AGEOD Forums

Hi there,

I was wondering if anyone is getting way too much WS as the CSA to use? After the first year and a half, I could never spend it all. It is now March 64 and I had more than 900 WS. I did do some industry early on, and have brigs (which bring back money now).

Charles

Build more clads

The only time I run into WS issues is when I try to build a brig or clad fleet. As the Union, I wind up with 1000's no matter what I do.

Just curious, what did you do to get such high numbers of War Supplies as the CSA? What specific economic strategies did you use? {especially early on}

like the OP, I'm way up on WS in jan '64. as CSA.
Over 1,000 I think.

I've increased the div number to 45..but that doesn't really eat up much in the way of WS.

and the rapidly dwindling ammount of CS puts a bit of a cap on the
action..railways are at 300..boats at 50, so there's room for growth there.

I only industrialized in two states, for about a year..(this is my 2nd campaign..in the first , based on a couple of posts in the forum , I invested heavily and THAT sure put a dent in the WS real quick.)

no blockade runners anymore, i stopped that in mid 62 and use all the nav. available in combat.

I did have BIG issues in the first year..the temptation to build too much too soon !!

but after mid 62 the WS level just seemd to go up and up and up..I only really gained St louis and bowling green so I can't see that I 'conquered' a significant ammount.

Huh, curious. War supplies are always my limiting factor, I usually end up with a ton of money and a small surplus of conscripts. I'd be interested to hear about your economic strategy too.

personally with the CSA i have tons of war supplies by about 63...i just put economic build options high in GA from like the first turn and random other states as i can afford it. i usaully have each state producing about 20 supply each by start 0f 63 plus GA and VA having between 50-100 and sometimes high in LA too...that is if i can keep LA and VA in my control...my problem is always Consricpts...sometimes i end up with tons of money and WS but can make anything but like cannnons and ships cuz i have very few men to fight

@tyler11: That makes sense. I've only ever used light industrialization in places with lower potential, but closer to the front lines, usually North Carolina - in the '62 and '63 scenarios I just can't justify the expense. Other than that I focus on railroads, which eats up a lot of my WS, and on top of that I like to build ships and artillery if I can afford them, even when manpower is high.

I have had better luck building heavy industry in Arkansas than with any other location.

It seems to build up more than the others and produces more often than most others.

Also it is cheaper there than most other states. Mississippi is the same cost but doesn't seem to do as well and Texas is less money but it also seems to build much slower.

I have found that I can leave it in heavy industrialization and still manage to build 30 to 50 rail point and 15 to 25 river point per turn.

Most of the other states are cost prohibitive and lower levels of industrialization are not as effective.

It is something to keep an eye on and experiment with but that is just the sort of results I have gotten.

Heavy industry in Arkansas, eh? Huh, whodathunkit. I never even considered AR - the only industry I'd associate it with in this period would be logging. I wonder if this is a subjective impression based on luck, or if there's actually something in the code that predisposes Arkansas to effective industrialization. I'd be interested to see the results if you or anyone else decides to run some experiments on this.

John Sedgwick wrote:Heavy industry in Arkansas, eh? Huh, whodathunkit. I never even considered AR - the only industry I'd associate it with in this period would be logging. I wonder if this is a subjective impression based on luck, or if there's actually something in the code that predisposes Arkansas to effective industrialization. I'd be interested to see the results if you or anyone else decides to run some experiments on this.

I've noticed the same thing with AR for the CSA and KS for the Union. I wouldn't trust the Industrial potential rating if I were you.

As the CSA, I put 10 brigs in each blockade box early on, and then do light indistry one state at a time until each state got something (not always WS).

I usually have tons lying around too, but then my strategy is a Morale Victory asap, and that means no Mobilization (ever!), Volunteers with $1000 bonus and Embargo on Cotton whenever I can afford it. This leaves money short in the beginning, later when my runners start pouring in cash this slowly goes from money short, lots of guys to lots of money, short on guys. WS is never ever short.

Strange. I am nearly always short of WS and conscripts. Money is never an issue.

MarkCSA wrote:I usually have tons lying around too, but then my strategy is a Morale Victory asap, and that means no Mobilization (ever!), Volunteers with $1000 bonus and Embargo on Cotton whenever I can afford it. This leaves money short in the beginning, later when my runners start pouring in cash this slowly goes from money short, lots of guys to lots of money, short on guys. WS is never ever short.

W.Barksdale wrote:Strange. I am nearly always short of WS and conscripts. Money is never an issue.

I think WS is not an issue for MarkCSA as he is not using mobilization and only 1k volunteers.

This strategy won't be sustainable in a PBEM where the Northern player would assuredly overrun southern forces with "horde" of soldiers.

Mickey3D wrote:I think WS is not an issue for MarkCSA as he is not using mobilization and only 1k volunteers.

This strategy won't be sustainable in a PBEM where the Northern player would assuredly overrun southern forces with "horde" of soldiers.

Yup, my only (short) PBEM game ended around turn 15 or 20 or so with my 10 to 20k stacks behind rivers retreating before combat against several 50k+ Yankee stacks.

I don't like the Union (or the CSA for that matter) going straight for full mobilization (ahistorical and nonsensical, this is not Command and Conquer Red Alert where you win by the equivalent of Tank Rush), but at least the AI has the decency to be slower and wander around more, leaving my smaller, highly motivated stacks to do their worst.

MarkCSA wrote:Yup, my only (short) PBEM game ended around turn 15 or 20 or so with my 10 to 20k stacks behind rivers retreating before combat against several 50k+ Yankee stacks.

I don't like the Union (or the CSA for that matter) going straight for full mobilization (ahistorical and nonsensical, this is not Command and Conquer Red Alert where you win by the equivalent of Tank Rush), but at least the AI has the decency to be slower and wander around more, leaving my smaller, highly motivated stacks to do their worst.

I think alot of people would be fine if you wanted to insitute house rules regarding draft/mobilization. I played a game against GraniteSlater with limits on mobilization.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:I think alot of people would be fine if you wanted to insitute house rules regarding draft/mobilization. I played a game against GraniteSlater with limits on mobilization.

Yes, lot of player use house rules to limit mobilization in 61/62. It's becoming more difficult (and more interesting) for the North and the South is in position to win early in the war.

I see one problem with this kind of rules : The south will use less WS to build units and can instead use them to build an ahistorical railway systems (being able to move a complete army each turn and making it too much mobile) and an ahistorical navy.

Mickey3D wrote:Yes, lot of player use house rules to limit mobilization in 61/62. It's becoming more difficult (and more interesting) for the North and the South is in position to win early in the war.

I see one problem with this kind of rules : The south will use less WS to build units and can instead use them to build an ahistorical railway systems (being able to move a complete army each turn and making it too much mobile) and an ahistorical navy.

This can also be fixed with an easy MOD action. E.g. i changed the costs of the Options to buy more railroad capacity in RUS with a 1:1 ratio between WS and RR points (see here :
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop#WS_.26_Ammunition_production).

So you would have to pay 100 WS to get 100 railroad capacity.

If anyone is interested, i can quickly do the same mini-MOD for AACW.
If not, i'll do it later .

andatiep wrote:If anyone is interested, i can quickly do the same mini-MOD for AACW.

I would personally be interested. Thanks

andatiep wrote:This can also be fixed with an easy MOD action. E.g. i changed the costs of the Options to buy more railroad capacity in RUS with a 1:1 ratio between WS and RR points (see here :
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/A_RUS_wishlist_mini-MODs_workshop#WS_.26_Ammunition_production).

So you would have to pay 100 WS to get 100 railroad capacity.

If anyone is interested, i can quickly do the same mini-MOD for AACW.
If not, i'll do it later .

I thought RR was already 1:1. $10k & 10 WS buys 10 RR. Or $10k & 5 WS buys 5 steamboats.

deleted

Mickey3D wrote:I would personally be interested. Thanks

Me too. It would be far more realistic.

Cromagnonman wrote:I thought RR was already 1:1. $10k & 10 WS buys 10 RR. Or $10k & 5 WS buys 5 steamboats.

Yes ! We don't need to change anything... i forgot that the ratio 1:1 was already there in AACW !
Sorry for the mess

Mickey3D wrote:I see one problem with this kind of rules : The south will use less WS to build units and can instead use them to build an ahistorical railway systems (being able to move a complete army each turn and making it too much mobile) and an ahistorical navy.

I didn't found anyway to fix a maximum of Rail or River transport capacity. There is only a command which evaluate the WS (i.e. EvalWSU = >;80) but no command which would evaluate the among of RR so that it could generate a regular event which keep it behind let's say 200 for the CSA. ( i already thought about this in this drafted mini-MOD http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/AACW2_Wishlist_Mini-MODs#Mini-MOD_.22VARIOUS_CHANGES.22 but didn't go on)

The only solution is to add a House Rule (in PBEM or for yourself if you play the CSA against an AI USA) which limit you to build a maximum of RR capacity. I suppose that the CSA max capacity could be fixed to 25% of the USA max capacity.

The problem is to found max capacity which would be historicaly correct. CSA did use railroads for strategic troop redeployments (Shiloh for example), USA geographically could not use it in a similar way.

There are numerous web pages which deal with the subject, for example

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/articles/civil-war1.htm