Industrialization - for or against?

[Captain_Orso]

First off, I have no idea how it is determined where factories etc are built other than in the state where you are investing. I have no idea if there is a tendency to build factories for a specific type of resource depending on needs nor what might determine those needs. It could be a totally complex formula taking many factors into account; or simply a role of the dice.

Second off, I read somewhere and seem to observe that more supply will be transported by ship than by rail; far more. This is a great advantage for the US because most of his lines of advance naturally follow rivers; the Ohio and the Missouri and then the Mississippi. So the largest supply producing states (New York, Pennsylvania and "New England") can send their produce along the Hudson-Erie canal and into the Ohio and from there to the Mississippi, Missouri Tennessee and Cumberland. From along these water ways supply can easily be distributed to the units on the front. The only exceptions or extremes are the Springfield-Fayetteville-Fort Smith line and Lexington-Knoxville and with the Missouri line I've never had an issue. Moving down to Knoxville you need to build at least 2 depots along the way, maybe three; unless you already control the Tennessee up to Chattanooga, which kind of begs the question of why you would them be advancing from Lexington.

For the South the situation is good in Missouri as the Arkansas River transports up toward the front, and along the Mississippi, but supplies have to filter through the railroads up to the Tennessee unless Knoxville and Chattanooga are producing huge amounts. Atlanta is the key here, but there's little chance of losing Atlanta while still struggling for the Tennessee River valley.

The restriction on building ironclads and artillery is that you need at least one city or town with a harbor producing at least 1 WS to build ironclads in that state and one city or town producing WS regardless of a harbor to build artillery. If you don't meet these requirements, you can still build the ironclads and artillery in that state's build pool, but they will be build in other states. Please see the update.rtf file.

With regards to your last question, if you mean do resources build outside the capital filter into the capital if the capital is besieged, the answer is no, unless the capital has an un-blockaded harbor. If you mean does a besieged city/town still produce resources, the answer is yes. It may be reduced though; I don't remember at the moment.

[Banks6060]

This is some interesting stuff. Stauggenburg brings up a great point about industrializing in states that actually have rail or river links to your front lines. That just about cancels out Alabama for the CSA. Good point man.

[Stauffenberg]

First off, I have no idea how it is determined where factories etc are built other than in the state where you are investing. I have no idea if there is a tendency to build factories for a specific type of resource depending on needs nor what might determine those needs. It could be a totally complex formula taking many factors into account; or simply a role of the dice.

I would imagine it goes from size 1 city locations for light industrial up to larger cities for heavy. Case in point in a current game I was notified re my light industry in Georgia: "The local craftsmen of Union Point managed to...." (General Supply +25 pts/turn)

Second off, I read somewhere and seem to observe that more supply will be transported by ship than by rail; far more.

Which is why I am anticipating that a Mississippi strategy will yield dividends in terms of moving self-generated industry around. If one assumes Virginia is going to fall eventually anyway, and given the resources and population along the river, a build up of industries in the west to compensate for the eventual loss of Tredegar etc, an eventual move of capital from Richmond to Atlanta, Montgomery (not Mobile!), or N.O., might allow some sort of long-game redoubt for the Confederacy.

For the South the situation is good in Missouri as the Arkansas River transports up toward the front, and along the Mississippi, but supplies have to filter through the railroads up to the Tennessee unless Knoxville and Chattanooga are producing huge amounts. Atlanta is the key here, but there's little chance of losing Atlanta while still struggling for the Tennessee River valley.

And same for Montgomery AL (and I am going to keep flogging for a future patch to move the capital of AL from Mobile to Montgomery).

The terrain north of Montgomery is interesting indeed, as the Appalachians there are worse for the Union to traverse than north of Atlanta--not because it is more mountainous (it isn't) but because there is no north-south RR line at all and a union advance will be supplied by cart only, squeezed between three major river lines in hill and mountain terrain, followed by a mandatory major river crossing across the Alabama R. to get at Montgomery at the end of the campaign. Northern Alabama offers the best defensive terrain on the map in that regard, defending against an advance from the north.

Thanks for the other info.

[Stauffenberg]

This is some interesting stuff. Stauggenburg brings up a great point about industrializing in states that actually have rail or river links to your front lines. That just about cancels out Alabama for the CSA. Good point man.

The designers seem to have been aware of this, or else it came straight through from the various stats they were using. So for instance a comparison of Georgia, Alabama, MS and LA, using the given categories:
State: GA / AL / MS / LA

Supply Wagons: 246 / 111 / 90 / 222
Ammo Crates: 100 / 35 / 20 / 55
Funds x $1000: 3 / 5 / 0 / 14
Conscript Coys: 2 / 2 / 2 / 2
War Supplies: 21 / 2 / 0 / 3

Athena may be of limited use compared to pbem against a human player, but she is useful in getting at arcane features like these. Alabama is not great, but still better than MS!

[Captain_Orso]

I just realized, if you are restricting the CSA capital to state capitals, then New Orleans should also not be eligible. Baton Rouge is the capital of Louisiana

[Stauffenberg]

I just realized, if you are restricting the CSA capital to state capitals, then New Orleans should also not be eligible. Baton Rouge is the capital of Louisiana

Jeeps you're right.... and the capital of Mississippi is Jackson, not Vicksburg.

[Later] And while we are at it:
Neither NC or Florida have their capital city indicated: Raleigh & Tallahassee.
Jefferson City is the capital of Mo not St. Louis, and Tennessee has two capital city icons on the map: Nashville and Memphis (should just be Nashville).

I say leave LA and MS as they are, as the administrative center would have gone to those key locations in time of war. Note, however, that Montgomery was chosen to be the first CSA capital, not Mobile. So I would argue it be changed to that based on historical precedence.

(But also so that game-wise the CSA player has a choice of two inland cities, not just one, to have a capital immune from a one-turn invasion strike.)

[Jim-NC]

The capitol move option is to NM cities first. I can't remember what happens if you have no NM cities.

This is why Vicksburg is an option, and Mobile, and Atlanta, and Charleston, and Nashville, and Little Rock, and New Orleans. But not state capitals (such as Jackson MS).

As the union player, I once looked at moving my capital, and my optoins were: New York and Richmond. Richmond? but there it was on the screen.

I believe (not 100% sure), but the choice of capital change is based on the NM value of the city. The 1st option would be the city with the highest NM you have.