Factories

[put413]

Question: First, how much difference do factories really make in supply, and is it more advantageous to build multiple factories in the "excellent" states like NY, and PA, or should you build up the weak states first?...OR, should you completely pass up building factories in the "weak states".

[Banks6060]

investing in factories is totally random, but your chances of developing them increases when you invest in states that have a higher potential. Although there is a higher cost....

I typically go straight to the higher potential states in the north.

In the south it's a little tougher. Georgia is always a safe bet, but other deep south states, if invested over a long period of time, will offer some good WS, Supply, and ammo.

[Coregonas]

AFAIK:
The cost of investment in industry depends on the number of cities in the state.

Every city in an state with some kind of industrialization has a chance... some kind of die roll (perhaps a 2% with Light Ind, 4% with medium Ind or 6% with high IND)

As more cities are in the state, more die rolls are thrown so more chances to get some kind of improvement.

If success, then the lucky city gets some improvement, but this depends on the city level, size, improvements there an the such.

Excellent (low, average...) STATES have bo more chance to get an improvement, just the improvement if obtained is BETTER. The values is counted as an average of the city levels of the state.

So if an estate has only 1 CITY level 6, it is going to cost very little, it is going to have just a CHANCE die roll, if improvements are gained are going to be ok... And it is going to be marked as Excellent.

[Brochgale]

On hard settings I am less than convinced that CSA investing in industry is worth it?

[bobkatfan]

I've found that if you can get KY in you're pocket and capture St Louis, the CSA can rack up the supplies.

[johnnycai]

Campaigning as the Union, I have been able to support significant isolated forces by factory investment.
Eg. Had forces in Ft. Smith Ark. after a successful landing isolated. US didnt hold Fayetteville/Springfiled/LittleRock. Was surviving on transports supply but was able to build up the amount Ft. Smith was able to supply itself by investing in Arkansas.
This worked well only because I had captured a strategic city (which unlocks economic investing in that state) and held little, or in this case only 1 town in the state, so all the improvements were directed to that town.
Have used the same tactic successfully for Meridian MS., while the US didnt hold Corinth, Mobile or Vicksburg/Jackson. Even in Fla. as I have found that Tallahassee wasnt able to get blue-water supply once taken even with a depot there.

[bobkatfan]

I only play as the CSA, but I goofed and opened a game as the US, how in the earth do they just not win the game in like 20 turns? I mean they have supplies conscripts and units up the yinyang!

[GShock]

Simple:

USA has poor leaders = poor combat and less activation (which means offensive operations can't be performed)
CSA is entrenched and has higher NM and better leaders = stronger in combat, and attacking headlong is a risky proposition.

U'll be happy if u can fulfill the requirements coming from the "On to Richmond!" Event and in this logic, AGEOD hit Johnny on the spot. It's perfectly historical.

When you play as USA you will see how hard it is

[Rafiki]

I only play as the CSA, but I goofed and opened a game as the US, how in the earth do they just not win the game in like 20 turns? I mean they have supplies conscripts and units up the yinyang!

Sounds like you need to try a few campaigns as the Union

BTW, that's a good way to do it if you want to improve your game as the CSA; check out how things look and feel from the other side (and where things can hurt the most )

[CWNut77]

Sounds like you need to try a few campaigns as the Union

BTW, that's a good way to do it if you want to improve your game as the CSA; check out how things look and feel from the other side (and where things can hurt the most )

Indeed, you should give it a shot. The North does have all the apparent advantages from the onset, except in one crucial area that is especially critical to this game -- leadership. All the manpower and supply in the world won't help if your leader won't budge due to a bad activation roll. The other issue is that the North is the invader, and will always have to watch its supply lines, depots, etc (cavalry raids are such a nuisance!).

However, be that as it may, by the time 1863 rolls around it becomes apparent that the North can win by force of numbers, plus by then I believe the good leaders really start to kick in (I have not played that deep with the North, but this is how it happened in history). Against a good PBEM opponent, however, the North will have its hands quite full. A good Southern player (not me, though I am getting there ;-)) will be able to pin the North on the defensive by a good counter-offense by 1862.

[bobkatfan]

Sounds like you need to try a few campaigns as the Union

BTW, that's a good way to do it if you want to improve your game as the CSA; check out how things look and feel from the other side (and where things can hurt the most )

I can't bring myself to play as the US, I see Lincoln as the devil incarnate, haha. I guess you could say I'm too southern, which ticked me off when you scroll over land and see how much of it is controlled by the "rebels".

[bobkatfan]

Indeed, you should give it a shot. The North does have all the apparent advantages from the onset, except in one crucial area that is especially critical to this game -- leadership. All the manpower and supply in the world won't help if your leader won't budge due to a bad activation roll. The other issue is that the North is the invader, and will always have to watch its supply lines, depots, etc (cavalry raids are such a nuisance!).

However, be that as it may, by the time 1863 rolls around it becomes apparent that the North can win by force of numbers, plus by then I believe the good leaders really start to kick in (I have not played that deep with the North, but this is how it happened in history). Against a good PBEM opponent, however, the North will have its hands quite full. A good Southern player (not me, though I am getting there ;-)) will be able to pin the North on the defensive by a good counter-offense by 1862.

Don't really know about the "invader" comment. I'm usually the attacker, the fist thing I take is Cairo IL. then I cre gain MO and KY and take back WV, which is usually a waste of time, but leads to Pittsburgh. I'm usually the one in my game thats on the offensive, its pretty fun seeing the north on the defensive. don't know the 1863 comment either, I usually have stockpiled a boatload of supplies by then, so I don't have to create new divisions, just pay a small price for the hole pluggers.

[CWNut77]

Don't really know about the "invader" comment. I'm usually the attacker, the fist thing I take is Cairo IL. then I cre gain MO and KY and take back WV, which is usually a waste of time, but leads to Pittsburgh. I'm usually the one in my game thats on the offensive, its pretty fun seeing the north on the defensive. don't know the 1863 comment either, I usually have stockpiled a boatload of supplies by then, so I don't have to create new divisions, just pay a small price for the hole pluggers.

I must ask however...how many of your games have been PBEM?

[bobkatfan]

I must ask however...how many of your games have been PBEM?

I found it last week, so a few, but now my game is crashing for some reason when it reaches oct 1861 so I'm kicking booty so bad the comp has to crash the game to survive!

[CWNut77]

I only ask that question since, against a good PBEM opponent, you may pull off SOME of the offensive moves early on that you mentioned, but you will not likely hold them for long. But what do I know...I am losing my own PBEM game as the South as we speak