Industrialisation - is it ever worth it?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Sheytan]

The problem is that you can industralize areas that really hadnt the infastructure to support such growth. States with low costs develop quite nicely in the south. I've had investments in 4-5 states at one time, arkansas, texas, tennessee, alabama etc, and all of them did at one time or another produce war supplies.

IF the intent was to constrict the souths ability to produce war supplies it would make more sense to force the southern player to make investments in the states that had the infrastructure to grow these industries. IE those with higher base costs, further, those that have LOW potential need on that basis of potential to have a much more reduced rate of sucess. just some thoughts here, as it is however its too easy to build war supply industry, assuming you put the effort into it.

I also dont think raising the cost is the solution, that seems pretty nicely balanced, what needs to be fixed is the CHANCE the investment can produce war supplies in relation to the state in questions potential, to have such a investment result in war supplies as opposed to ammo and beans.

industrialisation as the south is a majorexploit in the game imo. read the economics of war thread for more info

[PBBoeye]

There are a few thoughts I have on this industrialization theme, so I'd like to share them, although I recognize some may be 'off' and warrant counsel.

First is the concern over 'turnaround' time. That is, how long (within the scheme of '61-'65) would it take to actually invest, build and reap production from industrialization? I think it might be longer than is actually portrayed in the game. Not longer than the length of the war, but not a few game turns or perhaps even longer than a year. Some of this may be replicated in the randomness, but just putting this out there.

Second is the ahistorical factor. Of course, I like the ability to try new strategies. I am thinking that specifically for the CSA, as was mentioned earlier, industrializing areas that don't support them (some still don't) pushes the envelope. Not saying that you shouldn't be able to attempt it, but in the case of the CSA I believe there should be a significant risk associated with this ahistorical route of overindustrializing past the historical norm. I would welcome that because to 'win' as the CSA playing outside any historical parameters (not options, but relevant factors that influenced or handcuffed the true CSA) seems a waste of time.

Third, and probably not as big a deal since I am not so sure how well the game mirrors manpower shortages, is the factor of how much of a strain industrialization would have been on an agrarian economy. Is this represented in the game? It should certainly affect the reinforcement/replacement capacity of a state, if only to a certain extent.

So while industrialization is an issue for both sides, especially is it so for the CSA, and should be a volatile and risky one at that; I think the whole concept warrants further discussion. I, for one, don't want to see an easy industrialization of much of the uber-rural South. Make it a possibility, but put in some serious risks or repercussions.

[Nial]

Having only played the Demo, I can only speak with limited knowledge. But the thing that bugs me the most is the randomness of the whole industrialization process. Logicaly speaking. If I am the leader of a nation at war? I am going to have a good idea what I / my armies are most in need of.
So, if I know they are in desperate need of ammo? Thats what I am going to -try- to up prodution of. Im not just going to hand out money to a state and say "Build whatever you want" Im going to say " I need an ammo manufacturing plant in this state."

I assume the randomness is a way to limit what you can build up. To stop the south from just producing war supplies, for example. But in my opinion it is too random. I should be able to somewhat control what industries I build.
As it is. I can build industry in every state to max, and there is still a possiblity that I wont get any increased war supplies. JMHO

Nial

[Caesar]

Having only played the Demo, I can only speak with limited knowledge. But the thing that bugs me the most is the randomness of the whole industrialization process. Logicaly speaking. If I am the leader of a nation at war? I am going to have a good idea what I / my armies are most in need of.
So, if I know they are in desperate need of ammo? Thats what I am going to -try- to up prodution of. Im not just going to hand out money to a state and say "Build whatever you want" Im going to say " I need an ammo manufacturing plant in this state."

I assume the randomness is a way to limit what you can build up. To stop the south from just producing war supplies, for example. But in my opinion it is too random. I should be able to somewhat control what industries I build.
As it is. I can build industry in every state to max, and there is still a possiblity that I wont get any increased war supplies. JMHO

Nial

It seems to me a "free market" would supply anything the government needed, wanted, or was willing to pay for.

[lpremus]

I remember reading this thread a while back and thought the same thing that industrial investment was a waste, however, if I do it at the end of the turn when all my cc is gone and all i have left is money and WS then I use it to Industry invest. I have noticed the the industry potential goes up much faster for any state that has a fair to good.

Missouri and Illinois went up the fastest for me, my current date is 1861 sept in game term. Missouri is now seating at Excellent potential and when I started it was fair. I have also heavy invested in NY and Maryland due to because they give me Money.

I don't believe there is a random process for this. I think the game develops the industry in tiers, with getting the basics like goods and ammo first then WS and Money and Conscripts last.

[blackbellamy]

Im not just going to hand out money to a state and say "Build whatever you want" Im going to say " I need an ammo manufacturing plant in this state." Nial

Yeah, that's what you will say, but because you're only the President it's kind of out of your hands. You told your industrialist buddies you need ammo, you gave them a bunch of money, hands were shaken in a smoke-filled room, and everyone walked off thinking they won. However, once home, the manufacturing baron decided he would make more profit building saddles and your urgent letters urging him to make ammo get lost in the mail. And there's nothing you can do, except give him some money later and hope this time he listens. The government doesn't control the means of production, so you can only encourage and hope. Just like today.

[Nial]

Yeah, that's what you will say, but because you're only the President it's kind of out of your hands. You told your industrialist buddies you need ammo, you gave them a bunch of money, hands were shaken in a smoke-filled room, and everyone walked off thinking they won. However, once home, the manufacturing baron decided he would make more profit building saddles and your urgent letters urging him to make ammo get lost in the mail. And there's nothing you can do, except give him some money later and hope this time he listens. The government doesn't control the means of production, so you can only encourage and hope. Just like today.

Maybe thats how it works in the game? But in RL procurement does NOT work that way. Not in this or any other reasonably well-run government. It may be late. And people do make mistakes. But I get what I want or that contractor doesn't get paid. End of story. And yes I do work for state gov.

Nial

[enderv]

Maybe thats how it works in the game? But in RL procurement does NOT work that way. Not in this or any other reasonably well-run government. It may be late. And people do make mistakes. But I get what I want or that contractor doesn't get paid. End of story. And yes I do work for state gov.

Nial

It didnt' work like that, especially in the South. In fact, it was a pretty hard thing for the Confederate president to get a lot of measures through - like draft - because of the opposition of states' governments. Remember, the "thing" was state right's so they couldn't really go to dictatorship and claim a moral right over North easily, could they?

South couldn't even get their railroads running properly, not to mention the factories.

South was _very_ limited by having to take "moral" stance (such as not freeing the slaves even for use in army, treating industrialization and finance with contempt etc.) because that was what they fought for. While there are in the game (from the demo I saw, I'm yet to buy the full game - probably over the weekend : )) effects on this on National Morale, it seems to me that they are in fact less severe than they would have be in practice. The first suggestion for partial emancipation (I think in late 1863) was turned down very quickly, exactly because of the argument that (paraphrasing, I can find the author and exact quote later) "if some slaves were given weapons and let to fight for south, and proven good fighters, it would invalidate our whole premise of why slavery is good". It was revived just before the collapse in 1865 though, when the manpower shortate was getting desperate.

As one of the posters above mentioned, South also had huge manpower problems where it had to decide (in effect) whether to use the manpower in factories or in the army. Lee was in fact explicitly refusing to release men for working details without explicity orders from the Department of War & President.


This reminds me an OT question - is the level of manpower a function of national morale? That was one of the South's (and North's, although less so) problems - desertion, even encouraged by the governors of some states (or at least not punished and persecuted).

Regards,
V.

[anarchyintheuk]

The amount of manpower raised is influenced by the national morale.

[PBBoeye]

Desertion - killer point, even if OT. Here are some interesting links, the first in particular because you can crunch some numbers.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/desert.htm

Whether you're talking about manpower or industrial capacity, the AACW Confederate player has it waaaay easier than the true CSA ever did. Night and day.

Funny how the argument goes that in a 'free market', "blahblahblah". But the State's Rights issues trumped that. Remember it was the North that was so free market oriented. Massively in comparison. The South's priorities were different (although there were profiteers), so trying to correlate today's USA with the CSA of 1861-1865 just don't compute.

[Jabberwock]

The first suggestion for partial emancipation (I think in late 1863) was turned down very quickly, exactly because of the argument that (paraphrasing, I can find the author and exact quote later) "if some slaves were given weapons and let to fight for south, and proven good fighters, it would invalidate our whole premise of why slavery is good".

Adding to the OT tangent:

Howell Cobb - "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

Pat Cleburne wrote a paper suggesting this in January 1864, which was suppressed. He was being considered for corps command, until he made that suggestion.

Might make a good event.

[Nial]

Funny how the argument goes that in a 'free market', "blahblahblah". But the State's Rights issues trumped that. Remember it was the North that was so free market oriented. Massively in comparison. The South's priorities were different (although there were profiteers), so trying to correlate today's USA with the CSA of 1861-1865 just don't compute.[/QUOTE]


*smile* We have already agreed that the game does not follow history when it comes to industrialization of the south. No way you should realisticly be able build up the souths industrial base like you can in game. Even the north is prolly a bit overblown. (opinion)

But in order to give the south a reasonable chance to win In game. Certain compromises were made at the expense of history. *shrug* I have no prob. with that. Having a good game experience is after all what it's all about.

But....my premise is still factualy correct. Procurement is not random. It's one thing to say. I cannot provide the material/ service you need. It is quite another to say I can't provide that. So Im going to provide you with something totaly different, and you as the buyer, have no say or recourse.

If you said Im going to cut your available resources in half. Due to Southern culture. Id say ...ok....thats historical and I'll live with it. Or state A is the only state with the infrastructure to produce item B. Sure, no prob. But to say , just throw out your limited resources and I will let you know what you get later? Thats not realistic. And by the way. It's not realistic for either side.
The north works under the same rules. And we damn sure know they had the industrial might to get just about anything they wanted.

P.S. At this point it is not as big an issue to me. I've found ways to minimize the issue. But...as I said before. The premise is still very valid.

Nial

[PBBoeye]

Sorry - the 'blahblahblah' was probably rude.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I've said there should probably be some way to be a bit more specific in determining and meeting production needs. It's likely that we all have varying concepts of what is best or not.

Reality is, the devs are heavy on VGN, so I am not sure this area will get advanced much, if at all.

[Nial]

Sorry - the 'blahblahblah' was probably rude.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I've said there should probably be some way to be a bit more specific in determining and meeting production needs. It's likely that we all have varying concepts of what is best or not.

Reality is, the devs are heavy on VGN, so I am not sure this area will get advanced much, if at all.

*chuckle* Thats mild.

*nods* about VGN. Yup......Their time will become more and more limited. But they are stil listening. Which is good. And some of the things we talk about here will influence their future games as well. *crosses fingers*

[DaemoneIsos]

Does anyone here have any deep knowledge of CSA industrial history? I am very curious (beyond the game balance issues).

I note several posters hail from Richmond (which is where I was born and raised); I seem to recall hearing that the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond was (historically) the only factory in all of the CSA capable of making heavy cannon. Is this myth, exaggeration, or simply true of one period of the war rather than another?

I do admit that "Southern Industrialization" does sound like an oxymoron well into the twentieth century....

[Koch46]

Since buying this game I've been reading James McPherson's BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM, and here's a little bit about CSA industrialization.

The ordanance bureau was the one bright spot of confederate supply. Josiah Gorgas accepted appointment as chief of ordnance in april 1861... The South already grew plenty of food, and the capacity to produce wagons, harness, shoes, and clothing seemed easier to develop than the industrial base to manufacture gunpowder, cannon, and rifles. No foundry in the South except the Tedegar Iron Works had the capability to manufacture heavy ordnance... The du Pont plants in Delaware had produced most of the country's gunpowder; the South had manufactured none, and this heavy, bulky product would be difficult to smuggle thorough the [] blockade....


But Gorgas proved to be a genius at organization and improvization....He sent Caleb Huse to Europe to purchase all available arms and ammunition. Huse was as good at this job as James Bulloch was at his task of building Confederate warships in England.... Meanwhile Gorgas began to establish armories and foundries in several states to manufacture small arms and artillary.... He created a Mining and Niter Bureau headed by Isaac ST. John, who located limestone caves containing saltpeter in souther Appalachians, and appealed to southern women to save the contents of chamber pots to be leached for niter. The Ordnance Bureau also built a huge gunpowder mill at Augusta, georgia, which under[] George W. Raines began production in 1862. Ordnance officers roamed the South buying [] stills for their copper to make rifle percussion caps; they melted down church and plantation bells for bronze to build cannon; they gleaned southern battlefields for lead to remold into bullets and for damaged weapons for repair...


The South suffered from deficiencies of everything else, but after the summer of 1862 it did not suffer seriously for want of ordnance-though the quality of confederate artillery and shells was always a problem. Gorgas could write proudly in his diary on the third anniversary of his appointment: "Where three years ago we were not making a gun, a pistol nor a saber, no shot nor shell [] we now make all these in quantities to meet the demands of our large armies."

James M. McPherson. BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM. pgs.319-320

This from just one source, but from my observation the South's main problem was spreading its ordnance to thin. In my multiplayer games the South has enough to field large armies for a major defense, but a major offensive against a human opponent will spread your supplies to thinly. plus the longer the war for the Confederacy the Better for the North

[Le Ricain]

It is worth remembering that even near the end of war, when the Southern armies were short of just about everything, there was never any problem with availability of small arms ammunition.

[Henry D.]

It is worth remembering that even near the end of war, when the Southern armies were short of just about everything, there was never any problem with availability of small arms ammunition.

Which was mainly because the South went to great length to gather alternative sources of saltpetre once the northern blockade kicked in.

One of the now forgotten heroes of this valiant effort was Capt. John Harrolson of Selma/AL, whose deeds are immortalizied by the moving song below...

John Harrolson! John Harrelson! by Thomas Wetmore
(Melody: "Maryland, my Maryland"/"O Tannenbaum")

John Harrolson! John Harrolson!
You are a wretched creature,
You've added to this bloody war
a new and awful feature.
You'd have us think while every man
Is bound to be a fighter,
That ladies, bless the pretty dears,
should save their pee for nitre.

John Harrolson! John Harrolson!
Where did you get the notion,
To send your barrel 'round the town
to gather up the lotion?
We thought the girls had work enough
with making shirts and kissing,
But you have put the pretty dears
to patriotic pissing.

John Harrolson! John Harrolson!
Do pray invent a neater;
And somewhat more modest mode
of making your saltpetre;
But 'tis an awful idea, John,
gunpowdery and cranky,
That when a lady lifts her skirts
she's killing off a Yankee!

Sorry, couldn't resist, this one is a favorite amongst reenactors over here, with both the "p"-words replaced by embarrassed mumbling...

Regards, Henry

[Clovis]

BTW, the algorythm for industrialization should change in the next patch.

[PBBoeye]

I don't believe in the coming patch, but in the one after that. Pocus said about a week ago that 'in the next 3 weeks' the industrialization algorithm would be addressed.

I could be wrong, but I'd rather not have people get their hopes up.

[Le Ricain]

Henry D,

There is a 4th verse to "John Harrolson John Harrolson"

John Harrolson! John Harrolson!
What're was your intention,
You've made another contraband
Of things we hate to mention.
What good will all our fighting do,
If Yanks search Venus' mountains,
And confiscate and carry off
These Southern nitre fountains!

[Henry D.]

Henry D,

There is a 4th verse to "John Harrolson John Harrolson"

John Harrolson! John Harrolson!
What're was your intention,
You've made another contraband
Of things we hate to mention.
What good will all our fighting do,
If Yanks search Venus' mountains,
And confiscate and carry off
These Southern nitre fountains!