AGEOD Forums

Has anyone done testing to see if there is diminishing returns on transports in the shipping box as USA? Was searching the forums, but only found the Rebels one.

If you mean the money and WS relative to the amount of shipping dropping at higher amounts of shipping..? then no

But then again, I'm not sure if it is supposed to diminish

I'm not sure why the returns for the CSA's blockade-running diminishes either, or at what point, or at what rate, other than that somebody arbitrarily decided that it should, but that too is a whole other can of imported beans

I guess I'll find time to test union shipping later.

Here is a link on some blockade runner testing done back in 2010: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=12924&highlight=blockade+runners post #7

While there appears to be no cap, after 12 brig ELEMENTS in each box the power of brigs is greatly diminished. However, I don't believe the blockade value or NM effects the rate of return from brigs. So while idustrialization can be more cost effective, it can also be captured or be reduced 30% with a 60% union blockade (which is easily obtained).

Is it possible to mod the game to make it where brigs also lower or even reverse the blockade percentage? I'd think that would add an amazing aspect of the naval element. Imagine if a union player ignores the blockade and a CSA player heavily invests in brigs. Causing all CSA cities to operate at +30% with a -60% effective blockade value.

My experience is that US and CSA shipping is almost backward. US transports are very effective, until you factor in commerce raiders. With a moderate number of ships CSA can undermine US shipping (maybe I need to guard them better, not sure if that matters). The CSA can bring in resources steadily and all but shut down Union shipping with only a moderate number of ships.

Meagher wrote:My experience is that US and CSA shipping is almost backward. US transports are very effective, until you factor in commerce raiders. With a moderate number of ships CSA can undermine US shipping (maybe I need to guard them better, not sure if that matters). The CSA can bring in resources steadily and all but shut down Union shipping with only a moderate number of ships.

I have noticed that if you are referring to Semmes with an inordinate number of steam frigates (5+), although "backwards" overstates it I think. I would guess this results from their extrapolating the stats for the historical Semmes + CSS Alabama...

I haven't played a lot lately, but it seems that the CSA can generate more resources per turn from shipping than the Union with less than 1/5th the total number of ships.

Blockade runners should be able to bring in only a modest amount under normal circumstances. They are not a replacement for having free access to foreign markets. Commerce raiders should never be able to offset more than a fraction (1/4?) of Union shipping. They are not a substitute for a blockade.

The CSA's raiders brought in high-value goods such as Enfield rifles and medical equipment, not iron ore or timber. This is why, I suspect, that they're so highly rated.

I've bee waiting a week to post this so I hope it's of some value. Funny what you can busy yourself with while sitting in a hotel room watching TV

Short answer to the question of whether Union shipping suffers under the law of diminishing returns: YES.



These are the values used to create the graph, in case anybody wants to play around with them:
Transport Squadrons in the Shipping Box
|. . .Average Resources returned per turn
|. . .| . . . Average Resources returned per transport squadron per turn
|. . .| . . . |
|. . .| . . . |
1. . .20.18 . 20.18
2. . .31.45 . 15.73
3. . .39.82 . 13.27
4. . .46.18 . 11.55
5. . .52.91 . 10.58
6. . .58.36 . 09.73
7. . .61.82 . 08.83
8. . .66.18 . 08.27
9. . .72.18 . 08.02
10 . .76.36 . 07.64
11 . .80.73 . 07.34
12 . .82.36 . 06.86
13 . .86.18 . 06.63
14 . .90.18 . 06.44
15 . .94.00 . 06.27
16 . .96.00 . 06.00
17 . 100.18 . 05.89
18 . 102.55 . 05.70
19 . 105.64 . 05.56
20 . 108.00 . 05.40
21 . 111.64 . 05.32
22 . 114.00 . 05.18
23 . 116.00 . 05.04
24 . 119.45 . 04.98
25 . 122.00 . 04.88
The National Morale was just over 100 during these tests (the NM influences greatly the mount of resources returned). Data was gathered from Late July '63 thru Late December '63. There are a couple of slight deviations now and again that I would account to chance and the limited number of iterations(typical statistical spread).

There's certainly a cut-off date at which the ROI (Return On Investment) will not balance out depending the cost of a transport squadron at the time of purchase, variations in NM and the expected length of the game, but I did not try to figure that out, because it takes a lot of time to run through each test at one set NM and I'd have to re-run it an array of different MN settings, which would take many, many hours.

Longshanks wrote:The CSA's raiders brought in high-value goods such as Enfield rifles and medical equipment, not iron ore or timber. This is why, I suspect, that they're so highly rated.

Shelby noted that one major issue with blockade-runners was that they often brought back a lot of luxury goods, which were becoming more rare with the length of the war, instead of far more important strategic goods such as weapons and medicine, which couldn't be sold as profitably on the lucrative black-market.

Captain_Orso wrote:Shelby noted that one major issue with blockade-runners was that they often brought back a lot of luxury goods, which were becoming more rare with the length of the war, instead of far more important strategic goods such as weapons and medicine, which couldn't be sold as profitably on the lucrative black-market.

As Gone With the Wind describes rather well, with Rhett Butler depicted making lucrative profits bringing in desperately needed whale bones needed to be sewn into the ladies' corsets (as Mae could detail here far better than I). A whole panoply of items were needed for both sexes to keep morale up on the home front. Nothing to be sniffed at!

Captain_Orso wrote:I've bee waiting a week to post this so I hope it's of some value. Funny what you can busy yourself with while sitting in a hotel room watching TV

Short answer to the question of whether Union shipping suffers under the law of diminishing returns: YES.



These are the values used to create the graph, in case anybody wants to play around with them:
Transport Squadrons in the Shipping Box
|. . .Average Resources returned per turn
|. . .| . . . Average Resources returned per transport squadron per turn
|. . .| . . . |
|. . .| . . . |
1. . .20.18 . 20.18
2. . .31.45 . 15.73
3. . .39.82 . 13.27
4. . .46.18 . 11.55
5. . .52.91 . 10.58
6. . .58.36 . 09.73
7. . .61.82 . 08.83
8. . .66.18 . 08.27
9. . .72.18 . 08.02
10 . .76.36 . 07.64
11 . .80.73 . 07.34
12 . .82.36 . 06.86
13 . .86.18 . 06.63
14 . .90.18 . 06.44
15 . .94.00 . 06.27
16 . .96.00 . 06.00
17 . 100.18 . 05.89
18 . 102.55 . 05.70
19 . 105.64 . 05.56
20 . 108.00 . 05.40
21 . 111.64 . 05.32
22 . 114.00 . 05.18
23 . 116.00 . 05.04
24 . 119.45 . 04.98
25 . 122.00 . 04.88
The National Morale was just over 100 during these tests (the NM influences greatly the mount of resources returned). Data was gathered from Late July '63 thru Late December '63. There are a couple of slight deviations now and again that I would account to chance and the limited number of iterations(typical statistical spread).

There's certainly a cut-off date at which the ROI (Return On Investment) will not balance out depending the cost of a transport squadron at the time of purchase, variations in NM and the expected length of the game, but I did not try to figure that out, because it takes a lot of time to run through each test at one set NM and I'd have to re-run it an array of different MN settings, which would take many, many hours.

Let x = number of TP elements (whole or partial) in the Shipping Box (SB)

y = CSA elements (whole only) in the Atlantic Blockade Box (AB) plus the number of the same in the Gulf Blockade Box (GB)

E = Escort elements for the Union at sea

F = number of Union Frigates not in port (not including steamers)

Then, if we allow the asymptotic values of Ex / F- y plus the first approximation (Newton's method) of the double derivative to approach the number of times Longstreet has repulsed attacks of 16:1 odds at a level 2,000 entrenchment, it is easy to see that:



which either confirms Dr. Bear's work above, or is complete and utter rubbish. The proof is left as an exercise to the student.

Considering the Union has basicly unlimited WS and the transports will even pay for themselves in 9 turns at the lowest return value and 100% inflation cost (so around 4 for 0%), it is clearly cost effective to build the max transports. The real kicker is if the CP it takes is worth it. I believe it is considering the huge mobility it offers the union in the beginning of a game and as the transports begin to show pure profit on longer games it may be the differance between $2k bounties and $3k bounties.

With my games, I usually have around 10-12 units on blockade supply / transporting duties. Resulting in never even reaching the lowest return rates.