WAD or Bug?

[FightingBuckeye]

I'm playing a game where I decided to conduct a small raid in order to deprive the CSA of some WS. A the runners RGD was played on a coastal town and two turns before it was due to fire, I ordered a brig to drop off an infantry brigade and capture the town. I owned the region in question a turn before the card was due and even had time to send my brig into the harbor. And yet the card still fired for the CSA. Some cards have certain requirements that must be met before working. I would've figured actually owning the region would've been a pretty big go/nogo on the card.

[ATTACH]33625[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]33626[/ATTACH]

On a somewhat related note. Are defensive works RGD cards supposed to lower the entrenchment value? Playing this RGD card will set the entrenchments to lvl 4, even if you already possess a higher level. Going from a level 6-8 back down to 4 could really affect a battle result. I find myself hesitant to use them near the front lines in the mid to late game for this very reason.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi FightingBuckeye,

Can you still load the turn when the Smuggler RGD fired? If you can, could you check what the MC and Loyalties were at that time?

EDIT:

Looking closer into this RGD, it's really kind of ugly.

- It costs 1 NM That's tantamount to saying the Southerners were so obsessed with getting luxury goods from Europe that they'd get their frillies up in a bunch if the CS government required to have important war supplies take priority on a couple of shiploads.
- It takes 6 turns to mature What the heck?!? If you got 2 WSU each turn for 4 turns, I could understand, but the all or nothing after 6 turns (3 months -- runners didn't sail to Europe, only the Caribbean).
- It can be played in any city with a harbor, whether on the coast or far inland Do I need to comment this?

[Cardinal Ape]

8 war supply for 1 morale is high seas robbery.

[minipol]

I use it all the time as the CSA at the start of the game, until I build some ironworks and arsenals/armories.
In my current game, it's sept 1861, and I have played 2 iron works build options, and 2 arsenals/armories build options and usually this
is enough to to use the runner RGD decision.

[Pocus]

I'm not sure the RGD code is powerful enough to discriminate between an oceanic harbor and a riverine one, sorry.

As for the balance, 1 NM vs 8 WSU, perhaps the culprit comes from having too many WSUs overall in the game, both side, too early, and not from the RGD? If the pressure was higher on WSU production, gaining 8 WSU would seem more juicy.

[Cardinal Ape]

I think it should be free to play.

The Union gets free sailors and artillery with RGDs, and they get those units in 1 turn. Six turns for the smuggler RGD to kick in, plus the build time of the unit.

The main reason I never play the Smuggler RGD is that I view NM to be too precious. I can't bring myself to lower the fighting ability of all my units on the board for 8 WSU.

[DrPostman]

I think it should be free to play.

The Union gets free sailors and artillery with RGDs, and they get those units in 1 turn. Six turns for the smuggler RGD to kick in, plus the build time of the unit.

The main reason I never play the Smuggler RGD is that I view NM to be too precious. I can't bring myself to lower the fighting ability of all my units on the board for 8 WSU.

I'm of the same mind. If anything it should be a gain of 1NM as a
moral boost for the ship making it through the blockade.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm not sure the RGD code is powerful enough to discriminate between an oceanic harbor and a riverine one, sorry.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the RGD code isn't powerful enough, but that the coastal regions simply do not have any such designation. The only possible quick solution I could think of would be the list of coastal cities Naval Distribution uses to pick sources and targets of Naval Supply.

As for the balance, 1 NM vs 8 WSU, perhaps the culprit comes from having too many WSUs overall in the game, both side, too early, and not from the RGD? If the pressure was higher on WSU production, gaining 8 WSU would seem more juicy.

Yes, WSU in general is.... a bit off the scale compared to the historical affects. But it was like this in AACW already, so that's not a can of worms I'd like to dine on .

[Captain_Orso]

Another thought, instead of paying 1 NM for 8 WSU, the RGD should be paying $8 for the WSU. This would be easy to change.

[DrPostman]

Another thought, instead of paying 1 NM for 8 WSU, the RGD should be paying $8 for the WSU. This would be easy to change.

I reckon you thunked well sir!

[MarkCSA]

And while we're at it, how about -1 NM when the RGD fails?

So pay $8.

Success: get 8 WS
Fail: -1 NM (your guy gets busted)

Edit: Agree with Pocus on too much WS being in the game. As the CSA it is only really a problem in the first few months, after that I am swimming in the stuff. Would it not make sense to (this might be a bit ambitious at this point) have some sort of WS maintenance for units (as in: Supplies that allow you to conduct the War)?

Edit 2: IMHO it would much more sense to force a lot of Industrialization options onto the player(s) to get the War Economy up and running, right now all I need to do is put up two Iron Works and I am sorted for the entire war.

[Captain_Orso]

The thing with the economy in the game is that it's like a table, if you saw a bit off one leg, it may change the how level the surface is, or maybe not, and maybe it will wobble back and forth at times.

The economy was never the focus of the game. It has always been simplified as much as possible, because in reality it is an extremely complex thing. The blockade is extremely generic, because to do it realistically, would require a lot of management. Blockade running even more so. In reality much of the blockade running was done by British naval officers who requested long-term leave from the Royal Navy specifically to do this, with the blessings of the crown. They bought or had their own ships built specifically for the task and after only a hand full --I believe the number was 8-- successful runs, had already broken even. After that everything was profit. No investment was made by the Confederate government for this nor did they have much control over it. At times the CS government did put up some requirements that at least half of the goods being smuggled had to be war-supplies and sometimes runners were hired to transport purchases of specific goods --rifles and medicines, artillery and even raw iron--.

I read recently that before the war, the southern states had banked most of their gold --previously the basis for their currency-- in New York banks, and from my understanding, much of this gold was inaccessible to them, if not confiscated. But all of the trade done through the blockade was monetized in gold, because no foreign traders would take paper money. At least the British government, if not others too, bought Confederate bonds to help support the Confederate economy, which was a huge gamble, which it knew would be completely lost if the South lost the war.

The Northern economy was booming from the war and corruption was rampant. Very little was done at the start of the war to insure that goods purchased were of the quality contracted and huge sums of money were wasted. Shoes made of cardboard, which fell apart in the rain were delivered, rotting and maggot infested meat was fed to the soldiers; corrupt business were profiting off garbage they delivered and seldom held accountable. The answer always seemed to be to throw more money at the problems, because there were too few controls.

I'm certain the game could be made to be more economically realistic, the question is would the effort be worth the work and would the players even want to play that game?

[FightingBuckeye]

Holy crap, I leave for a couple days and there's actually a discussion on this.

Hi FightingBuckeye,

Can you still load the turn when the Smuggler RGD fired? If you can, could you check what the MC and Loyalties were at that time?

EDIT:

Looking closer into this RGD, it's really kind of ugly.

- It costs 1 NM That's tantamount to saying the Southerners were so obsessed with getting luxury goods from Europe that they'd get their frillies up in a bunch if the CS government required to have important war supplies take priority on a couple of shiploads.
- It takes 6 turns to mature What the heck?!? If you got 2 WSU each turn for 4 turns, I could understand, but the all or nothing after 6 turns (3 months -- runners didn't sail to Europe, only the Caribbean).
- It can be played in any city with a harbor, whether on the coast or far inland Do I need to comment this?

I could ask my opponent to do so as he's the one who's the CSA. There could be some event that boosts or lowers his NM that could throw off anything I could see from my side.

I'm not sure the RGD code is powerful enough to discriminate between an oceanic harbor and a riverine one, sorry.

As for the balance, 1 NM vs 8 WSU, perhaps the culprit comes from having too many WSUs overall in the game, both side, too early, and not from the RGD? If the pressure was higher on WSU production, gaining 8 WSU would seem more juicy.

It's not. When I do play them, you can pick any river or ocean port you own.

Maybe if the WS return was higher or it was VP/cash instead of NM it would be a juicier choice. WS for the CSA can be tough to get, especially early on. But 1 NM is 1NM.

I'm certain the game could be made to be more economically realistic, the question is would the effort be worth the work and would the players even want to play that game?

I think three questions need to be asked before making any changes. (in no particular order)

1. How difficult would it be to code?
2. Is it realistic to the CW and to the game?
3. Will it (significantly) improve gameplay?

I wouldn't mind a retooling or touchup of the economic aspects of CW2 if the answer to at least 2 of those questions is a resounding yes.

[Pocus]

The official files are already sent, so this is too late for the upcoming patch. But I'm ok to remove the 1 NM for RGD, as it seems there is a concensus. And perhaps also lower slightly WSU production by 10% for both side, so that WSU shortage lasts a bit longer for Union and is an issue to consider more seriously for the CS.

[FightingBuckeye]

Well, if that's the case I do believe there will be a very marked uptick in usage of that RGD. I haven't played enough on the CSA side to consider myself an expert on them, but that 10% reduction on WS across the board seems like it would hurt the CSA more so than the Union. The Union player has a better base from which to build up more Arsenals, Ironworks, etc. Plus it is really easy for them to build said infrastructure in out of danger cities. The South has to be very careful about whether to build up an army or strengthen it's economy and whatever new infrastructure it lays down is often vulnerable to Union takeover.

[minipol]

I already use the RGD extensively in my games because I need to. If the CSA is going to get another 10% penalty in production, it might have a big impact on the game.
At the start of the game, I can spare the NM, not the WS, men or money.

[Captain_Orso]

With regards to reducing WSU production, the question is where production is reduced. IIRC WSU is not produced solely in structures, most of which are built during the game, but rather there is a base production in large cities.

If the base production were not changed, but the amount produced in ironworks and armories, etc. were reduced, it would not affect the early war at all.

A while ago, as a test, I modded the game that all structures produced only half of the WSU and GS[SUP]1)[/SUP] they normally would, but also cost only half of what they normally cost to build. The major difference I noted was that I easily built all the structures I was offered. Since in general the player nearly always has more WSU than he can ever use at about 1/3 of the way into the full length of the full campaign I did not see an issue with that either, because far more structures were being built than I ever built anyway.

Comprehensively reevaluating the war economy would not simply be to readjust WSU and other productions, but also the cost to build each type of unit and their GS usage. Historically the South had to strategically choose using their minimal iron resources to build ironclads or repairing rail lines. This is never an issue in the game.

Also, the CS player in the game, if he wishes, can build up his RailTP to the max, which historically would be impossible or the lack of resources and facilities.

Would changing the war economy make for a better game? It greatly depends on what kind of game you want to play. But were the game to more realistically reflect the economies and political decisions, the player would not have the choice of how much time and effort he would have to put into those things; they would take the majority of his time. Besides, to do it realistically, you'd need the advice of professional economists and historians to even understand the way the economy actually worked and the actual affects political decisions varying from those historically made might really have been, which still leave a lot of room for conjecture.



[SUP]1)[/SUP] Since I had found that Ammo was far more scarce at many times I did not change the production of that. I also noted that after that test, Pocus fixed the supply distribution algorithm to evaluated GS and Ammo separately and distribute based on the needs of each, which in itself helped the ammo situation greatly.

[PJL]

I think if WSU is going to be more scarce, then the cost of WSU for units is also going to have to be re-assessed as well. I'd recommend it making it cheaper in WSU to raise infantry & cavalry units (relative to artillery & naval units). Otherwise you will fail to get a good approximation of the forces built historically.

Alternatively. leave WSU as it is, but make certain actions and units more expensive for it, to reflect the historical realities at the time.

[FightingBuckeye]

Good point Captain about the CSA rail network. It might be better to increase the cost of rail TP increase or alternatively greatly increase the time in between the ability to build new rail infrastructure.

[Cardinal Ape]

It is very interesting how the discussion of the smuggler RGD has morphed into this.... Good stuff.

I went to gather some data on the CSA economy and I think I found some bugs.

First:
The blockade on Richmond from Fort Monroe is not being properly applied on the first load of the game. It requires a turn to be processed in order to be implemented. If you are playing in a PBEM, where turns are usually taken one at time, Richmond is never actually under a blockade.

Without any active brigs or new buildings the CSA makes, on average (NM depending) 40 WSU per turn. Richmond accounts for 12 or 13 of this total. Because the blockade is not properly applied, Richmond instead makes 25+ WSU. This is a false increase of more than 25% to the CSA economy!

Second:
The construction of Ironworks do not need to be finished before they start producing. (note: I didn't check other buildings yet)

[ATTACH]33662[/ATTACH]

Prior to the picture I ordered both of the available industrial options in early June of '61 to build ironworks in coastal cities and in Tenseness and Georgia. As seen in the picture, these buildings started to produce WSU the very same turn that their construction is started. This equates to six free turns of WSU production at the most crucial point in the war, providing close to 300 free WSU. Fixing this would slow down the first year production by a massive amount for the CSA.


In the picture above, please note the locations of these high WSU earning CSA cities. Three of the top four are: Memphis, Nashville, and New Orleans. All of these cities historically were captured by the Union in mid '62. See where I am going with this? I suspect most players, especially those that play against the AI, never lose those cities. They are the core of the CSA industrial capacity in the early war. At least until new construction options become available elsewhere.

[Pocus]

Interesting remarks. So fixing the bugs would be enough probably. And no, we won't call a board of experts on Confederate States economy before doing a change in production, if there is one needed...

[tripax]

I don't know if this deserves its own thread, but this thread is touching on a sore subject for me which is the common feeling that there is too much WS, especially too much Confederate WS. I don't know very much about the subject, but I disagree with the sentiment. I feel like adding economic pressure to the game is sensible and adds some realism in that the player should worry about and face tradeoffs in the resources she has and how she spends them. But resource limitations in the game mean that the player is unable to keep up with the pace of military unit recruiting maintained by the real armies in late 1861 to late 1862. By the end of 1861, Pennsylvania had mustered in the 84th Pennsylvania and North Carolina the 39th North Carolina. Around the same period for me, I'm usually recruiting something like the 14th Pennsylvania (assuming I try to recruit from each state proportionally to its population. By the beginning of the spring 1862 campaign, even more regiments were mustered, trained, and ready to fight. I know that some regiments had already mustered out by this time, but to me, the in-game economy does not allow armies of realistic sizes to be recruited as fast as they were.