Reinforcement question.

[stormbringer3]

When you have a reinforcement selection that does not materialize, do you get back the $ and supplies that were deducted when you made the selection?
Thanks.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, you never pay for anything that you don't receive; there's no graft in the game. Be careful though, check the updates file. With patch level 1.16 and above, there are units that need a location within the state of purchase that produces War Supply (WS) to be built within those states. This goes for all ironclads and artillery produced in states west of the Mississippi. These, if purchased without meeting the WS requirements, will be build in another nearby grand region area.

If you check the build report the turn after purchase, it will give you the location of each unit being built. If the unit you purchased doesn't appear in that report, then it wasn't built and the funds for purchasing it will be in your ledger.

[Ethan]

Hi folks!

In the previous patch (1.16a without QwickFix) I didn't notice anything strange, but in the last one (QwickFix Revison 1) I've noticed several times what stormbringer3 said some days ago. I ordered to build several units and some of them have not been built. Of course, the requirements are met.

For example, some artillery units in NY or a blockade flotilla in the same State have not been built. What is happening?

Thanks in advance, guys!

[Captain_Orso]

The quick-fix should not be able to affect anything to do with purchasing units as it only changes the 'area around Richmond' definition for the Threaten Richmond events.

Unfortunately AFAIK even with debugging turned on there is no report stating if or why planned purchases do not go through.

There are only two things that I can think of which might cause this

1) a sudden loss of NM through an event which would lower your income and thus leave you with a deficit of funds to build all purchased units if a large enough buffer were not planned in for that turn.

2) having repaired so many damaged railroads in the same turn that you again have a deficit with the same results.

I believe that the costs for repairing ship and boats and for building divisional HQ is assessed at the end of the turn after the building of units. Div HQ take a penalty in the next and subsequent turns if the funds are not available to get them built, and IIRC ships and boats in harbors that need repairs simply don't get repaired to the fullest possible extent if funds are not on hand, but this is assessed at the end of the turn after unit purchases.

[Ethan]

Thank you very much for your quick response, Captain_Orso , but I don't think those are the causes (case 1 nor case 2). I have also enough money, conscripts and war supplies. Besides, I've been going back a turn (at least 5 times) and each time I've got different results in regard to the units that are not constructed.

It is very frustrating...

[stormbringer3]

Ethan,
Could you tell if you paid for them and didn't get them?
Thanks.

[Ethan]

I don't know. I've been looking in the ledger (financials) but numbers don't add up.

[Captain_Orso]

Back in my fledgeling year I started a thread about this exact same situation: New Units Not Being Built. DaemoneIsos answered with my Case-1 and Pocus confirmed that this was the most likely case.

In many a game in which I've inevitably made extensive purchases in one turn I've noticed in the following turn in the Mail Box report of units being built two things:

1. The game goes through the purchase orders by state. You see all the units being built in one state and then the next and the next after that one, etc.

2. If an extensively large number of units are being build in one state I've often seen that they are broken up in the report. For example:

A bunch of units being built in Pennsylvania

A bunch of units being built in New York

A bunch of units being built in Ohio

Another bunch of units being built in Pennsylvania

It seems that the game has some mechanism that if a very large number of units (perhaps measured in Conscript Companies) that they are broken down into two phases of purchase, which would mean that there is some coded limit (probably dependent on a huge number of factors such as how many/much CCs, WS, $ the state produces, loyalty, etc.), that when the limit is reached further ordered units are put on back-log until the purchase of the first set of units has passed, before they are then also purchased.

In each of these purchase phases it appears that the amount of resources necessary to purchase these units is assessed. Also that the units are divided up and ordered by the size of the units; smaller units first. I've often seen that, in the above example, the tail-end-Charley units being purchased were large brigades and that all of these large brigades were in the same section of the report, which indicates that they may be assessed together as purchasable or not purchasable.

I remember very distinctly while playing the CS that I once purchased about 4 or 5 Kentucky brigades, each consisting of 3 inf, a lt.ary and a cav., and that these 4 or 5 brigades were all in the last section of the build report separated from the other units being built in Kentucky. I also remember that these units were to some extent being built in remote regions* while smaller units were being built in closer, more accessible regions, as if the code had broken the purchase up into these two phases and then started building the first-phase units in places like Bowling Green and Paducah while the second-phase units were being built in Prestonburg and Columbus.

* In one of these buying-sprees as the CS I once had 3 of these fat-Kentucky-brigades start building in Prestonburg in January of a very bad winter and had a hell-of-a-time working to get them built and out of there because they were starving for lack of supply, taking hits and since they cannot finish building until all of the allocated CCs are actually built, I could not move them out. The last unit got out in like April or May and had to be rebuilt from replacements almost from scratch. What a PITA that whole ordeal was.

Anyway, this is the way it appears to me through my experience.

[stormbringer3]

Thanks for ypu imput Captain_Orso, but in my case I was building 4 six-pounders to so that I could build a fort. Two were built and the other two never showed up anywhere, even in future turns. In other games, trying to build the 4 six-pounders in one turn almost never works. I have a play style where I always keep some $, supplies, etc. in reserve so there should have been enough material to build all four.
Thanks again.

[Longshanks]

If you were repairing ships you would be using ws and $ to do so, but there is no reporting to you on the amounts. The costs may account fot failed builds.

[Ethan]

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation, Thom.

For what I see in the thread you indicate, it is something that happens to several users so I'll have to accept it as an usual part of the game, although it had not happened until now (or I had not noticed it).

If it happens again I'll tell you.

Warm Regards!

[Wraith]

I remember very distinctly while playing the CS that I once purchased about 4 or 5 Kentucky brigades, each consisting of 3 inf, a lt.ary and a cav., and that these 4 or 5 brigades were all in the last section of the build report separated from the other units being built in Kentucky. I also remember that these units were to some extent being built in remote regions* while smaller units were being built in closer, more accessible regions, as if the code had broken the purchase up into these two phases and then started building the first-phase units in places like Bowling Green and Paducah while the second-phase units were being built in Prestonburg and Columbus.

* In one of these buying-sprees as the CS I once had 3 of these fat-Kentucky-brigades start building in Prestonburg in January of a very bad winter and had a hell-of-a-time working to get them built and out of there because they were starving for lack of supply, taking hits and since they cannot finish building until all of the allocated CCs are actually built, I could not move them out. The last unit got out in like April or May and had to be rebuilt from replacements almost from scratch. What a PITA that whole ordeal was.

Anyway, this is the way it appears to me through my experience.

I had this exact thing happen to me in my current PBEM game versus Jerzul. It was enraging because it was such a significant portion of the forces allotted for my Kentucky forces... and so now I'm short the $, the men, and the equipment.

[Jerzul]

Perhaps there should be a check for supply capability before a unit is built?

It's not as harsh, but as the Union, I had troops take supply hits moving from Michigan to southern Ohio, there seems to be something odd about that. There were even traveling by rail.

[Jim-NC]

Unfortunately there isn't. Thus the computer likes to build CSA KY units in the easy to take over/under defended/ under supplied north and east. I will never understand why so many units get raised in Prestonburg. Then you have to try to feed them, and get them somewhere with supplies. It seems to happen most with the January build.

[Captain_Orso]

Hola Ethan

I'll have to test this through some time, but it sounds like I described in my previous post. In December you raise a whole lot of funds and build a bunch of units. The game engine goes through putting the smaller units on the board first in the first build phase and in second build phase has to find a place for the big fat units, because the smaller ones get built first and take up the best build locations, which often leaves Prestonburg left to suck up those fat brigades.

Combine that with winter and you get a volatile cocktail of starving recruits in a far off land .

Baring a major code change, which isn't going to happen, we can only learn from our experience and deal with the situation.

[Ethan]

Hola Captain_Orso!

Thanks again for your kind reply. I'll continue the game, understanding that sometimes these things happen.

Greetings.

[Wraith]

So, here's a question: armed with this new knowledge, is it better to go ahead and (if you're going to be building units in KY) build a depot there to make it less susceptible to such problems? Would that attenuate this issue?

[Stauffenberg]

So, here's a question: armed with this new knowledge, is it better to go ahead and (if you're going to be building units in KY) build a depot there to make it less susceptible to such problems? Would that attenuate this issue?

I have found as the CSA that if you construct some light industry early on at various stages it can be really beneficial with respect to getting guns built, when you want them, and where you want them. The costs for these industries in Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, or Texas for example, are really quite small. What you have to check for each turn after you put in a level 1 industry, is to see if a town starts building WS (this is announced in the very small text font, and thereafter you will have the factory icon appear). Once this happens you can cancel the industry in that state and any cannon builds will appear at that factory.

This is useful in Texas for obvious reasons--it is isolated from the South, with no direct RR link and a slow overland and interdictable ocean links.

Similar situation for Missouri, Arkansas as well to some extent--I've also put industry in there. When your RR and river transportation net starts getting fragmented in the later phases of the war it is most useful to be able to build guns in these outer areas as opposed to build in the center and ship them out.

The key thing with Kentucky is to make sure the union has taken down all those NE towns as you don't want a factory to appear there (read some of the horror stories about CSA death marches south from Lexington and Clarksburg on other threads). Ideally you can get this built in Columbus, Paducah or Bowling Green and I have been able to do this readily--getting those four Kentucky 20-lbers is almost a strategic consideration in my book. There is a similar situation in MO with the town of Charleston in the extreme SE of the state on the Miss. R. If the factory appears here it is clearly indefensible. In one pbem I was fortunate that my opponent did not notice the factory until he finally captured the place later on.

It can take from a few turns to 10 or so before a factory appears and you shouldn't think of the cost as wasted in simply waiting to get a factory to appear--these industries produce ammo and supplies that go into the net production stats for the CSA in any case.

[Captain_Orso]

So, here's a question: armed with this new knowledge, is it better to go ahead and (if you're going to be building units in KY) build a depot there to make it less susceptible to such problems? Would that attenuate this issue?

The general situation in Kentucky that has been discussed has the Union holding Louisville, Lexington, probably Clarksburg and maybe Bowling Green, but maybe not. The South is holding Columbus, hopefully Paducah and maybe Bowling Green; and of course, all of Tennessee. Prestonburg remains a big question mark in this equation. As the South, if it's not being heavily garrisoned, which is unlikely, but especially if it's not garrisoned at all, it's an enticing target, because you can use it as a jump-off point for hitting the Union in the flank, while the Union's general avenue of advance is towards Donelson and Nashville. Also, with enough effort Cincinnati is within reach, but Lexington and Louisville are the more readily available targets, especially if you can hold on to them.

But the problem with taking Prestonburg is that it's still a real backwater location, and if you are building Kentucky units, they could land there, and if you are building them extensively, some of them will eventually land there. On a side note, ever heard of the Hatfield and McCoy feud? This is the area where the were at home.

But building a depot in Prestonburg as the South is begging for the Union to take it from you. No, I'd not do that as either party. It's just a waist and a red flag for the enemy to take.

If you are building heavily in winter in Kentucky, build at least one supply train to push into Prestonburg as soon as more that a few regiments are building there. Be ready to push a second one in too if there are a lot of regiments being built there. My Rule-Of-Thumb™ is 1 supply train per field division. Divisions on static defense sitting on a depot or large city can live without if need be, but they will be missing a bonus for having a supply unit with at least 1 point of supply during any battle fought in their region. So if you're build a lot of units at once in Kentucky you are probably going to be needing at least one supply train anyway, albeit probably not as soon as when need to feed a bunch of hungry recruits in Prestonburg.

I had 3 of those huge brigades land there. They consist of 4 inf. (not 3 as I stated previously), a 6lb-er and a cav. I thought at first that they might draw some supplies through their size and the fact that there is a harbor in Prestonburg. But the harbor cannot draw any supplies because it's too far away from and Southern supply source on the Ohio or Mississippi, and the town itself, even if it's drawing supplies on its own will not draw enough of them to feed the hungry masses. I also found out how long it takes to build and transport a supply train from any state up to Prestonburg. I felt the hunger-pains every arduous step of the way they took up over the Cumberland to get to Prestonburg and got the tattered troops out as quickly as I could, never to make that mistake again.