Relative value of $, WSu, and CS

[Major Tom]

I'm trying to work out a cost and payback comparison between investing in blockade runners versus industrialization.

But this is complicated by the different commodities involved. Both require $ and WSu, but only brigs require conscripts (CS).

You could say, "I only care about WSu" and ignore the other elements, but that implies they're worthless, which they're not.

The solution I'm toying with is to set a conversion value for the different commodities so that their costs can be compared. This would strictly be for analytical purposes.

Obviously, the conversion value would vary depending on the circumstances. Whatever you have the least of you will value more highly. I'm thinkiong from the perspective of the CSA player in 1861, when you have to decide how much to put into blockade runners and how much, if any, to put into factories.

I'm thinking of something like:

1 WSu = $3
1 CS = $1

In other words, say circa July 1861, the CSA player would be willing to trade $1000 for a consript point, or $2000 for a war supply point.

Does this make sense to anyone? How would you value the commodities against each other?

[Jarkko]

How would you value the commodities against each other?

WS >>>> anything else

[Nial]

Since Inustrialization is variable depending on what you get each turn. This is a difficult question. Personaly I would seperate the commodities by early war, late war. In the early war, say pre 1863. WS is very important, especialy if your industries don't produce it as much as ammo/ general supplies. But by mid to late war I find that I have more than enough WS. It has been my experience that conscription is the most important overall. There are several vehicles to produce money and WS. But except for limited conscription bonuses for leaders only one way to up your conscription. I have watched my WS supply go well over 1000, while sitting there waiting for the next draft to become available.

Of course this all depends on how you use your resources. I produce militia only for defence/ garrison duty mostly. And as someone that mostly plays CSA? Those big southern brigades eat up men very quickly. If you produce mostly militia? Your needs for WS will reflect that as well as your manpower usage will be less. If you play the North? Your WS pool will be much more stable. I rarely industrialize much when I play the North.

Nial

[77NY]

MT, my instinct is to start with where you want to go by such-and-such a timeframe in unit terms and compare the two methods to see how long it takes you to get there. In other words, frame your analysis in terms of time to produce X number of elements.

My two cents.

[Major Tom]

MT, my instinct is to start with where you want to go by such-and-such a timeframe in unit terms and compare the two methods to see how long it takes you to get there. In other words, frame your analysis in terms of time to produce X number of elements.

My two cents.

77NY - I like your suggestion, but I'm not exactly sure where to go with it. I loaded up the game and loked at what it would cost to build a hypothetical division plus invest one level each in rail and river transport, and came up with $166, 89 CS, 38 WSu.

But it would be kind of tricky to work that goal into a simple analysis of the two investment options. I'm really looking for a simple "break even" model. But, maybe I could make a simple Excel spreadsheet where you can plug in any conversin factor for the three commodities based on your expected needs over the next 15-20 turns.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[77NY]

77NY - I like your suggestion, but I'm not exactly sure where to go with it. I loaded up the game and loked at what it would cost to build a hypothetical division plus invest one level each in rail and river transport, and came up with $166, 89 CS, 38 WSu.

But it would be kind of tricky to work that goal into a simple analysis of the two investment options. I'm really looking for a simple "break even" model. But, maybe I could make a simple Excel spreadsheet where you can plug in any conversin factor for the three commodities based on your expected needs over the next 15-20 turns.

Ideally, you could add up every unit expenditure, including rail and river, divide by # of elements, and that would give you a unit to measure output against. Similar to your sample division purchase idea but comprehensive.

Assume the "base unit" turns out to cost 15/8/5. Every 5 wsu produced in excess of indusry or brig costs is 1 base unit. Include replacement purchases in calculating the base unit cost.

For me, the useful result would tell me how many base units I could expect to produce during each 12 or 24 turn interval.

[Major Tom]

Ideally, you could add up every unit expenditure, including rail and river, divide by # of elements, and that would give you a unit to measure output against. Similar to your sample division purchase idea but comprehensive.

Assume the "base unit" turns out to cost 15/8/5. Every 5 wsu produced in excess of indusry or brig costs is 1 base unit. Include replacement purchases in calculating the base unit cost.

For me, the useful result would tell me how many base units I could expect to produce during each 12 or 24 turn interval.

Yes, this makes sense. But that's on the return side of the investment. I want to look at the input side of the investment too, and that's where the difficulty is.

A brig squadron costs 18/2/12. An industrial investment into GA is 17/0/22. Comparing those two costs to the anticipated returns in WSu is the tricky part. Plus, with brigs, part of your return comes back in $ instead of WSu. I'm not even going to get into ammo and general supply, and just regard those as a "bonus" to industrial investment. That's why I'm trying to come up with some sort universal exchange value for the three commodities. Obviously that value changes drastically through the course of the war. My interest is in where that value is specifically for the CSA during 1861, since only CSA has the decision to make between blockade runners and industry, and 1861 is when most of the investment is likely to occur.

Unfortunately, this probably is not possible. There's no "market" to set the exchange rate between the three commodities, so the relative value is subjective. The game clearly sets $ and WSu value as being equivalent. The returns from brigs are in divided between $ and WSU with the two being considered with equal weight.

The game also sort of sets a $ value on conscripts, with the bounty option. At the 100NM level, you can get 144 free volunteers or 230 with a bounty of $1K per point. So, the extra 86 CS points are costing $230, or $2.67 each. If you're willing to use the $1000 bounty option, then CS points are worth $2.67 to you. Similarly, if you're willing to use the $2000 bounty option, those additional conscript points are costing you $3.60 each, so that establishes their value, if you're willing to pay it. Does anyone ever use any option above the $1000 bounty? If they are, then at the time they do it, the market rate for 1 CS is $3.60.

So, it's not really absurd to set an exchange rate between the three commodities, it's just hard ot do it.

I'll tip my hand here ... one reason I'm doing this is that I hope to defy conventional wisdom and prove that industrial investment is a viable adjunct to blockade running. I don't know if this can be proven, or even if it's true, but I would like it to be. Otherwise industrialization is a pointless game feature, which it clearly isn't meant to be.

[Major Tom]

Just for your information:

I recently started a "total" tally cost in "$", "Conscripts", and "WarSupplies" of all the "At Start" units in the "1862 Campaign Scenario".

I'm figuring on using these numbers as a rough base to work with all the "1861 Campaign Scenarios" to come up with more realistic final unit productions going in to 1862 when playing any of these 1861 Campaign scenarios. Needless to say, this is going to take some time, since a good percentage of the "At Start" units start off with less than their full complement of "elements", (which is an allowable use of units in a starting setup). When, I'm done, I'll post a list of these "total" resource usages and you guys can see if its of any value to you. Depending how long it takes, I may proceed to do the 1863 and 1864 Campaign Scenario's "at start" resource costs also.

I would find these data very interesting.

[mikee64]

Major Tom, let me say to you a job well done on analyzing all this "under the hood" data. Your efforts are appreciated.

I am like some others a "jump in and play" pbem player since the start, w/o worrying too much about specifics unless there seems to be an anomaly. But when you posted that brig chart I was won over.

I am, like Banks, a convert to brigs over industrialization strategy for the CS. I used to always industrialize as CSA in early turns. Now I buy brigs. Reasons are two-fold: industry even if it produces you only have a small chance of getting WS. If you get ammo or GenSup you really don't need it until '62 or '63 or later when you have probably already won or lost.

Brigs are so nice because they bring you what you need in WS or $ every turn. They also take a heck of a lot of damage before needing repair.

I always find it interesting when folks post WS or $ or CC is not a problem as the CSA. I always need more of all of them!

Thanks for the analysis.

[Redeemer]

I have never industrialized as the CSA (or USA for that matter). I find I always have a surplus of WS for CSA after building blockade runners and raiders. Conscripts are always the limiting factor. For example, current game end of June 1862, CSA has after purchases, 82$;1C;209WS

[77NY]

Unfortunately, this probably is not possible. There's no "market" to set the exchange rate between the three commodities, so the relative value is subjective. The game clearly sets $ and WSu value as being equivalent. The returns from brigs are in divided between $ and WSU with the two being considered with equal weight.

The game also sort of sets a $ value on conscripts, with the bounty option.

Some really astute points. The brigs can be "gamed" by tweaking the $/WSu ratio at the end of your turn. But I wouldn't give the "economy" features too much credit either.

Gray has tipped his hand that the WSu amounts are going to be revisited in an upcoming patch and probably significantly reduced. Again, the nice thing about all of this is that we have estimates of the forces that were fielded and the production/manpower capacities of both sides, so we can back into the historical outcome.

Let me throw some more fuel onto the fire. From 1861 to 1865, the CSA produced about 6 mil bales of cotton, the vast majority of which was either destroyed or hoarded until after the war. As we know, the embargo was a grassroots initiative to influence the UK and France. The game provides the option to go with the Embargo for $150,000. This is quite the over-simplification, isn't it, even if the option is used several times?

The CSA essentially fought with one hand tied behind its back due to the Embargo. The "alternate history" question here is what the impact would have been on the CSA wartime economy if cotton had been smuggled out in quantity. Any thoughts on this? Surely not just a "$150,000" savings with no inflation adjustment? Particularly when the game does not have a mechanism to convert $ to WSu through European trade. Should there be a boost to brig "production" if the CSA opts-out of the Embargo?

With respect to bounties, the $ cost in real terms goes down with inflation, correct?

Otherwise industrialization is a pointless game feature, which it clearly isn't meant to be.

Except that industrialization can't be countered, except by conquest.

[kglorberau]

Question, stupid I know, but I don't know the answer......Playing as the CSA, how long do my brigs have to stay in the shipping box to bring back $$ or WS? Just one turn?? Then return to port? If they stay longer do they bring back more? I notice that if they stay longer they begin to use up supplies and ammo, and usually suffer damage (from USA ships or weather, or both, I dont know).

As the USA, same question. Do my transports in the shipping box only have to stay one turn, two turns, or what to get supplies down to my amphibious beacheads down in SC and LA, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Kglorberau

[Gray_Lensman]

Not sure about the brigs question but in regards to transports in the shipping boxes it depends on what option you have chosen in the "Naval Boxes Handliing" entry in the "Game" tab of the Options box. There are several choices which can be applicable. I believe under the Standard rule you'll have to rotate them out as they suffer attrition losses.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[kglorberau]

Thanks Gray, you come thru with the answers again.

Kglorberau

[mikee64]

Question, stupid I know, but I don't know the answer......Playing as the CSA, how long do my brigs have to stay in the shipping box to bring back $$ or WS? Just one turn?? Then return to port? If they stay longer do they bring back more?

For this you don't want them in the shipping box but instead in the blockade boxes - there are two, one in the Gulf and one in the Atlantic. Once there each Brig will bring back $/WS based on what you need most. Leave them until they get low on cohesion, men, or supplies, then send them back to port.

As the CS the shipping box is where you hunt down US ships and destroy their $/WS.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted