crops were grown, but they are few and produce a lot, as if they represented the crop production of all the regions around them too.

Then, as you already stated, there is no taking into account the crops get to the cities to be processed. Basically the farmlands should increase the GS output of 1 or more cities/town which they could access as if supply were being transfered between them. If there is not path between a farmland and a town/city, it will not increase any GS production. If there is, then the production of that town/city increases accordingly.

Another thing which is not addressed in the game at all, is that there are not restrictions on how much traffic may pass over any rail line in any directions. One of the reasons that Richmond/Petersburg was running low on supplies was because the number of rail lines going into the cities was being reduced one line after the other, until just one rail line remained. I the game, as long as enough supplies were at, or could get to, the other end of one single rail line, Richmond and Petersburg would still get the supplies they need.

But such changes would require some major code changes to implement. So I'm still wondering what can be done to make the game with the current engine more historical.

[pgr]

there are not restrictions on how much traffic may pass over any rail line in any directions. One of the reasons that Richmond/Petersburg was running low on supplies was because the number of rail lines going into the cities was being reduced one line after the other, until just one rail line remained. I the game, as long as enough supplies were at, or could get to, the other end of one single rail line, Richmond and Petersburg would still get the supplies they need.

Oh railroads! I remember causing a bit of a debate suggesting that it was a bit to easy to load a stack up and drop it of by rail. (For the record, I'd prefer it move kinda like riverine transport. The bigger the stack, the slower the move and the longer the "unload" at the end.)

For supplies on the rails, is it really limitless? I suppose no infistructure, tracks, and roads all serve to restrict the amount of supplies that can enter a zone right? Would it be that hard to put in a cap for rail? (admittedly this is drifting the subject a bit...)

[Captain_Orso]

Oh railroads! I remember causing a bit of a debate suggesting that it was a bit to easy to load a stack up and drop it of by rail.

In reality it would depend on just a bunch of practical issues. The trains were running regardless of whether the army wants to move a unit or not. Rail lines only went from city to city. Practically none of them passed through a city. If you wanted to transit the city and continue your journey, you walked or took a coach to the next train station on the other side of the city and board the a train of another rail line[SUP]1)[/SUP].

If the unit you are moving is larger than the capacity of the scheduled train, they might just hang some extra cars onto the train. Or if you needed enough capacity to warrant putting a train together just for this one transport, if the engine and stock were available, you just put them together. Since the army didn't just show up at the station to buy tickets, the rail line had time to organize getting the engine and wagons necessary put together on time.

The biggest difficulty was in coordinating the different rail lines, so that when one train arrived in a city, the next was waiting for the troops to just get to it and board.

But it was done a number of times by both sides with formations of corps size and larger without any major difficulties.

[SUP]1)[/SUP] I'm not sure about the South, but in the North some states actually had laws pushed through by lobbyists from the rail companies forbidding a rail line to traverse a city. The laws were to prevent any one rail company from being able to efficiently connect more than 2 cities at a time. In other words to stifle competition.

My issue was that all the traffic which had previously been carried by numerous rail lines suddenly had to be carried by one line with reduced locomotive and rolling stock capacity.

(For the record, I'd prefer it move kinda like riverine transport. The bigger the stack, the slower the move and the longer the "unload" at the end.)

Nearly every man has two legs. Nearly every man can pick up his bundle and walk off a train at nearly the same time.

I'm not aware that larger stacks move slower by riverine transport nor that they unload slower, unless they are under commanded. In fact a single leader still take 5 freaken days to get off riverine pool transports.

The offload time is a "cheat" added to discourage the player from using the riverine pool for transporting troops into battle. Look up The Battle of Chickasaw Bayou It's documented that Sherman unloads all this troops on one day, marches and attacks with them, and a couple of days later loads them all back up on one day and sails back o the river.

For supplies on the rails, is it really limitless? I suppose no infistructure, tracks, and roads all serve to restrict the amount of supplies that can enter a zone right? Would it be that hard to put in a cap for rail? (admittedly this is drifting the subject a bit...)

It's not a question of capping rail use in general, it's a question of capping single lines being used overly in one turn.

[FelixZ]

Getting back to GS.

Is there any reason to still pursue the Anaconda Plan under the current unlimited GS?

Perhaps Gray Fox is right to ignore blockade?

[ohms_law]

Is there any reason to still pursue the Anaconda Plan under the current unlimited GS?

No, definitely not.
(although, I'd quibble with "unlimited", it effectively is unless one side is being severely beaten)

[elxaime]

All I know is that in game, Va (and even just South-Central VA) produces enough supply for a large ANV without supplies coming in from outside. Playing CSA, there really isn't much need to build a depot network, or really invest in industry for GS. Assuming you hold your territory, you don't really build anything. From a Union perspective, it does seem that economic warfare (and I'm thinking mostly the blockade) is a bit pointless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the blockade % and brown water blockade only cut production in harbors, right? Harbors basically produce GS, of which there is tons anyway. Then, the Union would have something to "aim" for, and the the industry choices would be a bit more relevant than they seem to be now.

Having played ACW2 a few times now, to my mind the economic modeling seems the most dubious. I agree completely it is near impossible to starve out anyone by getting astride their supply routes IF they control several zones. A "Festung" strategy is especially applicable in Northern Virginia where the Confederacy can just hold a Richmond-Petersburg "island." In reality, Grant and Lee fought vigorously over the railways south of the capital. Lee knew if he lost them, it would strangle his army.

Why not just reduce the amount of GS that is stockpiled across the board? It would make players care about their lines of supply, which presently is rarely the case.

[Ace]

There's definitely too much GS on the map. I would reduce structure GS output. If city output is to be reduced as well, I would increase city size in the Far west to offset decreased production.

[pgr]

Getting back to GS.

Is there any reason to still pursue the Anaconda Plan under the current unlimited GS?

Perhaps Gray Fox is right to ignore blockade?

Meh Felix, in our little game, the blockade is defiantly having an effect, although the effect is being felt the most in the WS and $$$ departments (which I think is argument enough for the union to do it...especially if the Union has the WS to spare.)