Deflation

[TofuSalad]

While actual deflation is in the real world not a good thing, in game it is advantageous; all it does is make things cheaper to purchase. I don't ever take the option to print money since it's just shooting yourself in the foot as far as I see it; it's not worth an extra $400 thousand now to inflate the cost of everything for the rest of the game by 4%. The options to raise exceptional taxes and issue bonds both come with a -1% inflation effect, which I guess is there to help offset the inflationary effect of printing money. Only I don't ever print money, but do raise taxes and issue bonds every chance I get. The net effect of this and in game events is that in the current game I am playing as the Union in late 1863 my inflation is -17%, which means everything is 17% cheaper to build. Am I the only one who plays this way?

[GraniteStater]

While actual deflation is in the real world not a good thing, in game it is advantageous; all it does is make things cheaper to purchase. I don't ever take the option to print money since it's just shooting yourself in the foot as far as I see it; it's not worth an extra $400 thousand now to inflate the cost of everything for the rest of the game by 4%. The options to raise exceptional taxes and issue bonds both come with a -1% inflation effect, which I guess is there to help offset the inflationary effect of printing money. Only I don't ever print money, but do raise taxes and issue bonds every chance I get. The net effect of this and in game events is that in the current game I am playing as the Union in late 1863 my inflation is -17%, which means everything is 17% cheaper to build. Am I the only one who plays this way?

While actual deflation is in the real world not a good thing

Like everything else in economics, it all depends. But this ain't an econ class.

The Other Two Options cost VPs and NM.

At the end of the game, if there is no NM AutoVic, then the side with more VPs wins. I just won a very narrow Minor Victory in a PbeM by 200 VPs. Do not throw them away, they may determine the winner.

NM is the central fulcrum of the game, it affects almost everything you want to do and can end the game in a sudden death AutoVic.

Myself, there is a certain merit to letting things inflate - it doesn't cost NM or VPs and you get a little amelioration anyway, by Economic Sunrise events. I don't care how expensive things are in the end, if I can win the war, I'll let the Treasury Dept. settle things after victory. Now, I do want to watch it, but there are no points for penny pinching.

[Jim-NC]

Hello and welcome to the forums TofuSalad

As GraniteStater states, all options cost you something. It depends on what you want to spend to get your money. I personally don't mind a little inflation in the game either.

[TofuSalad]

Thank you for the welcome. Sure, the other two cost NM and VPs, but you're going to need an army if your going to win (or at least not lose) VPs and NM in battles and as time goes by, or by forcing an automatic victory, and that army is going to cost you money. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture since I've only played the Union side so far, but money always seems to be the bottleneck, not conscripts or war materials, at least not after a brief and slight early bottleneck in war materials. My question is more if this is working as intended. I didn't set out trying to deflate my currency, only to avoid inflating it. The effect of having a -17% inflation rate is huge. Every new unit and replacement I'm putting in the field only costs 83% of its original 1861 value, and things keep getting cheaper as the years go by. If your opponent keeps printing money, everything keeps getting more and more expensive for him as time goes by; even more so if they are unwilling to take the relatively minor NM and VP hits to mitigate the inflation by taxing and issuing bonds.

[GraniteStater]

I'd have to see your game or several of them to make any real assessment. I can only tell you how I look at things.

NM affects combat - if you're at even 85, let's say, and facing CSA stacks at 110, not uncommon at all - well, you're gonna get some unwanted results and hafta Gang Up A Lot to win your fights. I like to keep my NM up, for exactly these reasons, NM is important to me. Just FYI, NM is 'normal' combat prowess from 95 - 105, afaik: when you get into less than 95, your combat effectiveness slips and you can tell it by the shorter Cohesion bars on your units - IOW, even at full Cohesion, you are substandard compared to the oppo & that really starts to get real old, real fast. In the meantime, 'cuz the oppo is winning the duels, his NM is going up, and when he starts to get into 120, 130, 140 NM, it's Not Pretty At All.

As the Union, you're going to be trailing in VPs for quite a while, into 1862 at least, and perhaps much longer. You want to try to keep it reasonably close, and I mean like within 200, 300 or so. I just got thru recovering from 600 down, midgame, amd even was trailing by close to 400 with only ten months to go, but I was piling up + 30 net VPs every Turn and just managed to break the tape first - barely, really.

NM and VPs act as a kind of currency - you can spend them, just like $$, to achieve desired ends, but NM is the central fulcrum of the game - a string of defeats -> low NM -> more defeats -> geez, I can't do squat -> desperation -> more defeats -> Defeat by low NM. I know this cycle very well as the Union, from AACW especially - it took me a while to adapt my playstyle to avoid the Vicious Cycle of Defeat by NM.

However, if you avoid AutoDefeat or do not win by AutoVic, i. e., by NM, then the sole criterion is VPs - doesn't matter what your NM is on 1 January 1866, VPs are the sole determinant.

And then there's Foreign Intervention, which can be regarded as a de facto win for the CSA in the middle of the game, regardless of other outcomes. I have a 1.03 game saved just for this, where I got a bad roll on the Trent Affair and FI is at 75 in December 1861. I saved it just to enjoy the challenge against the AI.

So, for me, $$ is the least of my concerns, except I never have enough. Industrialize, even as the North, you'll be happy you did - I have a current PbeM where I did two things - I built a Huge Navy to clamp a 95% Blockade on the South and I Industrialized every single Option, I have none left. It helps. The only thing I haven't done is build a lot of Transports for the Shipping Lanes, so as to get $$ that way, too, but can't do everything.

I write all this because you said you're playing the Union. The Union is not as simple as it might appear - there's a degree of subtlety to it, there's a lot the Union has to do, certain things it must do, and some choices are better than others. The CSA is a bit simpler to play, the tasks are more well defined and the paths to victory are clearer - whomp the snot out of Northern bullies. The North is a bit more challenging, in some respects: the Leaders aren't that exciting until mid-game and we seem to have a crisis in the program right now with promotions for both North & South, which greatly affects the North because you wind up with only two Army Commanders who are worth a hill of beans, Rosecrans and Grant - when Buell and McDowell at 2-2-2 are looking decent, You Have a Problem, Houston. The South's Promotion problem is a dearth of 2* Corps Commanders, but that's a bit different issue. Anyhow, I brought all this up so that you may see that it's not about the shekels - having a fat bank account in Jan66 doesn't mean anything.

Play as it suits you, find your style, but I just thought I'd give a tip or two, especially from someone who plays the Union more often than not.

[minipol]

I mostly play the CSA and I click on every option that can yield me money. I don't care about the NM or VP cost because without the money, I can't stop the Union.

[Mickey3D]

Hi TofuSalad, welcome on this forum.

The problem with your strategy is that you can't apply it against a human player (PBEM) : in the current version (1.03) money is the resource that will limit your purchase of conscripts (more than war supply). If you don't print money you will be short of cash to buy fighting units before you can take advantage of the deflation and your opponent will be in position to beat you early in the game.

[TofuSalad]

The problem with your strategy is that you can't apply it against a human player (PBEM) : in the current version (1.03) money is the resource that will limit your purchase of conscripts (more than war supply). If you don't print money you will be short of cash to buy fighting units before you can take advantage of the deflation and your opponent will be in position to beat you early in the game.

/shrug

All I can say is try it if you haven't, the results might surprise you. Saying you can't keep from printing money in PBEM is like saying you can't invest in industry in PBEM because you will be short on cash and your opponent will be able to beat you early in the game. The short term need for cash may be pressing enough that you feel it necessary to punch the print money button the first time it comes up, just as the short term need for cash may lead you to defer from building all of that industry as soon as it is available. Both are long term payoffs for a short term cost; those industries will eventually pay for themselves and start netting you cash. Printing money every chance you get gives you $400k in hand, but you've just inflated the cost of everything without a fixed cost that you buy for the rest of the game by 4%. Not punching that print money button will more than pay for itself if you can afford not to do it. Every time that you do punch it, that $400k you get is worth less and less as you are now spending it in a more and more inflated economy.

Again, the reason I'm posting in this forum is I'm not sure the ability to deflate your economy is WAD. Maybe it is, but it seems the assumption is that the player will punch every source of cash every time they come up. Doing this results in a slow inflation, a minor cost in VPs and NM and a big wad of cash every 6 months. Punching everything but printing money not only avoids inflation but causes actual deflation; the cost of everything without a fixed cost steadily becomes cheaper.

[GraniteStater]

OK, just to let you know, I'm in the middle of a PbeM where I've deliberately eschewed short term for long. Building Blockade Squadrons ain't cheap and take eight months or more to build & deliver. So didn't have my Up Close Blockade running until mid- 62 and even then it still took additional time to get things the way I wanted, to crimp the CSA's port production by 40+% - i. e., a 90 - 95% Blockade value in the Boxes.

I kept up just enough of an army to keep my opponent honest - after all, he didn't know what I was doing, spending all that money on ships & industry. But you pay a price - he's at 73% of my Combat Power. Now, in the spring of 1864, things look like I might start to reap rewards - but nothing is guaranteed.

I couldn't do all this without printing money - now, in RC4 (essentially what 1.04 is gonna be), the $$ choices are $800 for the Union, $600 for the CSA - a discernible difference for both sides.

And my inflation is at 4% or s. t. like that, with a high of 7%, maybe. Rarely, in my playstyle, I might get to 9%.

Inflation is offset by the other choices and a dice roll for Economic Sunrise once in a while.

Have you played this game a lot? You're going to need Replacements for casualties, as distinguished from Reinforcements, the units you build. Serious warring ain't cheap, especially if you lose some bloody ones here & there. One cannot plan on always winning and not suffering severe setbacks.

Again, play the way you wish - but warm bodies with rifles are better than a bank account -and it takes time to build them, even the fast ones are three Turns. Larger formations are four Turns.

If you have remarkable results with not printing money, please let us know.

[Mickey3D]

/shrug

Not sure to understand your comment. Sorry if you feel my post aggressive or disdainful, this was not my intention.

All I can say is try it if you haven't, the results might surprise you.

I might be wrong and any new strategy is welcome : I would be happy to have a PBEM with you to see what happen and if this strategy is viable on the long run.

This "deflation" option is more viable for the North as the South player is often on a defensive strategy and could not realize what is happening before it is too late.

It is also maybe more interesting with version 1.04 where all the cash decisions will bring more money.

Saying you can't keep from printing money in PBEM is like saying you can't invest in industry in PBEM because you will be short on cash and your opponent will be able to beat you early in the game.

Industrialisation is a ROI computation that you can afford at some points in the game but it will become more and more difficult as the game extends (I'm thinking mostly to the CSA player). And yes, too much investment in industry can "kill" you before you get your return.

The short term need for cash may be pressing enough that you feel it necessary to punch the print money button the first time it comes up, just as the short term need for cash may lead you to defer from building all of that industry as soon as it is available. Both are long term payoffs for a short term cost; those industries will eventually pay for themselves and start netting you cash. Printing money every chance you get gives you $400k in hand, but you've just inflated the cost of everything without a fixed cost that you buy for the rest of the game by 4%. Not punching that print money button will more than pay for itself if you can afford not to do it. Every time that you do punch it, that $400k you get is worth less and less as you are now spending it in a more and more inflated economy.

I fully understand what you mean but my point is that if you have to wait until 1863 to get a return it may be too late at least for the CSA player.

Again, the reason I'm posting in this forum is I'm not sure the ability to deflate your economy is WAD. Maybe it is, but it seems the assumption is that the player will punch every source of cash every time they come up. Doing this results in a slow inflation, a minor cost in VPs and NM and a big wad of cash every 6 months. Punching everything but printing money not only avoids inflation but causes actual deflation; the cost of everything without a fixed cost steadily becomes cheaper.

I definitively don't think deflation possibility is WAD (nothing like this was mentioned on the Beta forum). May be a rule should be added to avoid having a negative value in inflation.

[Mickey3D]

I have built a worksheet comparing the two options, it is attached to this post.

I'm not in front of the game so may be some of the values used are wrong. Also, let me know if you see any logical errors and sorry if my labels are not clear (english is not my mother tongue).

[ATTACH]27604[/ATTACH]

Edit : Uploaded a new file due to a small formatting error.

[Ace]

Actually Mickey, you made an error in your spreadsheet that made Deflation strategy less interesting than it actually is. You calculated inflatory loss only on the income from the money options, while this loss is spread to all your money incomes.

Actually, if your half year CSA income without industrialization rounds up around 2500 $ (1.03.) - inflationary loss for printing money in the period would be 2500×0,04 = 100 $. At the same time, you would net 400 $ from printing (1.03. patch). So, it would take additional 18 months to save the same money you got from printing. The catch is, in that 18 months you printed another 3 times, that prolonged ROI for the Deflation strategy. After 4 times you selected print money option, you will loose 400 to inflation every 6 months, but you will still raise 400 from additional printing.
It would take 3,5 years to save through deflation what the other player got from printing money. A lot can happen in 3,5 game years. Most games are over till then. But, everyone is welcome to try. If you hang out till 64 with this strategy, you are good to go for the final push.

That is the beauty of the game. There are no definite strategies and every experiment is welcome. I would definitely not recommend it for the CSA - they would loose the war until then. And the US will have a hard time defending Washington against aggressive CSA player. But, if they weather the early years, they well may make it. I would not do it, but it can be done.

So, Deflation strategy is a viable option in the game. But, that is the beauty of the game. It has its pluses and minuses.

[GraniteStater]

It would take 3,5 years to save through deflation what the other player got from printing money. A lot can happen in 3,5 game years.

Which is another way of saying 'opportunity costs', or what a project manager means when he assesses risk management.

In short, forgoing that extra $600 (CSA) or $800 (Union) when you could've have built more units with it, or kept RR&R up to snuff, or industrialized more...particularly units.

When the ANV is crashing into the parlor in the White House, it's small consolation that the corporal's guard didn't cost much. Having unit builds cheaper implies more of them, but it doesn't speed up build times. First, I don't think the percentages involved are going to realize enough savings to justify forgoing present use of a financial option, i. e., you don't save enough, quickly enough, to build a Colossal Army of Cheaper Units that is so demonstrably bigger than otherwise. Second, every unit you don't build now is a unit that's not going to be delivered 30, 45, 50, 60, 75, 90, 100, 240, 360 Days from now. What you have on the board a game month from now, a season from now, is determined by what you buy now.

I have a Big Navy blockading Southern ports at 85 - 95 per cent, now, in early 1864 (and have had 70%+ since mid - 62) because I made decisions in April 1861 to build that navy and started on my first Blockade Squadron the very first Turn I could build one. Then I added one every single Turn I could, plus Brigs, plus Transports. Plus a river navy, which the Union essentially builds from scratch, anyway. All of these hulls cost money, lots of it. I also had to build a credible army and had to forgo or put off building some of my preferred units, like artillery and support units, because Infantry Comes First and always will.

I couldn't do any of this without a measured use of all financial options - and this was a game that didn't switch to RC4 until 1863, i. e., I didn't have $800 available until then. Now that the financial options are even bigger, the opportunity costs for not printing judiciously are correspondingly more.

If you (impersonal 'you') can build an army and a navy that's big enough and well equipped, quickly enough, to demonstrate shunning the use of $800 as a policy reaps benefits not otherwise obtainable, then please feel free.

[Ace]

I've given it further thought and I have come to conclusion it is definitely not worth to go for Deflation strategy. Let's assume you print money and you invest all that money in raising armories and arsenals. ROI for those building is about 1 year. So, in 3 year times, everything will be more expensive, but you used that inflationary money to start your economy that generates more than the "inflationary" loan. The whole world economy is based on that - how to start up your economy growth that will surpass inflationary/debt interest costs. Inflation is just another form of debt with large interest

[Mickey3D]

Actually Mickey, you made an error in your spreadsheet that made Deflation strategy less interesting than it actually is. You calculated inflatory loss only on the income from the money options, while this loss is spread to all your money incomes.

You are right, thanks for the correction. But note that deflation applies only to the purchase of units : regional decision cards, call for volunteers, industrialization, increase to rail/river pool, ..., all will keep the same cost ("deflation/inflation free" cost).

I have rebuilt the file (attached to this post) to take into consideration these new parameters.

If I remember well you can use money options once per quarter, so based on the following assumptions :
- version 1.03
- CSA player (I don't have the numbers for USA at the moment)
- you don't loose a single money generating region

I used these numbers :
- Income other than money option = 1200
- % of money spent on inflation/deflation free purchase = 25

It starts to be interesting after 12 periods (3 years) and becomes very powerful very quickly...but you must survive until then (the critical period being just after mid 62).

As you say, the beauty of this game is the endless possible strategies.


[ATTACH]27611[/ATTACH]

[Mickey3D]

I've given it further thought and I have come to conclusion it is definitely not worth to go for Deflation strategy. Let's assume you print money and you invest all that money in raising armories and arsenals. ROI for those building is about 1 year. So, in 3 year times, everything will be more expensive, but you used that inflationary money to start your economy that generates more than the "inflationary" loan. The whole world economy is based on that - how to start up your economy growth that will surpass inflationary/debt interest costs. Inflation is just another form of debt with large interest

But this is a very hypothetical strategy : I think that most of the time players do not spend so much on industrialization (400$ / turn) and you don't know immediately that you are facing an opponent playing the deflation strategy.

[Ace]

With 1.04., all money option generate more, and all income buildings generate the same. So inflationary cost has less impact on overall economy. Still, an interesting discussion. I still think it is better to bring as many troops early, industries and blockade box filled with ships sooner than later. Cheaper units will not help you if your NM is in the 60s because you've been saving your money.

[Ace]

But this is a very hypothetical strategy : I think that most of the time players do not spend so much on industrialization (400$ / turn) and you don't know immediately that you are facing an opponent playing the deflation strategy.

Yes it is hypothetical. I just wanted to prove the point that the same amount of money is more useful in 61 that in 64, even if you purchase same amount of troops as in Deflation strategy, the extra money can always be put to good use.

[RebelYell]

With 1.04., all money option generate more, and all income buildings generate the same. So inflationary cost has less impact on overall economy. Still, an interesting discussion. I still think it is better to bring as many troops early, industries and blockade box filled with ships sooner than later. Cheaper units will not help you if your NM is in the 60s because you've been saving your money.

+1

As CSA you have to build your armies up in 61-62, then it is mostly small units and reinforcements you need.

Industries up starting from 61-62 winter and trough 63, then when the situation permits you might get something more.

From mid 62 to 63 onward the war is settled in the field by campaigns and maneuvers, you should have some 250.000 well trained men in main field armies waiting to whip Yankees.

You can trade space for time and wait for the opportunities to come to use your elite formations in a place of your choosing.

I dont believe in hanging on to anything with desperation, as long as you can field those armies properly they are a threat to the Union formations and plans.

[Gray Fox]

So, I will assume that the excess funds from printing money or gained by deflation can be used immediately to pay for units. I can pay for an average infantry Division with approximately $330. I could purchase one of these on period 1, 3 and 5 with printed money. If I chose Deflation Strategy (DS) instead, I would have enough excess to purchase one Divisions by periods 12 and 13, then pruchase two in the next period when the advantage of DS kicks in.

[GraniteStater]

Mickey3D assumed 1.03 - with $800/$600 per side per choice in RC4 (~1.04), the opportunity costs are higher by not printing $$.

If you read my last post above, you might start to see that I'm kind of approaching something along the lines of "actual man-days in the field".

Not printing now means you are either not industrializing, not fixing RR&R, or not building units, unless there's some other use for $$ that I'm overlooking. Industrializing is a deferment strategy and can be pricey; keeping infrastructure up is not all that expensive in raw numbers. So keep RR&R out of it.

If you are industrializing in anything beyond the most cursory way, then, uh, what are you doing for an army? As in now. Or, rather, two Turns from now, and three game months from now, etc. Oh, yes, unit prices just keep getting cheaper - but build times don't. You can have twice as big an army six months from now? I don't need a spreadsheet to know that ain't so. A year from now? January, 1865?

In the meantime, your opponent, entirely ignorant of this strategy, has foolishly spent too much for his military, but hey, it is in the field now, so let's impress posteriors and take names later. IMHO, the CSA is courting outright disaster here; the Union is not doing all it can to get the most bodies on the field or build up Industry to have fewer concerns in mid-game and later. And I'm speaking as a Union player who is in the middle of a PbeM where Extreme Deferment has been the theme, between the Big Blockade and Industry All the Way. I spent boatloads for these two objects.

My navy has been doing what I wanted since mid-62 - if you want the Big Blockade, you have to start laying down keels the very first Turn you can. Paying for every single Industry option takes a good two years, but my Interior screen has been a blank for a year now and, afaics, it's worth it.

In the meantime, I built an army, big enough to keep the ball in play. Now I get to add to that army and have built almost all the support units I want and am merrily constructing More Corps Artillery as I raise More Infantry. Most of my expensive disbursements are done - keep an eye on Replacements. If my theory is right, the CSA (RebelYell) is a bit pinched for $$ & WS, because he's getting only about 50% of all his production from ports - and there some nice producers that are ports. New Orleans is mine entirely, so that's 100% and its possession means it helps with Blockade Percentage, too.

Now, attrition hurts him more than me. Replacement rates are mitigated if you can't buy as many.

"A good plan now beats a better plan tomorrow."

[ArmChairGeneral]

One should also consider that the types of things you are purchasing change as the game progresses. Once the big ticket items are in hand inflation becomes less of a drawback (navy). There is no carrying cost to pay once units are on the map (replacements are a separate issue) so get them in the field as quick as you can, I say. The later in the game you print money the less of an impact inflation will have. Same with industrialization; if you don't do it soon, might as well not do it at all, in my book.

I find the concept of man-days-in-field useful in this context and in other game decisions.

As the CSA I avoid printing money if I can get away with it, and try to keep inflation under 5% while I am still building-up. I use printing as a strategic cash reserve, ready to be tapped specifically for replacement emergencies. I usually do it once or twice on purpose just to get stuff built, and deflate it back down.

I have never understood why issuing bonds causes deflation. Yes the money will eventually need to be repaid, but not till after the war. In the meantime, more money, same amount of goods, etc.

As a bit of a quibble, transport pools do effectively suffer from inflation because of the steadily increasing threshold that is needed for the transportation levels. The $ price does not go up, but each purchase is less effective than the one before it. This "inflation" is at a fixed rate, however, not affected by money choices.

[GraniteStater]

I have never understood why issuing bonds causes deflation.

Takes money out of circulation and returns it to the Central Bank (gov't).

[Ace]

Yes, but the Gov't in this case immediately spends the same money on the war effort?
I was not for it to cause deflation, but other players with more economic knowledge say it is so, so I went along with it. Maybe the money spent for the war effort ends up on private accounts, out of circulation...

[ArmChairGeneral]

The gov't isn't going to sit on that money, it is in the throes of a dramatic increase in demand, so its not like the money would be leaving circulation and causing deflation. The increased demand for war supplies and men would drive up prices on all goods and labor (which are what the player buys) as it displaces production from other parts of the economy: a demand shock. Since the displaced resources are being consumed by the war rather than used to produce more goods, supply shortages will eventually set in both for civilians and the govt, raising prices even further. Demand is up, supply is down, prices go up, up, up. If anything, the govt. would need to print or ration goods just to keep up with the massive spike in demand. The fact that both governments immediately decoupled from gold is telling.

Runaway inflation in the CSA was partly due to money creation, but mainly due to collapse in confidence. Confederate notes were just that, promises of payment and convertibility contingent on winning the war; when it became apparent that they would either lose or not be able to pay it back even if they won, no one was willing to accept them as payment anymore. The same could have happened to the Union; after early 1862 the paper money issued by the govt. wasn't redeemable for gold, nor was it even a promissory note like the Confederate Dollar or the Continental. It was the United States' first truly fiat currency.

A more realistic model would be to tie inflation to NM, but that already has so many in-game effects that things might get weird, and since we are honing in on the right resource balance overall, I am just ranting about economics, not advocating a rule change. It's a Civil War game not a Nineteenth Century Monetary Policy game (although I would play that ).

I take advantage of deflation against Athena, and keep prices under control, but do not pursue it as a primary goal. I suspect I would feel more pressure to use the printing press against a human.

[GraniteStater]

Gentlemen, do not confuse the modelling a game uses with anything like an economic model. ACG, you asked a question about deflation, per se; as it was typed and asked, I gave the correct answer, the one you would give on an exam in macroeconomics.

Like everything else in economics, that's pari passu.

And CW2 isn't even trying to model anything economically, except in the most cursory way. It's about as elementary as you can get, although it does do a good job at presenting the player with opportunity costs, for such a simple sketch.

[Mickey3D]

Mickey3D assumed 1.03 - with $800/$600 per side per choice in RC4 (~1.04), the opportunity costs are higher by not printing $$.

I was thinking the opposite but you are right and above all the peak difference between the two strategies is increasing from 1014 to 1932 (with 600$ per choice) = 2.5 divisions to 5 divisions potentially missing in the field somewhere around the beginning of 63.

"A good plan now beats a better plan tomorrow."

It's all the challenge of the deflation strategy : to stay alive until big bucks come in. But at the end its gain is really impressive !

[GraniteStater]

Hey, I didn't even look at your work. I'm just skeptical. And in this particular case, I'm seeing Big Armies in 1865 or maybe the latter half of 1864. Too late, then, especially against a good human. Heck, I've got an AI CSA game going on LT, where Athena is marshaling 2000 Pwr stacks and more, in NoVa, etc. Makes me think about my plans, if you get my drift, Mr. Snowman (ha!).

Avoiding printing to reap some Macy's discount by June 63, lessay, for I think one would need a good 15% discount or more to really make a palpable difference in unit raising - well, just how awesome could this difference be?

I'm going to eschew $800 as the Union twice a year so I can buy three extra 5 element NY Bdes in April 63? Fuhgeddaboutit, dude. Lemme tell ya, take them cruzeros and Industrialize - in my PbeM, which we didn't convert to RC4 until about nine game months ago, I'm getting $650, $690 a Turn in the 'off' Turns - because I Industrialized to the max. I've just added a few TPs lately to goose Shipping Income. $600 in an 'off' Turn is not inconsiderable, it's twice what you get in 1861 for the same.

BTW, the Industry does not amortize within the game's calendar - it just helps. From what I've seen in one game, once you're in the black, you'll never go back.

CAVEAT: this game to which I refer has been extremely pacific, the fewest casualties I've ever seen. RebelYell prepped and built, too, he didn't know what I was doing for a while. Very pacific - it's mid-64 and I have 130K casualties, he, 97K. It's been maneuvering and What Spot to Grab. He has fought back on the brown blockade. So Replacements have been light. Full Indy with a bloody map might be very different.

[Gray Fox]

Also, a game mechanic randomly reduces inflation, mitigating some of the down side to printing money. If this mechanic also randomly erases deflation, then the effect may zero out postponing any production bonus to beyond 1866.

[Mickey3D]

Also, a game mechanic randomly reduces inflation, mitigating some of the down side to printing money. If this mechanic also randomly erases deflation, then the effect may zero out postponing any production bonus to beyond 1866.

I think this event will increase deflation rate because it is applying a -1% modifier to the current inflation rate. So a negative inflation rate (=deflation) will become even lower (=greater deflation).