AGEOD Forums

It appears to me, that the options in question are somehow linked to the month and year and there's no link between the sign date and the date you can sign the same option again.

I just discovered this morning that (if im not mistaken in Late may 61) if i sign the options (all of them) the time it takes to redo them is the same.

This means if i sign at X date the option will be available again at the Y date but if i sign at X+Z date, the option will still be available again at the Y date and not at Y+Z date.

Something to fix.

I might be wrong but I believe that is intentional, at least I assume it is.

Yup, this is WAD, AFAIK. Bi-yearly options can be used once Jan-Jun and once Jul-Dec, while yearly options can be used once Jan-Dec.

From my own observations it is as Rafiki said. The six month options are reset in late June and late December while the yearly options are reset in late December. The number in each signing block stating how long before they can be chosen again appears to be erroneous and I ignore that.

Ehm...

1) each option results is not linked to the others (if patriots buy bonds how can they then have extra $$$ to pay for taxes? If i issued bonds, i'd have to issue lower exceptional taxes as they got no spare money!)

2) VP accumulate. If you know in advance when these options reset, since they are strictly tied to the VP accumulated, the best moment to take them (and possibly simultaneously) would be the month before the reset (this ensures you have the maximum benefit coming from accumulated VP)

3) I can take all options before the reset and then take them all again next turn. This huge firepower and manpower totally cripples the balance towards USA rendering CSA totally incapable of defending or attacking.

The economic options, unit/industrialization & costs/production, reinforcement/replacements are dramatically in need of a fix in my opinion.

Your objections don't hold up.

1) The government can clearly raise taxes and issue bonds. Your argument that somehow citizens don't have money for both is specious.

2) You can wait until the last turn before the reset to choose the option, sure. But for game reasons, you may benefit much more by choosing the option much earlier and getting units into the field as soon as possible. Max out the option at your own peril.

3) Again, you can do as you say and choose the option twice back to back, but I fail to see the benefit. In the long run, you still can only choose the option twice a year, and firing it twice in two turns doesn't clearly provide a benefit.

Play the game some more, and you'll see that I am right.

Yes, it is wad. This was far more simple to implement it with fixed date and not 'rolling' ones... Sorry about that if you feel it is really annoying.

I ll show the objections then:

This screen shows me (not knowing the exact reset dates yet) calling for everything in late may 61.



To begin with, the most industrialized and capital state, begins the game with ZERO $ production. We know that this evolves as the game progresses, but at this stage, the whole economy of CSA produces 35$.
The whole "country" economy is unable to afford a single supply wagon which costs 40$ and whose price doesn't evolve.

My personal bell is already ringing here.



I am calling for all options in this test as i said. By paying mere 3 NM points i am calling both for volounteers and for partial mobilization.
Issue: these 2 are not tied, hence, since they do the same thing calling on the same resources (manpower) but with different methods (and costs) they should not be allowed together.

If i call for mobilization, the first ones who show up at the recruiting centers are the volounteers. This means there wouldn't be ANY for the "call for volounteer" option if i also call the mobilization.

Another bell rings.



The results of my options are now projected in next month financial page. As you can see, next month, i can already call again for the paper money printing option (you can see it was already called because the prices are already inflated). As of the national morale costs for printing, inflation only affects the unit costs here but in reality it would affect all prices for all kinds of goods.

I don't know how much you know about economy, but inflation is a method of taxation. The money you have printed (while the houses/lands are the same in numbers and value) alters the law of demands & offers.

If i put 10$ brand anew in the market, which are mine and printed by me, in a country whose property value amounts to 5$ and where 5 citizens have each 1$, the inflation will be 50% increase (the new 10$ = 5$ property + 5$ money).
It means the buying power of these citizens drops 50% and i have actually taxed them (if they could buy 1kg of bread for 1$ now they can buy 1kg of bread with 2$) because it's the same as if i taxed them 50% of what they own.

This dramatic change can't just cost 1 NM and again it should be impossible do it at the same time you call for exceptional taxes.

Please note: regardless of how much i raised with all options and of the fact some options shouldn't be allowed when coupled with others, next turn i can do the same again.



In late may i have called for volounteers, how many more there can be in late june?

There are at this point so many bells ringing it's like habemus papam in St. Peter's Square

GShock wrote:I don't know how much you know about economy, but inflation is a method of taxation. The money you have printed (while the houses/lands are the same in numbers and value) alters the law of demands & offers.

If i put 10$ brand anew in the market, which are mine and printed by me, in a country whose property value amounts to 5$ and where 5 citizens have each 1$, the inflation will be 50% increase (the new 10$ = 5$ property + 5$ money).
It means the buying power of these citizens drops 50% and i have actually taxed them (if they could buy 1kg of bread for 1$ now they can buy 1kg of bread with 2$) because it's the same as if i taxed them 50% of what they own.

Well, I have a Bachelor's in Finance, and I can tell you that inflation and taxation are not the same thing. The most important difference for game purposes is that while inflation erodes buying power, it does NOT provide revenues to the government, which taxation obviously does.

You can call inflation 'a form of taxation' only with respect to the buying power of consumers in the economy.

The money doesn't go to the government, however.

If the inflation was caused by the government printing money, thus increasing the size of the money supply in the economy, well in that case the cash wasn't exactly 'taken' from the citizens. That isn't taxation, per se.

runyan99 wrote:You can call inflation 'a form of taxation' only with respect to the buying power of consumers in the economy

It's exactly what i said.

Either you tax them (and take their money) or you print money (and hurt their buying power by inflating prices) you're still affecting economy so that you have $ in your hands and they pay.

That's why these options should exclude one another in the game. Failing to do that, they should be tied so that one also affects the other.

GShock wrote:It's exactly what i said.

Either you tax them (and take their money) or you print money (and hurt their buying power by inflating prices) you're still affecting economy so that you have $ in your hands and they pay.

That's why these options should exclude one another in the game. Failing to do that, they should be tied so that one also affects the other.

If I have $1000 in my pocket, and the government prints money, I still have $1000 in my pocket.

If the government then raises a tax, and tells me to pay $200, they can do that.

There is no logical basis for your supposition that one option excludes the other.

runyan99 wrote:If I have $1000 in my pocket, and the government prints money, I still have $1000 in my pocket.

If you could buy 1000 candies with 1000$ before the money was printed and after the printing you could buy 800 with 1000$ that works exactly like a permanent tax of 200$.

If i call for mobilization the first ones to go to the centres are the volounteers, how can i then call the volounteers and still find some?

runyan99 wrote:If the government then raises a tax, and tells me to pay $200, they can do that.
There is no logical basis for your supposition that one option excludes the other.

What i'm questioning is the costs of these operations (especially when combined) on the national morale and, at the same time, the fact one of these 2 options should adversely affect the other. When you print money, inflation rises but the money they've got in their pockets is the same (as you justly say).
If they strive to buy food, when you tax them what funds do you get? I think much less don't you think too?

An economic system based only on VP and expiration dates looks too simple and inaccurate but i'm more curious about the fact VA doesn't generate any $ for the first turns.
I know making a realistic (even if simplicistic) economic system is a difficult thing to ask but I've got no explanation on VA=0$... Any clues?

GShock wrote:If you could buy 1000 candies with 1000$ before the money was printed and after the printing you could buy 800 with 1000$ that works exactly like a permanent tax of 200$.

Yes that's inflation, and it is modeled in the game. The government can print money, but doing so makes units more expensive. At the same time, printing money costs a morale point, so it is destructive from that perspective as well.

When you start talking about people buying food, you are losing me. I don't see why that's important for a strategic level Civil War game. We don't really care if the consumer is having a tough time in 1863. if we do care, then that is modeled by the morale deduction already present when printing money.

It is your opinion but this game isn't meant to simulate the economy, simply to make an effective economy within the game and it does a good job at it. A full blown, realistic economy for the time would be interesting but it just isn't very realistic.

If you are asking why you can call for Volunteers and mobilize I just look at it as one is voluntary the other is a draft. Now you can get into the historical data but for gameplay and balancing purposes I think the way it is done is good.

I fail to understand why VA doesn't produce a single dollar until late in 61 and i would really like an answer on this. Yet i see none of you is argumenting on this detail i pointed out... I am debating on your arguments but you don't answer to mine.

I see here one of the 2 sides going to war in '61 with a production of 35$/turn so it can't afford to buy a single supply wagon and you say the economic system is effective?

D'oh...

GShock wrote:I fail to understand why VA doesn't produce a single dollar until late in 61 and i would really like an answer on this. Yet i see none of you is argumenting on this detail i pointed out... I am debating on your arguments but you don't answer to mine.

I see here one of the 2 sides going to war in '61 with a production of 35$/turn so it can't afford to buy a single supply wagon and you say the economic system is effective?

D'oh...

Dunno, and I wasn't answering any question specifically just that I feel that they aren't really issues at the large scale the game is played and how it is implemented does well for balancing the game. If you add to one side you have to add to the other side or subtract from somewhere on the same side. The problem is game balance but I can't give you a specific reason why VA doesn't produce anything to start.

GShock all I'll say is that the numbers pretty much never add up in this game. For instance when you get new factories that say for instance give you + war supplies the +112 from last turn and the +4 from the factories you got this turn somehow = 115.

Thats not always true I am just saying there are numbers behind the scene that are effecting all of the numbers, money, transport etc. There seems to be certain degrading and improving effects that are happening every turn that are in no way able to be manipulated by the player.

I have even wondered if transport capacity somehow ties in, but thats just a WAG. Anyways just learn to manipulate what you can, the game does seems to more adversly effect throwing all your resources into a single basket (like going full blown industry for 4 turns, or putting all your points into transportation, etc). The degrading effects start to really hurt you.

Also at the very start of the game there seems to be little to no serious adverse or positve effects on any of the numbers. I am pretty sure this is just the engine getting warmed up, it only really seems to effect turn 1 and from there on the effects seem to grow.

I am starting to be of the perspective that you want to make small incremental changes over several turns to max economy, productivity and transport.

jam3 wrote:I am starting to be of the perspective that you want to make small incremental changes over several turns to max economy, productivity and transport.

That seems to be the best route and most effective from what I have noticed playing the game.

GShock wrote:I fail to understand why VA doesn't produce a single dollar until late in 61 and i would really like an answer on this. Yet i see none of you is argumenting on this detail i pointed out... I am debating on your arguments but you don't answer to mine.

I see here one of the 2 sides going to war in '61 with a production of 35$/turn so it can't afford to buy a single supply wagon and you say the economic system is effective?

D'oh...

Confederates didn't print money during the war for nothing... Point is South capital was mainly made of land and slaves, 2 items which couldn't be transformed in money. As the foreign commercial exchanges were rather quickly reduced by blockade, Southern economy was really in bad shape to eventually produce money, hence the inflationist way chosen.

The economic model is of course hugely abstract, but IMHO it captures exactly the fundamental problem South had: no money, low production level and the need to destroy finances to get industrialization.

Wghat I changed iin my mod isn't working against the system but to the contrary enforcing it by reducing War supply production at start, simulate the real difference between South and North use of conscription, and eliminating some gamey points ( as using each turn money printing). But AGEOD has showed here historical feeling is often better rendered by abstraction than by a very detailed (but cumbersome and prone to gamey tactics) engine.

GShock wrote:I fail to understand why VA doesn't produce a single dollar until late in 61 and i would really like an answer on this.

To answer your question you have to go to the manual.
Under the section 17 'The war economy';
subsection 17.3 'Money'
"Money is produced each turn in a few places such as your national capital, financial centers and in California's gold mines, but those sources of income are marginal. The great bulk of your income will proceed from exceptional measures you can periodically take."

I conducted a test to determine what the actual distribution of the money production is: (If you examine the map closely you can narrow down the money producing areas)

For my particular April '61 test (I believe the beginning money totals change randomly depending for each start) this is how the money production broke down, with the possible rationale:

USA - $187,000
New York, NY - $40,000 - New York Financial Center
New England - $14,000 - Boston Financial Center
Prince George's, MD - $65,000 - Washington National Capital
California - $68,000 - Califonia Gold Mines

CSA - $33,000
Wilmington NC - $6,000 - Major Port (I am making an assumption the CSA benefits from major ports and the USA does not since Philadelphia and Baltimore do not contribute money to the north)
Charleston, SC - $4,000 - Major Port
Savannah, GA - $2,000 - Major Port
Pensacola, FL - $2,000 - Major Port
Mobile, AL - $4,000 - Major Port
New Orleans, LA - $12,000 - Major Port
Galveston, TX - $3,000 - Major Port

Richmond is not a Major Port or the National Capital at this point in the war so it (and VA) does not produce any money.

One anamoly from my test is that Montgomery, AL should be producing money for the CSA since it was the capital at this time. This is quite possibly an oversight.

Overall though the production of money under the game mechanics seems to be a fairly accurate abstraction of the production capabilities of the North over the South and does not convey any increased advantage of the North over the South.

One further note: the CSA gets a free change of the national capital from Montgomery to Richmond sometime around June 1861 and that is why VA starts producing money later in the year.

I'm happy to see some analysis finally from you all

I personally think only a madman would secede if your economy is starved without the north (so starved you can't even produce a supply wagon per turn). If your capital state produces 0$ you are in no condition to secede much less to fight a war.

You can see by Salaberry's break-down the whole city of Charleston SC, is able to produce a single supply cart worth 10.000$ (with 200 men) in 3 turns.
Charleston then can produce a supply cart unit (800 men) in 10 turns.

I understand the need for an abstract economic system. Provided it hits the points that need to be touched by the game it's ok with me.
But the problems remain on top of what we have just said.

If i call for volounteers and then for the mobilization, both are only tied to the VP and not to the real manpower of the CSA.
Once volounteers are expended, the number of conscript companies taken, should be *deducted* from the number coming from the mobilization as volounteers have already joined.

The abstract system instead disregards the link between these figures, checks only for a VP multiplier and then resets them in a specific date, disregarding when they had been used before.

So i can use both options where one should deduct from the other to sum a bulk of conscripts, at the same time, use all financial options (and here also one should deduct from the other) and then the game hits the reset button so i can do it again while i make up for the NM used in the process with winning battles with the units i've just built.

Not quite encouraging considering USA is much more powerful and can use these options simultaneously too.