AGEOD Forums

O.K. I have read this forum and have used the great advise that I have read to good effect in my ganes. One problem that still am encountering is CSA war supplies. I build industry yet it yields very little increases in war supplies. What is the average increase by the end of 1861 that you other players have experienced. I have been able to double mine to about 75 or so from the 36 starting but I have read that others have gotten over 100. What strategy do you ude to acheive this figure. I am eagerly awaiting your replies.

Stewart

PP:
Well, the short answer is that due to a random factor, results can vary from poor to excellent when it comes to War Supplies during the first year or so.

Playing as the CSA, I typically do light investment in SC and MS. In my current After Action Report [thread=5045]here[/thread], you can follow the gist of how I do mine. Of course, there is no one correct way to do this sort of stuff, thank goodness.
To date, as the CSA I have had +12 WS and also +3 WS during the first 6 months, so until Pocus decides that investment needs to be changed, it is a bit of a crapshoot each new game, regardless which side you choose to play.

Hope this helps.

Pdubya64 wrote:PP:
Well, the short answer is that due to a random factor, results can vary from poor to excellent when it comes to War Supplies during the first year or so.

Playing as the CSA, I typically do light investment in SC and MS. In my current After Action Report [thread=5045]here[/thread], you can follow the gist of how I do mine. Of course, there is no one correct way to do this sort of stuff, thank goodness.
To date, as the CSA I have had +12 WS and also +3 WS during the first 6 months, so until Pocus decides that investment needs to be changed, it is a bit of a crapshoot each new game, regardless with side you choose to play.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply. After having re-read some of the posts on industrialization I have to agree. I do not like the randomness. I agree with the poster that stated that as the leader if I want WS then I get WS not Ammo. Oh well

Stewart

I don't know - I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Ain't the 3rd Reich, but at the same time, it is a war economy. Hence I say, middle ground. I'd like a little more ability to influence, but not absolute.

Prussian Prince wrote:Thanks for the reply. After having re-read some of the posts on industrialization I have to agree. I do not like the randomness. I agree with the poster that stated that as the leader if I want WS then I get WS not Ammo. Oh well

Stewart

This system is made to prevent player to use gamey tactics and is reflecting you're running not a communist state but a free market nation where you can't create state fabrics but you buy from rpivate by contracts. So you have an indirect rule over economy, much more realist than other games are proponing.

And about gameplay, a player controlling directly economy would turn CSA into War supply behemoth withouit any problem in a few turns, ruining the historicity feeling.

Clovis wrote:This system is made to prevent player to use gamey tactics and is reflecting you're running not a communist state but a free market nation where you can't create state fabrics but you buy from rpivate by contracts. So you have an indirect rule over economy, much more realist than other games are proponing.

And about gameplay, a player controlling directly economy would turn CSA into War supply behemoth withouit any problem in a few turns, ruining the historicity feeling.

Amen! That's life as the CSA, you struggle to produce what you need. In fact, it appears easier as the CSA to fill the ranks with volunteers than it did in real life, but I haven't played enough to know what it's like in '63 or '64. But CSA had to resort to a draft in March '62, something that would have been unthinkable had they not already started to get desparate.

One of the CSA's main problems was its lack of abililty to compete with the USA in the area of war supplies. This is nicely reflected in the game. I'm not saying it couldn't maybe be tweaked, but nothing too drastic needs to be done, in my opinion. If you are the CSA, you have to deal with it.

My basic strategies for gaining war supplies ...

1 - Relatively light industrialization. Easy does it; not too fast. Build slowly. It's a long war -- be patient.

2- Use blockade runners

3 - Major battle victories --- pick and choose. When the time is right, strike. Big victories increase your war supplies for the turn, sometimes significantly.

For those clamoring for more specific control:

I'd even go as far as to say that the industrialization that we can do as the CSA pushes the bounds of acceptability in that we have far too free a hand to do this. Or don't you think Davis and Co. would have done that? There are, of course, several factors involved in this concept from the Southern side, but let's just say the game makes it easy to do ahistorically what would have been very difficult for the South to do historically. States rights, you know. In fact, I'd say we have it TOO easy, given the way the various southern states and their govts operated.

There is a reason the North were called the Federals.

PBBoeye wrote:For those clamoring for more specific control:

I'd even go as far as to say that the industrialization that we can do as the CSA pushes the bounds of acceptability in that we have far too free a hand to do this. Or don't you think Davis and Co. would have done that? There are, of course, several factors involved in this concept from the Southern side, but let's just say the game makes it easy to do ahistorically what would have been very difficult for the South to do historically. States rights, you know. In fact, I'd say we have it TOO easy, given the way the various southern states and their govts operated.

There is a reason the North were called the Federals.

Agree wholeheartedly, the game is very kind to the South in many ways, likely beyond what is historically acceptable or possible. From my limited reading, supplying the Reb armies at any level was an amazing feat. The North would set up factories and the South would have groups of women and church groups knitting socks and saving urine. And then some governor would threaten to secceed from the Confederacy because his states rights were being violated by the government. I'm about half way through McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. There is a reason the Southern arrmies were starved and deseased by the end of the war, though still battle worthy.

I am beginning to think that the current system of Industrialization may indeed be a bit 'backward' in regards to cost of improvement. I understand the concept behind it, that an undeveloped area will require less to get initial works up and running (vs expanding in an area that is already heavily industrialized), but, since the return is so much greater in unindustrialized areas presently, nobody ever improves states like Georgia or New York, since it is better to improve Florida or Wisconsin.

I think that the cost could be reversed, that the more industrialized you are, the cheaper it is to develop. Historically this could make sense as you could be seen as expanding existing industries, which is inexpensive because of all of the locally produced machenery and trained manpower that exists there. In unindustrialized states, the cost to develop industry should be greater, given the lack of industrail infrastructure used as a basis for expansion.

That will make industrialized areas that much more important to players. The situation in the South will be reversed. Presently industrailization for poorly developed states pays off, which the South has a lot of. Revrse the situation and you get strong growth potential in the North, while in the South your potential growth is limitedto the stronger industrialized states in the Confederacy, notably Georgia, and what should be North Carolina (which was able to outfit its state troops and Federalized troops) and Virginia (which produced about 30-40% of all Confederate heavy weaponry).

Agree with all that. In my current game im at the winter of 1863 and war supplies are a non issue. Im pulling in about 120 total with blockade runners active. they account for perhaps 8-10% of that figure. Ive built much of the artillery available to me, and am only constrained by money as I refuse to ok anything that tags NM. I also have 4 army commands active, have maxed out my divisions allowed pool and am stockpiling new monster birgades as a reserve, my rail pool is over 400 and my riverine pool is about 250.

I typically will invest in miss/tenn/texas/alabama texas is a bit iffy though if the union is agressive, I had 2 small foundrys pop up in tucson of all places...giving me 8 points of war supplies there. that is usually a contentious spot against AI initally in april scenario so I groan when I see that. but as it has been said the logic for development is backwards, regions that COST more, should have MORE potential to grow war supplies, regions with little existing infastructure should have very little chance for investment resulting in WS verses beans and bullets.


That will make industrialized areas that much more important to players. The situation in the South will be reversed. Presently industrailization for poorly developed states pays off, which the South has a lot of. Revrse the situation and you get strong growth potential in the North, while in the South your potential growth is limitedto the stronger industrialized states in the Confederacy, notably Georgia, and what should be North Carolina (which was able to outfit its state troops and Federalized troops) and Virginia (which produced about 30-40% of all Confederate heavy weaponry).

Looks like I started something here. Good discussion is great for game developement and change.

I should have clarified a little. I am not saying that I want full control over industries I just want a little more say in what I get. It's like telling govenor X that I need WS and him taking my money and building some WS plants and using the rest for baby food factories or some such . I don't want to dominate as the CSA as this is ahistorical, the south wanted to attrit the north not conquer it. I just want to see a little tweaking that all.

Stewart

Theorically, the states with the lower potentials should not be the more interesting ones, true! The formula is supposed to favor states with the biggest cities.

Pocus wrote:Theorically, the states with the lower potentials should not be the more interesting ones, true! The formula is supposed to favor states with the biggest cities.

This seems to mean that only states like Louisiana,Mississippi,Georgia and Virginia are taken into account for the CSA if I am not mistaken.But how are the chances for the CSA to get WS plants as investments every turn in these states? Is there a formula for that with a higher success rate for more industrialized states?
I need to know that for my next CSA April Campaign, so that I can do some useful investments in the South.I hope that somebody can enlighten me.

greetings

Hohenlohe

Are any CSA players having problems with war supplies in PBEMs?

The Union player can put together a fairly substantial blockade if they are willing to invest the money into a large navy. Are blockades significantly impacting war and general supplies during PBEMs?

Jagger wrote: Are blockades significantly impacting war and general supplies during PBEMs?

I wonder about that myself

Well, the CSA lose half the blockade % in WSU production, so I would say yes

Jagger wrote:Are any CSA players having problems with war supplies in PBEMs?

The Union player can put together a fairly substantial blockade if they are willing to invest the money into a large navy. Are blockades significantly impacting war and general supplies during PBEMs?

I'm CSA in a PBEM and about June 62'. WS is a constant restraint for me for what I can build. I have not been having much luck with investment in this area either.

My opponent has so far no focused on blockade and maybe only at a 10% level. I consider myself lucky on that point.

Infrastructure drives industrial development:

In the states with robust infrastructure (rail networks, warehousing, and service industries) , access to raw materials (coal and iron), and investors with venture capital, development will be easier and require less additional resources.

The opposite is true, where there is nothing, one must invest more to get it started.

For that reason, I tend to agree with McNaughton on this issue, that heavy industrialized states should be cheaper, not more expensive.

The issue then becomes balancing transport capability with industrial capacity.

Pocus wrote:Theorically, the states with the lower potentials should not be the more interesting ones, true! The formula is supposed to favor states with the biggest cities.

While I fully agree with the general consensus that seems to be reached on the forums (that investing could use some tweaking), I feel it's important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What I mean is this- let's not, in the name of realism, turn what makes AACW fun to play from either side into a game where essentially you can never win as the CSA due to historical constraints.
History is great and all, but I think the game is not too far off from sitting in the sweetspot between realism and playability.

FWIW,
pw

denisonh wrote:Infrastructure drives industrial development:

In the states with robust infrastructure (rail networks, warehousing, and service industries) , access to raw materials (coal and iron), and investors with venture capital, development will be easier and require less additional resources.

The opposite is true, where there is nothing, one must invest more to get it started.

For that reason, I tend to agree with McNaughton on this issue, that heavy industrialized states should be cheaper, not more expensive.

The issue then becomes balancing transport capability with industrial capacity.

Amen.

jhdeerslayer wrote:I'm CSA in a PBEM and about June 62'. WS is a constant restraint for me for what I can build. I have not been having much luck with investment in this area either.

My opponent has so far no focused on blockade and maybe only at a 10% level. I consider myself lucky on that point.

I think this is a very good portrayal of the reality facing the CSA. I agree with PBDubya that let's not handcuff everything; however, if you go ahistorical in a buildup - or attempt to buildup - a Southern industry, it should be tough and iffy.

Let me just say this, and I've said it before: given the infrastructure of the South, what we are able to do and attempt to do - and get ANY type of response in production, is fairly outside the boundaries of what the South would have to do to get things up and running to impact the war early on. Let me just say I attended Marion Military Institute outside of Selma, AL for college, and man, if you wanna see some LACK of infrastructure, you should have seen rural AL (or worse, MS) in the mid-80's.

So as far as the WS, we should be thankful we have been given whatever capacity we have. In truth, you should pretty much be trying to get it via blockade runners or via the heavier 'industrialized' areas such as here in Richmond (way long ago).

My one question for Pocus is this: is there some tweak that we could do to some files to generate (for the player personally) any slight changes to the way the industrialization attempts succeed or fail?

This would ask for some variables to be exportated. I won't be able to do that for the next patch, but perhaps later in august. PM in 2 weeks as a reminder, if you are still interested.

Pocus:
I came across this thread and I think now that 1.07h looks good it might be time to think about industrialization again.

I was wondering, based on events and experiences since your last post here in August, if your thoughts have changed with regard to how industrialization should work, etc.
Thanks.

I think capturing Yank depots will give you a bonus but I am not sure about that - seemed to me when I captured any and destroyed them that I got an injection of WS. I only play CSA and I am always short of WS or cash or both!Also I tend to recruit militia in Missouri and Kentucky in hope that they will get placed in Rolla or Springfield so that I can destroy the RR and any Missouri city with a depot - stop the Damn Yanks getting it? Even the games I won I could not hold Kentucky or Missouri so I just destroy the RR and it gets me some WS - but I definitely destroy the depots that I have not got a chance of holding as I think losing them is also a WS hit!
Maybe someone can confirm if losing depots does deplete WS?

I'm not against revising it, but time is lacking these days. Perhaps for a 'xmas' patch

Pocus wrote:I'm not against revising it, but time is lacking these days. Perhaps for a 'xmas' patch

A suggestion - if a player requests WS in any one turn then perhaps he should be restricted from requesting any more for say 4 to 6 or more turns just in the same way that cash raising is restricted - it is a suggestion! Otherwise I think the game will get too easy in some aspects? Also it might take away from individuals learning and devolping strategies to overcome difficulties in game play?

I think the alternative that was mostly put forth with regard to industrialization was more "where" than how much or specific requests. If you read above, the major point was that it should be easier (necessary even) to expand heavy industry (i.e., war supplies) in states that already have some modicum of heavy infrastructure. Currently, the game works just the opposite, you have a better chance of producing WS in states that are not producing any at all.

Has anyone compared light/medium/heavy industrialization? Do they have more chance of generating war supplies vs. ammo and general supply, or does it increase the investment is going to pay off, or possibly increase the amount by which the production is increased?

Coffee Sergeant wrote:Has anyone compared light/medium/heavy industrialization? Do they have more chance of generating war supplies vs. ammo and general supply, or does it increase the investment is going to pay off, or possibly increase the amount by which the production is increased?

I dont think it makes any difference as CSA there is the problem of protecting the WS sources - I find I get a lot of WS in Charleston SC and Jackson Msp! The other problem is I dont see the point of industrialising too much as there is a cash constraint as well in spending the WS!So if there is a shortage of cash for several turns then the WS build up - it is all a question of balance and thinking ahead! If the whole process is supposed to be random then medium industry is probably a good strategy to adopt as CSA and heavy Industry is just pointless overkill - also for the economically minded there is the Law Of Diminshing returns. The extra investment does not necessarily give greater returns!