Inflation and Loyalty

[CFC67]

These are a couple of areas' to which I either take too much notice or no notice whatsoever. Obviously you cannot raise the money needed to finance the war without stoking inflation to some extent. However I am always reluctant to send inflation soaring to high and often refrain from raising new money if the inflation rate seems to high - even if in desparate need for replacements or reinforcements.

Also I dont really take much notice of the 'Loyalty' section in the ledger. I have declared Martial Law once as CSA and Union, only in specific states (Tennessee and Kentucky) and only when I was trying to hold onto conquered land. Otherwise I have left full freedoms in place at all times.

Is there a limit in this game above which any rise in inflation will start to have consequences to the performance of the armies? Also, when are the best times to impose Martial Law or suspend Habeaus Corpus??

Thanks.

[enf91]

Suspending habeas corpus means all strategic cities in the state produce no VPs; martial law makes all objectives produce negative VPs. So I guess the best time to use them are in states where you really need higher loyalty and can afford the VP hit.

[Mickey3D]

I don't see the practical advantage(s) of suspending habeas corpus and personnally never use it (but I would be glad to hear from other opinion).

In PBEM, I don't care about inflation itself (FI, NM and VP are another story) : it is more important to have the required troops for your strategy. Moreover inflation will have no effect on the combat efficiency of your armies (except that you'll need more money to buy new units).

[Heldenkaiser]

I don't see the practical advantage(s) of suspending habeas corpus and personnally never use it (but I would be glad to hear from other opinion).

In my current PBEM as the Union, I started suspending the Writ in TN some time in 1863, when cities kept turning rebel on me, as all my LOC's ran through that state and I didn't want to spare all the militia to garrison everything. I have had the suspension in force for a year or so and have seen the loyalty go up to beyond the point where I had to worry about garrisons, so in fact this worked well for me.

[Mickey3D]

In my current PBEM as the Union, I started suspending the Writ in TN some time in 1863, when cities kept turning rebel on me, as all my LOC's ran through that state and I didn't want to spare all the militia to garrison everything. I have had the suspension in force for a year or so and have seen the loyalty go up to beyond the point where I had to worry about garrisons, so in fact this worked well for me.

Considering the fact that you have anyway to put militia as garrison against southern raiders, was it worth the loss in VP ?

[Heldenkaiser]

Considering the fact that you have anyway to put militia as garrison against southern raiders, was it worth the loss in VP ?

No worries about VP ... I was waaay ahead of my opponent in that department, and what else are VP good for? Aside from getting better deals for some financials options that I don't use anyway.

Since I was fighting deep in GA and AL, most of TN was so far behind the front to make it pointless to waste manpower on garrisoning (sp?) it. The cities turning disloyal were just an annoyance, communications-wise.

Of course, maybe my opponent was not doing as much raiding as he might have. I never felt much need to garrison anything on that account, except in MD.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

and what else are VP good for? Aside from getting better deals for some financials options that I don't use anyway.

Affects FI.

[Heldenkaiser]

Affects FI.

But only the being ahead, I gather? So that being more ahead makes no difference?

[enf91]

Correct.