Firstly, just have to say the AGEOD's American Civil War is one of the best wargames I've ever played. I'm not usually a hardcore wargame player, but AACW has really pulled me in, probably the best since Desert Rats & Vulcan for the Spectrum 20 years ago.
Anyway, back to the topic - I am trying a new campaign as the CSA, (and midway through a USA campaign) and noticed that industrialisation uses up a lot of the most precious resources, heavy war supplies in order to increase production. Since that in itself the most valuable commodity, it seems a risky thing to do to invest so much (eg I think it's 15 war supplies to invest one level in Georgia) in the chance you will get increased production later, especially considering you may not always get in increase in war supplies. It would be great if someone could work out a ROI on this - eg if investing 15 now meant on average increase 2-3 per turn once every 3 months then it would a good investment, but if it only happens once a year then less so. Also there is the old adage 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, ie that the WS you have now is much more valuable than whatever increase you may get from it by investing in industry.
This is particularly acute for the CSA, as war supplies is a critical item in which you have few options to increase (unlike money or manpower). It's much less of a problem with the USA as they start off in a much better economic situation (as was the reality).
For the South, taking into consideration the average potential (at best) of the states they control, I'd say it's a risky proposition. I haven't played a full campaign yet (just a few test runs) so I can't comment on the long-term usefullness of such an investment.
The north is a somewhat different story, in the sense that there are two states with excellent potential and another three (I think) with very good. Still, it can be costly, especially early on and, as you say, in terms of war supplies.
There are a couple of number crunchers frequenting these boards, so I'm sure that either they or the devs can come up with a much more informed reply. As the CSA, I would not bother early on, to be honest, but I could be dead wrong.
The north is a somewhat different story, in the sense that there are two states with excellent potential and another three (I think) with very good. Still, it can be costly, especially early on and, as you say, in terms of war supplies.
There are a couple of number crunchers frequenting these boards, so I'm sure that either they or the devs can come up with a much more informed reply. As the CSA, I would not bother early on, to be honest, but I could be dead wrong.
I have played as the confederates quite many turns now and what I most need is money, a million or 2 
leure: . I do industrilaize but only one province at a time and only those with good potential. I must admit I dont really get much of it right now (Im still in '61) but I do think I will be rewarding in the end.
leure: . I do industrilaize but only one province at a time and only those with good potential. I must admit I dont really get much of it right now (Im still in '61) but I do think I will be rewarding in the end."Saw steamer, strafed same, sank same, some sight, signed smith" From "The Thousand Mile War" by Brian Garfield.
mike1962 wrote:I would be curious to see how you make out Kotik, I quickly abandoned industrialization after a couple turns as it sapped my much needed war supplies. I am playing as CSA.
I have enough war supplies to buy me and entire fleet if I just had the money. I have finally foun out how to get money through blocked running so I hope money starts to get more plentyful soon.
"Saw steamer, strafed same, sank same, some sight, signed smith" From "The Thousand Mile War" by Brian Garfield.
economical investment ?
I did it during my april game for a few turns. In 1862 I have so much war supplies, gen. Supplies and ammo that I don't know what to do with it ?!?
the only constraint is money for CSA.
If you play a good Confederacy game I would say that industrialisation is a waste of resources cause you have plenty of them. I'll let you know what my current stocks are - but they are rising each month without any problem.
F.e. I have too few locomotives, I can't buy them cause I lack money, but I have a zillion war supplies ... So it's important to raise taxes on money and get your runners up and running for extra money.
I did it during my april game for a few turns. In 1862 I have so much war supplies, gen. Supplies and ammo that I don't know what to do with it ?!?
the only constraint is money for CSA.
If you play a good Confederacy game I would say that industrialisation is a waste of resources cause you have plenty of them. I'll let you know what my current stocks are - but they are rising each month without any problem.
F.e. I have too few locomotives, I can't buy them cause I lack money, but I have a zillion war supplies ... So it's important to raise taxes on money and get your runners up and running for extra money.
Be careful about judging needs you'll face in 1863 with a million and a half men under arms fighting pitched battles every other turn compared to what you need in late 1861 with small armies not fighting much. I had to abort my last April 1861 CSA game in mid 1863 because I ran out of supplies and ammo. Even though I was advancing into Kentucky and Marlyand, and had sufferred no major defeats anywhere, my armies were starving and tossing rocks.
Stonewall wrote:Be careful about judging needs you'll face in 1863 with a million and a half men under arms fighting pitched battles every other turn compared to what you need in late 1861 with small armies not fighting much. I had to abort my last April 1861 CSA game in mid 1863 because I ran out of supplies and ammo. Even though I was advancing into Kentucky and Marlyand, and had sufferred no major defeats anywhere, my armies were starving and tossing rocks.
A very interesting point, indeed. Any recommendations for the South? Do you start early with the industrialization, for example?
In 1862 (so I can't judge later years yet) the only state I continue to improve my industry in is Missouri, mainly to expand my supply base (additional supply and ammunition production) as I can't rely on my railroads or river shipping to move supplies out West. But so far I haven't had problems with production in this game, even my monetary troubles seem to be over now that I've reached November 1862. But then I'm probably in the unusual situation of controlling York Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Annapolis and Port Tobacco Maryland and Washington DC (so I assume I'm drawing on some of the US's cash and industry).
Marc aka Caran...
Marc aka Caran...
Want a little hint? Don't always look to industrialize the "best" states. Why? Because the cost to industrialize the lower potential states is significantly less than the higher potential ones. Whenever I play the Confederates, I set North Carolina and possibly Tennessee to light industrialization, and the cost is still lower than setting Georgia to low. I usually find that the confederates need to be pulling in at least 70-80 war supplies per turn to maintain an effective army. Sure, you can get those with blockade runners, but if they're bringing in War supplies, then they're not bringing in money. The less money that comes in, the more you'll have to raise, the higher your inflation gets, the more things cost...it can be a vicious circle once you get behind as the CSA.
-
Doomwalker
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:36 am
- Location: Confederate held territory in Afghanistan.
Industrializing as the South is a no-brainer. With moderate investment in Mississippi and South Carolina (alternating between them every few turns) I can get 2 to 3 new factories per turn. I went through some save files and found that over teh course of a year I had invested $270 and 338 in War Supplies. I got an increased production of approximately 355 general supply, 142 ammunition, and 44 war supplies. In a long term game, the cost in WS would have been made up in 5 months. General Supply and ammo is mroe difficult to calcuate in terms of cost.
As the south, my biggest shortfalls are always war supplies. I can always scrape enough money together through blockade running. Although, with the new ai blockade routines, that strategy may need to be reevaluated.
Ironically, I find industrializing as the Union incredibly costly and difficult. It seems that the southern states are more easily industrialized, in direct opposition to conventional logic and game mechanics. I have tried to industrialize Wisconsin (max investment) and maybe get one new building every 3rd or 4th turn whereas in the South, I was getting 2 buildings per turn on moderate investment.
New Jersey is consistently my best investment state as it has good potential and a low cost.
Overall, I think that the costs of industrialization are just fine. They may be a tad high on the money side. The results of indistrialization are fine as well, but may need to be tinkered for states with only one or two towns.
As the south, my biggest shortfalls are always war supplies. I can always scrape enough money together through blockade running. Although, with the new ai blockade routines, that strategy may need to be reevaluated.
Ironically, I find industrializing as the Union incredibly costly and difficult. It seems that the southern states are more easily industrialized, in direct opposition to conventional logic and game mechanics. I have tried to industrialize Wisconsin (max investment) and maybe get one new building every 3rd or 4th turn whereas in the South, I was getting 2 buildings per turn on moderate investment.
New Jersey is consistently my best investment state as it has good potential and a low cost.
Overall, I think that the costs of industrialization are just fine. They may be a tad high on the money side. The results of indistrialization are fine as well, but may need to be tinkered for states with only one or two towns.
yes, this was also my thinking, big states are too costly (or are ok-ish), even if they have a high rating, compared to "rural" states which are too cheap and interesting... perhaps the formula need to be tweaked somehow.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
What would be an interesting way of going about it is investing a certain amount of money and/or war supplies into a general fund (like rail and river transport...not state specific) and then having the industrial rating of the various states determine what factories open and how large they are. A factory opening in the 'Very Good' New Jersey would have a better chance of being bigger than one in the 'Fair' state of Ohio.
I would rather see the success rate dropped myself, rather than increasing the price. As it is, with low investment, you can get 1-3 "hits" nearly every turn. Usually those aren't war supplies. But I think the ratio should probably be the other way around with 1-3 turns on average before you get anything. If you jack the price up too high, then you completely remove it from the South's abilities.
Pocus wrote:yes, this was also my thinking, big states are too costly (or are ok-ish), even if they have a high rating, compared to "rural" states which are too cheap and interesting... perhaps the formula need to be tweaked somehow.
Another possible way would be to give a better payoff to factories in "industrialized" states, ie give 2+ factories when a "hit" land.
This would simulate build of bigger, more productive factories.
At first I thought investing in the economy only cost a one time hit in war supplies, but apparently investment is a per turn basis, ie it's like increasing the investment rate per state. In which case it's probably best not to do investments untill everything else is done, and when you can start to purchase new units.
putting on the CSA glasses ...
The problem is that one might get bonuses for ammo and general supplies - while in fact he wants to develop the badly needed war supplies. In my current game I developed so much industry - and had only one upgrade for war supplies. Then the year after I didn't do any upgrade (no war supplies), then I waited a few turns and did some upgrade - now I got 4 upgrades on war supplies.
The upgrade on war supplies is totally "out of control". And this is annoying for the least. I agree that some randomisation is needed - but industrial development was not the same as playing the lottery.
There are 2 approaches =
1) make a distinction between "heavy industry" upgrade and "normal industry" upgrade. F.e. the "factory" symbol is the heavy industry, and a new symbol (some workshop) is introduced.
States with the presence of war supply production will have a better chance to develop war suppies - compared to the "rural states" - which will have a small chance to develop the war supply production. But the cost to invest in the "heavy industry" states should also be substantially higher. The leitmotiv behind this is that heavy industry "attracks" other heavy industry - but is more costly to finance.
By doing so - one gets a more focused and reasonable upgrade program. In some of my games I had even the impression I had "won" the game by being lucky on the upgrades early war - I was able to build loads of Ironclads etc. In other games I don't get the war supplies at all, and a long struggle (more historical off course) begins.
2) Another approach - that allows us to work with the current model is as following. The already present war supplies in a state will both stimulate chances for getting war supplies (so better chance to get war supplies) but will also reduce chances for ammo and general supply production. In any case the cost for "war supply" rich state development should increase even further.
This means that ammo workshops will be cheaper to build in MS or LA. But chance for the production of an iron works (war supply) will be substantial higher in GA - but also more costly. So this allows a more focused industrial development - without making the rules too complex.
General remark = blockade runners should cost less war supplies but more money. Those blockade runners were often ships already in active service (any commercial vessel with a money hungry captain). So I think they should cost more money (to simulate the scarcity of their goods) to construct and less war supplies.
As such a player has a real option to either develop very costly ironworks in states like GA. Or to invest the money in more blockade runners.
The problem is that one might get bonuses for ammo and general supplies - while in fact he wants to develop the badly needed war supplies. In my current game I developed so much industry - and had only one upgrade for war supplies. Then the year after I didn't do any upgrade (no war supplies), then I waited a few turns and did some upgrade - now I got 4 upgrades on war supplies.
The upgrade on war supplies is totally "out of control". And this is annoying for the least. I agree that some randomisation is needed - but industrial development was not the same as playing the lottery.
There are 2 approaches =
1) make a distinction between "heavy industry" upgrade and "normal industry" upgrade. F.e. the "factory" symbol is the heavy industry, and a new symbol (some workshop) is introduced.
States with the presence of war supply production will have a better chance to develop war suppies - compared to the "rural states" - which will have a small chance to develop the war supply production. But the cost to invest in the "heavy industry" states should also be substantially higher. The leitmotiv behind this is that heavy industry "attracks" other heavy industry - but is more costly to finance.
By doing so - one gets a more focused and reasonable upgrade program. In some of my games I had even the impression I had "won" the game by being lucky on the upgrades early war - I was able to build loads of Ironclads etc. In other games I don't get the war supplies at all, and a long struggle (more historical off course) begins.
2) Another approach - that allows us to work with the current model is as following. The already present war supplies in a state will both stimulate chances for getting war supplies (so better chance to get war supplies) but will also reduce chances for ammo and general supply production. In any case the cost for "war supply" rich state development should increase even further.
This means that ammo workshops will be cheaper to build in MS or LA. But chance for the production of an iron works (war supply) will be substantial higher in GA - but also more costly. So this allows a more focused industrial development - without making the rules too complex.
General remark = blockade runners should cost less war supplies but more money. Those blockade runners were often ships already in active service (any commercial vessel with a money hungry captain). So I think they should cost more money (to simulate the scarcity of their goods) to construct and less war supplies.
As such a player has a real option to either develop very costly ironworks in states like GA. Or to invest the money in more blockade runners.
Like I said in the above post - the cost for industrial development should be tied to the already presence of war supply production. This is a bit too tone down the "upwards spiral" of industrial development. If one gets more war supply production - a higher cost of investment for states with higher supply production is desired.
Spruce wrote:Like I said in the above post - the cost for industrial development should be tied to the already presence of war supply production. This is a bit too tone down the "upwards spiral" of industrial development. If one gets more war supply production - a higher cost of investment for states with higher supply production is desired.
good one, I like the negative feedback implied.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Talking of ammo and supplies, I've done some quick maths, and have worked out that the Union can supply for each turn about 100 divisions with supplies, and enough ammo for 25 battles. For the CSA that figure is 70 and 20 respectively. With such high figures (especially for the USA), it makes the whole industrialisation process a bit redundant. Those figures should really be cut in half, so as to make it more urgent to industrialise on both sides.
it's just a proposal, not yet implemented.
I meant for investing in war supply rich states - costs more war supplies relatively spoken. But also a much higher chance for getting war supply bonus and so less chance for gen. supplies and ammo. This formula should be so that after a certain point, further investment becomes disproportionately expensive. To avoid an upperward spiral in war supply gain.
This has some advantages =
1. If you are eager for war supplies, you'll have a better chance at them, at a higer cost off course. This means less overabundancy of ammo and gen. supply production.
2. Blockade runners become an option - now the industrial development is much more attractive compared to the runners. Now industrial development is a no brainer.
3. More "geographical sound spread" of war supply upgrades. F.e. you can chose to focus on some states for your war supply upgrades while others (rural states) are more prone to see gen. supply (food and clothes) and ammo upgrades.
the difference between rural states like TX, FL, etc. and more industrialised states like VA and GA.
One does not build an iron works, in the middle of the brush, or in the middle of the steppes. One builds the iron works, close to rail production plants, ship building facility, cannon production etc. Heavy industry attracks more heavy industry.
just an idea ...
I meant for investing in war supply rich states - costs more war supplies relatively spoken. But also a much higher chance for getting war supply bonus and so less chance for gen. supplies and ammo. This formula should be so that after a certain point, further investment becomes disproportionately expensive. To avoid an upperward spiral in war supply gain.
This has some advantages =
1. If you are eager for war supplies, you'll have a better chance at them, at a higer cost off course. This means less overabundancy of ammo and gen. supply production.
2. Blockade runners become an option - now the industrial development is much more attractive compared to the runners. Now industrial development is a no brainer.
3. More "geographical sound spread" of war supply upgrades. F.e. you can chose to focus on some states for your war supply upgrades while others (rural states) are more prone to see gen. supply (food and clothes) and ammo upgrades.
the difference between rural states like TX, FL, etc. and more industrialised states like VA and GA.
One does not build an iron works, in the middle of the brush, or in the middle of the steppes. One builds the iron works, close to rail production plants, ship building facility, cannon production etc. Heavy industry attracks more heavy industry.
just an idea ...
I have been playing the CSA side for a while now and while no expert by any means, I have tinkered around with the investments quite a bit.
Currently (v1.06), as the CSA I have found that following the manual recommendations works in general- you just have to hope that at least some of the growth is in War Supplies. So far my results have been all over the map from poor to great.
I have adopted the following strategy:
Costs below in parenthesis are ($/WS)
In April of '61 I do light investment in South Carolina (11/14) and either Mississippi (9/11) or Alabama (12/15). Some other good choices are Arkansas (although it's close to the enemy) and maybe even Texas or Florida. I tend to stay away from those last two strictly because of their Poor potential rating. All the above States start with zero War Supply production and as such have (on average) a better chance of investment resulting in increased WS (per the current rules). Thus far I have been happy with the results more times than not, it gives me the extra resources I need to produce heavy units for the CSA.
I do see the point in the discussions above about the current way investment works and I like some of the ideas for improvement. It just seems a bit too random at the moment.
I think something Sid Meier once said about what makes games great rings true-
[INDENT]Great games are all about giving players interesting choices[/INDENT]
Currently (v1.06), as the CSA I have found that following the manual recommendations works in general- you just have to hope that at least some of the growth is in War Supplies. So far my results have been all over the map from poor to great.
I have adopted the following strategy:
Costs below in parenthesis are ($/WS)
In April of '61 I do light investment in South Carolina (11/14) and either Mississippi (9/11) or Alabama (12/15). Some other good choices are Arkansas (although it's close to the enemy) and maybe even Texas or Florida. I tend to stay away from those last two strictly because of their Poor potential rating. All the above States start with zero War Supply production and as such have (on average) a better chance of investment resulting in increased WS (per the current rules). Thus far I have been happy with the results more times than not, it gives me the extra resources I need to produce heavy units for the CSA.
I do see the point in the discussions above about the current way investment works and I like some of the ideas for improvement. It just seems a bit too random at the moment.
I think something Sid Meier once said about what makes games great rings true-
[INDENT]Great games are all about giving players interesting choices[/INDENT]
-
mikee64
- Brigadier General
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: Virginia
- Contact: Website
Pdubya64 wrote:
[INDENT]Great games are all about giving players interesting choices[/INDENT]
Great quote. A lot depends on the situation; against the AI or a player who does not favor deep amphibious raiding, investment in TX can work great - one game I have in 1863 has TX almost outproducing GA in WS. I like Mississippi too, and if you commit to defending New Orleans as you should as the south, LA is not bad either.
It does seem a bit too random though, especially with the WS being so much more important than the other builds (at least prior to 1864, can't speak up to that date yet). Some states like VA and GA just seem too risky to me when you combine the cost with the potential of losing the city with the industry to even temporary capture.
BTW PW welcome aboard; a shout back from the 'noke to Richmond - I pass through your city regularly.
Thanks Mike- actually it's paraphrased, I can't find the original interview anymore and Sid does so many... but it's pretty close.
Spot on too- any game that has legs, in other words lasts more than a year has to have this characteristic. Another alternative you hear a lot is the "just one more turn!" effect.
Sid seems to have many of these, although he isn't always right. As an example, I bought Firaxis' latest Railroads! game, thinking it would be a great 21st century update to a classic. BAH!
They "dumbed it down" for the general public IMO. No signals, the track circuits don't work like they need to on the harder settings, no tenders on the steam engines, etc. It just doesn't do it for me having been a big fan of the original. A waste of $40 for me. leure:
But, HEY! There's alway AACW, right?
but it's pretty close.
Spot on too- any game that has legs, in other words lasts more than a year has to have this characteristic. Another alternative you hear a lot is the "just one more turn!" effect.
Sid seems to have many of these, although he isn't always right. As an example, I bought Firaxis' latest Railroads! game, thinking it would be a great 21st century update to a classic. BAH!
They "dumbed it down" for the general public IMO. No signals, the track circuits don't work like they need to on the harder settings, no tenders on the steam engines, etc. It just doesn't do it for me having been a big fan of the original. A waste of $40 for me. leure:
But, HEY! There's alway AACW, right?
Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests