How much economic development is too much?

[TheDoctorKing]

Playing as the Union, I was in the habit of investing in at least "light industrialization" in the historically industrialized states of the North: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Looking at the public PBEM game, [color="RoyalBlue"]... (Snip)...

EDITED: This was an information relating to the current Grand Campaign and was a spoiler for GC players.

If you have question about the strategies used by GC players, please contact them directly or use the [NON PLAYERS] thread to discuss wither other GC fans

Apologies for the inconvenience,

Korrigan. [/color]


I can see as the CSA you don't have any WS to spare for industrialization, but for the North, how much do people who have played this game a good deal invest? Does it vary by year? I'd think you would put as much as half your WS back into industrialization in 1861, then tone down in later years to almost nothing by 1864-65.

[Jabberwock]

Please edit that post. That is not knowledge for the CSA to have.

[Jabberwock]

Playing as the Union, I was in the habit of investing in at least "light industrialization" in the historically industrialized states of the North: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.

I can see as the CSA you don't have any WS to spare for industrialization, but for the North, how much do people who have played this game a good deal invest? Does it vary by year? I'd think you would put as much as half your WS back into industrialization in 1861, then tone down in later years to almost nothing by 1864-65.

I used to invest a lot. Then I realized I was always running a big surplus in WS by 1862. Even if I don't invest, WS has not been the limitation on buying units. It will be interesting to see how this changes with the new version.

As the CSA I usually invest heavily the first few turns, until blockade runners become available. But my style is heavy on raiding (to slow down the opposition) and slow going with the big armies in the early game. Against very aggressive players, throwing that early money and WS into artillery can pay off in a big way.

[Brochgale]

I think what you do very much depends on style of game you wish to play. As CSA I no longer go for any indutrialisation early in game as it is a drain on resources for building Armies. I do some light indutrialisation in winter months of 1861 early 62. On hard settings I dont think Feds give you time to play around with indutrialisation - Perhaps Athena is more aggresive as CSA but I dont know - maybe you can alter this by changing aggression options to make CSA more defensive as it was historically?

[Banks6060]

As the Union....I do light to moderate industry in three states through 1861 and '62....by the summer of '63 I'm usually bringin' in at least 350 WS per turn...

Then I completely stop investment altogether. (which is rather ahistorical I suppose.) The money is better used from that point on for troops and equipment.

Also as the Union...I ALWAYS....every turn, will invest in rail and river transport....either 10/5 or 20/10.

[Brochgale]

As the Union....I do light to moderate industry in three states through 1861 and '62....by the summer of '63 I'm usually bringin' in at least 350 WS per turn...

Then I completely stop investment altogether. (which is rather ahistorical I suppose.) The money is better used from that point on for troops and equipment.

Also as the Union...I ALWAYS....every turn, will invest in rail and river transport....either 10/5 or 20/10.

As CSA I will also put some resources into RR and RIVERINE Transport support - it has suppply implicattions and also I like to expeand my RR to have ability to move available CSA Divisions around the Map to points of action.

[TheDoctorKing]

I have had the policy on both sides of trying to get my rail and river transport up to max or at least 2/3 (for the CSA) and keep it there. I find that marching about takes up way too much time. Divisions assembling in the CSA rear area can take six weeks or two months in some of the big states if you don't use rail and river transport.

I wonder how many supplies the CSA is actually moving by river and rail, though. But the USA is certainly moving a pile o supplies.

[Banks6060]

Too many people let River and Rail investment go by the wayside. They are critical in mid-game campaigns.

Supply, troop transport....everything.

As the South, I find around a 260 rail and 100 river capacity number to be acheivable by 1863. Which will sustain me for quite some time.

As the USA...I never stop building rails and river. The more the better