Building up War Supplies

[Injun]

Question about War Supplies

One of the limiting factors in the game is war supplies not men or money.
How does one rasie the amount each turn to rasie War supples? The South does it through raders and blockade runners and the Noth by Atlantic shipping.

I know I can build factories This drains your already alotment of WS per turn. For example as the North, you build light factories in NY. The cost is 44 WS each turn that it is maintained. How long before you get a return on the investment where production equals or exceeds the per turn investment cost?

[soloswolf]

Each level of industrialization per state (0-3 levels possible) gives you a chance to improve your General Supply, Ammo, or WS production in each city in that state. The larger the city, the greater your chances of gaining an improvement there.

The 'quality' of the economic output is based on the average size of the cities in a given state. (I think it is Wisconsin that would seem to be strange to have an 'excellent' output, but this is based on it having only one city of decent size.)

You cannot target your spending to one resource or another. (It is random.) And it will continue to spend the amount alloted each turn until you a) stop the investment (right clicking), b) lack the resources to pay for the investment.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

building up War Supply is a SLLLLOOOWWW process. as the confederates....you'd be well advised to just focus on blockade runners (yes I've converted )....they're a much better return on the WS investment you make to build them. In fact they probably pay for themselves within just 6 months or so of game time.

I've managed to build a very good stockpile of War Supply using only a few runners in each box and managing a good budget. Now, that being said...if you come across a situation where you've got some loose $$ and WS you'd like to use...it's usually best to use it for rail and transport....THEN industrial investment...for either side

In times of war, you always place the priority on troop, gun, and ship building...so the approach to building up war Supply has to be one of patience. It's not gonna happen overnight.

Cheers.

[Doomwalker]

You all better figure this out, 'cause Pocus wants the overall War Supplies reduced when I have the time to implement it. I've been too busy lately to put it into effect.

Dang, now I am going to have to re-think my strategy again.

[CWNut77]

[quote="Banks6060"]building up War Supply is a SLLLLOOOWWW process. as the confederates....you'd be well advised to just focus on blockade runners (yes I've converted )....they're a much better return on the WS investment you make to build them. In fact they probably pay for themselves within just 6 months or so of game time.

I've managed to build a very good stockpile of War Supply using only a few runners in each box and managing a good budget. Now, that being said...if you come across a situation where you've got some loose $$ and WS you'd like to use...it's usually best to use it for rail and transport....THEN industrial investment...for either side

In times of war, you always place the priority on troop, gun, and ship building...so the approach to building up war Supply has to be one of patience. It's not gonna happen overnight.

Agree with rail/river transport over industrialization as CSA.

One thing I would like to point out -- using the blockade runners does help with WS, but the biggest cripple IMO for the CSA player is not war supplies, but conscripts. The player is forced to use all the conscripts from the draft options or be overwhelmed by Northern might...and he must also balance between reinforcement and replacements (a tricky gamble). So, once the conscripts are all used up and there is no real means of getting more for so many turns, all your $$ and WS can be dumped into transport and industrialization, sometimes granting you all the WS you could ask for...or, at the least, some bonus supply & ammo...

[Injun]

You all better figure this out, 'cause Pocus wants the overall War Supplies reduced when I have the time to implement it. I've been too busy lately to put it into effect.

YE Gads!!!!Reduce them further? What is your historical bases or is this for game play balance?

The only need to do this is limiting the AI. Must be a European thing calling it Athena. Limiting the AI in the fast number of troops deployed.

So Soloswolf it looks like a slow randum effort at best. I figured at lest the build up would have some historical bases. It seems a very small return on money, conscripts and WS for the effort.

How about Union transports in the Atlantic shipping lane. Would this be a better investment for the Union?

[soloswolf]

Once you really get your feet under you, your WS worries will become a thing of the past.

Less WS in the game? Cool with me.

[Banks6060]

Less war supply....

Looks like I'll have to stop building ships as the CSA .

[Doomwalker]

Looks like I will not have to worry anymore about saving money so I can do the Embargo on cotton. Money is usually my problem, at least in the first couple of months, but now I think that will be a thing of the past.

[Daxil]

One thing I would like to point out -- using the blockade runners does help with WS, but the biggest cripple IMO for the CSA player is not war supplies, but conscripts. The player is forced to use all the conscripts from the draft options or be overwhelmed by Northern might...and he must also balance between reinforcement and replacements (a tricky gamble). So, once the conscripts are all used up and there is no real means of getting more for so many turns, all your $$ and WS can be dumped into transport and industrialization, sometimes granting you all the WS you could ask for...or, at the least, some bonus supply & ammo...

I've run into this situation in my current game. If you choose all the minimal impact recruitment options as the CSA you'll run out of extra manpower mid-late 1862 and have to invest in industry, transport, or navy. The other un-spoken branch you can take is spending money to draft additional troops by righty-clicking call for volunteers, and/or choose the full mobilization option. The latter seems the better to me as it doesn't impact your assets, just morale and the somewhat useless victory points. A good commander would make use of all the extra assets to defeat his opponent on the battlefield - the point of the game - and thereby win back his morale. Next go I'll probably try that option.

[gchristie]

From reading the posts I've come to the conclusion that industrialization, from the perspective of increasing war/general supply and ammo, is of lower priority than either improving rail/river infrastructure or building blockade runners for csa or transports for union.

And it seems clear that industrialization is a very slow process in realizing a return on the investments made. If those conclusions are correct, then industrializing holds little interest for me. I'd rather build my forces and go capture regions held by "those people" in order to boost my economic capacity.

That being said, am I correct in thinking that industrialization is a smart thing to do in certain regions to promote both the availability of supplies and in moving them along to the front?

As the north, I assume that forces operating in more rural and agrarian states like Missouri, Kentucky, etc would benefit from increased industrialization in an adjacent state, so I build up Illinois to medium industrialization. Do states adjacent to industrialized states receive more supply and does industrialization in a state help move supplies along to the more needy adjacent states (provided one has built a network of depots and controls the rails/river)?

IF I'm correct, that to me is the real short-term virtue of increasing industrialization in a state. Getting more supplies over time to spend on land and naval forces is the cherry on top.

Interested in what others think of this approach.

[Banks6060]

From reading the posts I've come to the conclusion that industrialization, from the perspective of increasing war/general supply and ammo, is of lower priority than either improving rail/river infrastructure or building blockade runners for csa or transports for union.

And it seems clear that industrialization is a very slow process in realizing a return on the investments made. If those conclusions are correct, then industrializing holds little interest for me. I'd rather build my forces and go capture regions held by "those people" in order to boost my economic capacity.

That being said, am I correct in thinking that industrialization is a smart thing to do in certain regions to promote both the availability of supplies and in moving them along to the front?

As the north, I assume that forces operating in more rural and agrarian states like Missouri, Kentucky, etc would benefit from increased industrialization in an adjacent state, so I build up Illinois to medium industrialization. Do states adjacent to industrialized states receive more supply and does industrialization in a state help move supplies along to the more needy adjacent states (provided one has built a network of depots and controls the rails/river)?

IF I'm correct, that to me is the real short-term virtue of increasing industrialization in a state. Getting more supplies over time to spend on land and naval forces is the cherry on top.

Interested in what others think of this approach.

I would say yes. If you are thinking of industrialization more as a means to increase the amount of food, water and bullets to the front line then yes. I think it is quite sound to invest in industrialization. For instance...

If you've managed to fight your way all the way down into Georgia as the Union...it might not be a bad idea to industrialize Kentucky and/or Tennessee a little more...so that more supplies can be produced and hence be sent to the front.

[gchristie]

Thank you, Banks.

I've searched quite a bit in the forums on this topic for an answer, and I appreciate your response.

And, I am very much enjoying your AAR with Soundoff. Learning loads and really like the drama and suspense you both are creating. Thanks for the time you both put into this, and for sharing many of your trade secrets. Very generous of you both.

The more I play and learn about this game, the more I see how similar this game is to chess. The value of understanding and dominating key areas of the game board, and the ability to think several turns ahead.

You and Soundoff are amazingly good at doing both.

[Banks6060]

Thank you, Banks.

I've searched quite a bit in the forums on this topic for an answer, and I appreciate your response.

And, I am very much enjoying your AAR with Soundoff. Learning loads and really like the drama and suspense you both are creating. Thanks for the time you both put into this, and for sharing many of your trade secrets. Very generous of you both.

The more I play and learn about this game, the more I see how similar this game is to chess. The value of understanding and dominating key areas of the game board, and the ability to think several turns ahead.

You and Soundoff are amazingly good at doing both.

I appreciate the compliment .

I'd have to defer to Soundoff as the more studius observer of the minute technical details of the game (As could be referenced by my major mistake at Annapolis in the game, which he took full advantage of). He is a VERY good player and his historical flare really makes playing with him alot of fun...and AAR'ing with him even more enjoyable especially for me. It is a real treat that there are others who feel the same way.

And a credit to Runyon...who made a note in his excellent AACW 101 thread that this is indeed a game VERY similar to chess. When you've PBEM'd enough opponents...it becomes easier and easier to identify where the most important regions are located...how your opponent will move to capture them and how to counter your opponents moves.

Thanks again. And just so you know...I've never really considered investing in industry SIMPLY for reasons relating to food, water and bullets. Most players are worried solely about War Supply. But as could be assumed...the Union would need an enourmous amount of rail capacity to move all the supplies generated in the northern states to its invading armies. So investing in some industry in those conquered states, once they are fully secured of course, could be very helpful. Same goes for the Confederacy...if they're giving ground and need more supplies to be generated for their armies...It was great that you brought it up.

[Tex Willer]

If you play with the South, Blockade Runners are the best investiment. If you build them all, you will have soon an excess of WS!!!!!!
Don't be too angry with the WS production, because is better to have problems with WS than money or men. To build a strong brigade you need a lot of money and men, but not a lot WS!!!
And the strong brigade wins the war, not ironclads!

[husky1943]

Very Interesting......There is a lot of smart folks around here. I will not be one of them.....

My strategy is to industrialize only the states that have a very good or excellent grade. I would do it in a Southern state (once occupied) if they had such a grade. I figure that would bring the population over to my side, thus healing the wound and influencing everything else (maybe I'm overthinking it on that point). I never thought about making them closer to the front and thus easier to access. Good point!

Other than industrialization, I have built every available seagoing supply ship possible. Now my bottom number (below rail and river capacity) is close to 600 (6000 in the tooltip). Doesn't that increase my WS overall?

[SkyWestNM]

Very Interesting......There is a lot of smart folks around here. I will not be one of them.....

Sure ya will, Husky. Just stick around. It all rubs off from these smart people out here.

My strategy is to industrialize only the states that have a very good or excellent grade. I would do it in a Southern state (once occupied) if they had such a grade. I figure that would bring the population over to my side, thus healing the wound and influencing everything else (maybe I'm overthinking it on that point). I never thought about making them closer to the front and thus easier to access. Good point!

That's where I started as the USA.....Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey. Now I prefer to start early with 1 low cost state such as Delaware which helps feed and fuel large numbers of early Eastern troops and then branch down into the CSA (and add Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas [incredibly cheap!]) as my general supply needs deeper in the South increase and as my depots stretch my supply grid further and wider. It takes more total supply just to populate the grid as the game goes on. My last Athena USA game on the hardest settings ended with Pocus' assertion on WS being correct for the USA. I was producing over 9000 gen supply a turn and had accumulated over 4000 WS total which made needing either non issues.

As the CSA it's a bit trickier. Lemme talk gen supply first. As has been mentioned in the forums earlier, the gen supplies number totals on the blackboard are inflated with foreign (English, French, European) on hand numbers. So its tricky when Southern towns are falling to keep focused on how much gen supply and ammo is left/comin in. If one uses a very general number of 30 CSA divisions and 35 gen supply/turn/division, it says one needs to keep about 1,050 gen supply coming in to keep everyone fed. Of course there are balancers on both sides. Militias need to eat and they inflate that number, but so too do depleted divisions, which need less. One thousand gen supply is a pretty good turn target in the endgame for the CSA to try to keep the show goin. I believe USA players I have run into overestimate tactics (the fun stuff) and underestimate rounding up easily conquerable CSA supply centers as a focal point for victory. (sidenote----Jim-NC just posted some excellent observations on the thread, Intellitips, on how you can SEE on the city icons valuable stuff like which cities are producing what or have what).

I use industry investment, as my USA opponent allows me to, widely for the CSA as the game goes on. But I wait to invest in the areas that appear to be most quiescent. I've found Texas, Louisiana and South Carolina to be the most productive for late game investment. It's true that by waiting I don't get a good return on my longterm investment. But who cares. I want immediate and protracted survival. And investing first, by guessing where the Yankee is goin first, is kinda a crapshoot IMHO, until he committs.

Now here's something interesting. I've seen states change their industry ratings from game beginning to game end. South Carolina, one of my favorite CSA industry investment sites, changed in my last game from below average to average. And it became as good as some of the Northern States I've used, sometimes producing three cities with increased production in a turn.
All because (I think) of my sustained investment. Then again, maybe, as Solowolf suggests, it is based on population and SC's population, as a % of the whole, increased as I lost territory. Dunno. I just know it's rating changed by game end and its real production improved, too.

Now concerning WS. I've read Major Tom's excellent and exhaustive testing of ROI on blockade running with his conclusion that naval investment constitutes the better investment over industry. But it's keying in on only WS and money invested to get them. I'm thinkin food and ammo, if the CSA can last into 1864 (which I opine is realistic), can go critical by game end. I've come close to starvin twice and industry pulled me out both times when my opponent wasn't thinkin about denying me resources (whew!). I believe that early game 65-70 WS (as published somewhere I've seen) is a good turn WS target for the CSA. Late game if he can eek out a bump to 70-90, with enough food and ammo, in the face of lost cities, he can keep up the fight well. And 70-90 is possible when out of the way cities/states, through industrialization, can come on line. Course that's all presupposin that, as Injun states, enough conscripts are enlisting to keep the strength numbers up.

In fact, my limited experience indicates that both sides have prolly too much WS. But I have no data, so that's just an anecdotal, working opinion. It's debateable.

I've truly seen the CSA run on fumes. So who knows how much is too much.

Hang in there, Husky. You seem to be right on track learnin.
Me too.

[Jim-NC]

(sidenote----Jim-NC just posted some excellent observations on the thread, Intellitips, on how you can SEE on the city icons valuable stuff like which cities are producing what or have what).

Your welcome.

[Tex Willer]

Very Interesting......There is a lot of smart folks around here. I will not be one of them.....

My strategy is to industrialize only the states that have a very good or excellent grade. I would do it in a Southern state (once occupied) if they had such a grade. I figure that would bring the population over to my side, thus healing the wound and influencing everything else (maybe I'm overthinking it on that point). I never thought about making them closer to the front and thus easier to access. Good point!

Other than industrialization, I have built every available seagoing supply ship possible. Now my bottom number (below rail and river capacity) is close to 600 (6000 in the tooltip). Doesn't that increase my WS overall?

If you build since the first turn a light industrialization in Georgia, it could be enough for all the war. (1861 scenario)
Georgia is an Hi-Fi State, far from the hardest fight... and the best state for industrial potential
I don't think that population cares about industrialization... if they're southners or yankees, they care about the war, not about their job!