Industrialization - for or against?

[hiram ulysses]

Is industrialization worth it?

I did an experiment with NY - light industrialization for 3 months.

Their output after 3 months: Supply Wagons increased 5%, Ammo Crates increased 10%, $$$ dropped a tiny amount, Conscript Companies decreased 10%, and War Supplies increased 15%.

But this cost me $34,000 and 44 tons War Supplies per turn. So this seems like a wasted investment. I feel I would be better off increasing RR and river transport points (so I can move my Big stacks where I need them) or just recruiting more troops/ships.

Thoughts? Heavier industrialization? Across the board industrialization (in as many states as possible)? Or, ignore it completely?

Thanks.

[oberst_klink]

Remember Shelby Foote saying: 'The North only fought with one arm; the other one was tied behind its back...'. I use industrialisation in the border states when the conditions are good; only light/medium. but you are right. Better to invest it in RR, riverine or even better blockade ships and transports. No need to increase the production of war supplies as USA player anyway.

Klink, Oberst

[HMSWarspite]

That's the conclusion I came to too. Dont need the supplies and do need the conscripts. Isnt it a CSA thing? A couple of strategic investments (havent played CS yet...)

[Captain_Orso]

As the US I always start out by industrializing Wisconsin and New York. With New York I invest until the mount of money and WS being produced exceeds the amount being invested. This works with Wisconsin sometimes, but not always.

In the west, once Kentucky and Missouri are secured I start industrializing MO and Illinois. The idea being that I am producing enough general supply closer to the front so that in the winter months I don't get any hiccups in the supply lines.

Once Tennessee is secure I shift from Illinois to Kentucky; same reason.

In the east if the Potomac line is secure I might start into PA or MD. One time I had Batimore and Washington producing around $90,000 per turn

And if I'm bull-dozing the south in the east I'll also start industrializing in VA, for the same reason as in the west--supply lines.

---

I've only played the CSA twice but both times I've put the most effort in building Blockade Runners. Both times I eventually built all of them and basically lived off their trade income. I don't know how others do it, but I was really only building land units every 6 months by raising taxes and bonds and only printed money if I ran into a situation where I desperately needed to buy something right then; usually supply trains or replacements.

BTW during my first game as the CSA I shifted all of my Blockade Runners to the Gulf, because they shuttle quicker to Mobile when their supplies run low. I would wait until they had one turn's supplies left and then send them into harbor--it only takes 9 days so barring that they get intercepted by US fleets (rarely happened) and sent off course, they always landed in Mobile before their supply hit rock bottom. I also couldn't see any difference in the amount of money and WS arriving from running the blockade between having runners in both blockade boxes to having runners only in t the Gulf. It's a PITA constantly having 45 - 55 brigs to check every turn for their supply level, but I saw no other way out.

But I also have to say that Athena didn't really make it all that hard for me. Okay the first game was at Sargent level and the second at Lieutenant. But by '63 I had built just about every unit from Virgina to Florida and was building division from units mostly raised in Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana.

[Longshanks]

Industrialization is key to long-term confederate survival. In the short term, build brigs and stick them in the boxes. But for long-term you'll need industrialization in order to produce GS and Ammo where you need it, for example in Richmond and any other "must defend" city. This helps your units to survive longer when pockets are formed that are cutoff from the rest of the CSA. Best to build industrialization in the states where you'll be doing the heaviest fighting, except that with the new build rules, you may want to consider some west of the Mississippi, perhaps in AK and TX, or MO if you're lucky enough to have a solid hold on it.

[charlesonmission]

Longshanks is right. In my AAR that went all the way to Jan 1866, it was inudstraialization in VA and TN that kept the armies fed. Once you start getting to 100,000+ plus armies in 1 state, you will starve without it. Especially if the Union has done anything to disrupt your supply line.

Charles

Industrialization is key to long-term confederate survival. In the short term, build brigs and stick them in the boxes. But for long-term you'll need industrialization in order to produce GS and Ammo where you need it, for example in Richmond and any other "must defend" city. This helps your units to survive longer when pockets are formed that are cutoff from the rest of the CSA. Best to build industrialization in the states where you'll be doing the heaviest fighting, except that with the new build rules, you may want to consider some west of the Mississippi, perhaps in AK and TX, or MO if you're lucky enough to have a solid hold on it.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm always loath to industrialize the states where actually battling going on, because it's too easy to have one or 2 regions providing much of your supply for the front be in poorly defensible locations.

Besides, if you are being pushed back from a state or grand region you are basically making a present of all the industrialization that your enemy can capture. I take my cue from the USSR in WWII, pull all your production back out of harms way and build like hell.

But my experience is only with Athena, playing vs a human with far more flexibility and, not to knock Athena, intelligence and creativity, I know it will be more difficult to keep the war machine running smoothly.

[gchristie]

Capt_Orso,

Unless memory doesn't serve, industrialization does not increase money supply. I'm referencing your post about industrialization of New York, "As the US I always start out by industrializing Wisconsin and New York. With New York I invest until the mount of money and WS being produced exceeds the amount being invested. This works with Wisconsin sometimes, but not always." Perhaps I misunderstood you. My understanding is that industrialization only increases general and war supply and ammo.

I like to max out Union transports as they return money or war supply, which ever you need most, once they are in the shipping lanes. I do that in addition to building RR and river transports. That is how the Union can increase its cash flow, along with capturing rebel money producing cities.

With the new rule in 1.16 you have to industrialize in some states to produce certain units in those states so there is some added incentive to industrialize on the boarder.

[Stauffenberg]

Industrialization is key to long-term confederate survival. In the short term, build brigs and stick them in the boxes. But for long-term you'll need industrialization in order to produce GS and Ammo where you need it, for example in Richmond and any other "must defend" city. This helps your units to survive longer when pockets are formed that are cutoff from the rest of the CSA. Best to build industrialization in the states where you'll be doing the heaviest fighting, except that with the new build rules, you may want to consider some west of the Mississippi, perhaps in AK and TX, or MO if you're lucky enough to have a solid hold on it.

This makes eminent sense.

But has no one put together a chart, state by state, of exact costs and benefits for both sides? If I put three of these into Georgia for "heavy industrialization" in Georgia in '61 for example, what are the expected dividends or draw-backs? Or is a scattering of light industry in key states for the South the better option? If the main benefits are for long-term survival, why build them early when so many other builds are urgent?

[Captain_Orso]

Capt_Orso,

Unless memory doesn't serve, industrialization does not increase money supply. I'm referencing your post about industrialization of New York, "As the US I always start out by industrializing Wisconsin and New York. With New York I invest until the mount of money and WS being produced exceeds the amount being invested. This works with Wisconsin sometimes, but not always." Perhaps I misunderstood you. My understanding is that industrialization only increases general and war supply and ammo.

I like to max out Union transports as they return money or war supply, which ever you need most, once they are in the shipping lanes. I do that in addition to building RR and river transports. That is how the Union can increase its cash flow, along with capturing rebel money producing cities.

With the new rule in 1.16 you have to industrialize in some states to produce certain units in those states so there is some added incentive to industrialize on the boarder.

Hi G,

Hmm after some thought and second, nee third, nee 25th look into the manual it says that the amount of money produced in a city is related to the loyalty in that region. So the jump in money coming from Baltimore might have been caused by the loyalty raising. In my current game as the US (Late October '61) the loyalty in Baltimore is only 26%, so that leaves a huge room for improvement.

In my current game as the US (61-Apr w/KY) now Late October '61 I am currently producing in New York State

956 Supply wagons
310 Ammo crates
$40,000
15 Conscript Companies
38 tons of WS

I started industrializing in NYS on turn 1 at which time it was producing

867 Supply wagons
284 Ammo crates
$40,000
8 Conscript Companies
29 tons of WS

So yes, it seems that the money being produced in NYS is not increasing

Ergo, correlation does not imply causation

Thanks for pointing this out to me G

Yeah, I'm well aware of the production cap on the trans-Mississippi states, but it's not restricted to just them. To build Ironclads for example you have to produce WS in a harbor region in that state. I'm not sure if the where what is being produced within a state is randomly distributed in that state at the beginning of the game, but I have 4 WS being produced in Indianapolis but none in any harbor region, so no ironclads for Illinois without industrializing.

[Longshanks]

This makes eminent sense.

But has no one put together a chart, state by state, of exact costs and benefits for both sides? If I put three of these into Georgia for "heavy industrialization" in Georgia in '61 for example, what are the expected dividends or draw-backs? Or is a scattering of light industry in key states for the South the better option? If the main benefits are for long-term survival, why build them early when so many other builds are urgent?

A while back I ran several games in which I tested industrialization vs brigs. I tried various types of industrialization in various states in many combinations. The short answer is that brigs are a better deal in the short run. AFAIAC Charlesonmission is the one who discovered the value of industrialization in your home states for the main purpose of keeping your army supplied later on. Having played deep into 1864 a couple of times, I can confirm his assessment.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

I have 4 WS being produced in Indianapolis but none in any harbor region, so no ironclads for Illinois without industrializing.

Indiana?

[Captain_Orso]

You know, the place they have that 500 race, Georgia


umm.. yes, Indinois-ana!, Indiana darn all these states, who needs so many

[Jim-NC]

The issue is the randomness of the new industry. I have gone 5-6 turns getting nothing, and next time got a new foundry (GS, Ammo, and WS) on the 1st turn.

It makes it hard to compare or chart the spend vs. output.

As the CSA, I always start industrializing when I run out of CS points. This usually happens somewhere in 1862. Long term survival depends on getting enough GS to your troops. I have played 3 games into 1864+ as the CSA, in every one, my armies are in much better condition than what happens in the 1864 campaign (everyone starves in that campaign). It is the only way to keep going.

[Longshanks]

As usual, Jim-NC is spot on. I agree 100%.

[Captain_Orso]

Since there is a large amount of chance involved, I think the only way to properly evaluate the effectiveness of industrialization would be to have all the 'tables' used to determine the success of investing. Then you could calculate statistically the chances.

---

About that thingy with the mount of money being produced in a state/city. Shortly after our last exchange on the subject I suddenly discovered that New York City is producing $3,000 more.

Production at game start:




and in Early November '61




and then again after an increase in money production in Late November '61




Could this be because of an increase in the number for transports in the Shipping Box?

[Jim-NC]

Did your NM change? If you crossed a threashhold, your production goes up. I see that everything went up by 5%-5.5% (Money, GS, Ammo, WS) leading me to believe that your NM moved.

[Captain_Orso]

Ohhhh - Yes sir, indeed it did, from 82 to a massive 89 . I guess that would explain it. Many thinks to you good men coddling me along in this

[Jim-NC]

Glads to be of service to you Birthday Bear.

[Captain_Orso]

Thanks

[Jorje Vidrio]

So when you industrialize, do you keep the same level in a state every turn? Or is industrialization a one turn event that you can turn off the next turn?

in other words, is Industrialization a long term investment or does it just boost your production for one turn in that particular state?

[Longshanks]

So when you industrialize, do you keep the same level in a state every turn? Or is industrialization a one turn event that you can turn off the next turn?

in other words, is Industrialization a long term investment or does it just boost your production for one turn in that particular state?

Depends on what you're after. If you want one of the cities to produce WS (specialized workers message), then it may take a while. If you're looking for increased gen. supply and ammo across the state, that may take a while. But if you just want SOMETHING, you'll probably get it on the first try, esp. if it's level 3 industrialization.

[Jorje Vidrio]

So if you are going to industrialize a state, it would be better then to keep whatever level of investment you want active every turn?

[Banks6060]

Light and steady industrialization in the north (you will have huge armies to feed after all) is the best way to go IMHO. Perhaps, slightly more investment as the war drags on and your supply needs increase. States like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois usually get my vote.

I believe light to medium industrialization in states like Georgia, the Carolinas and Tennesse (although not prefered in Tenn.) can be very beneficial for the south. Especially Georgia.

I'm not usually one to industrialize in states that are on the front line.

In my experience with the game, I learned that industrialization is really more about the GS and the Ammo than the WS. I suppose that's probably more the case for the CSA than USA...but still the overall "thing" a player should have in mind.

[Jorje Vidrio]

Next question, good sirs.

When to start industrialization, specifically as the South?

Timing for the industrialization for the North seems to be more a luxury amongst a sea of riches. More a whim perhaps, 'shall I industrialize this turn?'

But for the South, when and where and how much to Industrialize may be a decision that decides the outcome of the war.

What do you gentlemen suggest? apy:

[Longshanks]

Next question, good sirs.

When to start industrialization, specifically as the South?

Timing for the industrialization for the North seems to be more a luxury amongst a sea of riches. More a whim perhaps, 'shall I industrialize this turn?'

But for the South, when and where and how much to Industrialize may be a decision that decides the outcome of the war.

What do you gentlemen suggest? apy:

My preference is NONE until quite a few brigs are built. Brigs are a better and surer source of both $$$ and WS early in the game. In mid-late 62 you will likely find that you have built your RR and river capacity up and have some funds left over. At that point, if you appear to be in it for the long haul, then invest in the states where your armies will be fighting, and may be trapped in pockets. Those cities should be producing copious amounts of GS and ammo, or you'll simply starve to death.

I never industrialize the north, except some is now required in IN if you want to build ironclads there. The North is, as we say down South, "broke out" with WS, ammo, and GS.

[Jim-NC]

I don't start until sometime in 1862. I almost always run out of CS (men), and then I start to industrialize. It's a game of chance. You get slightly better odds if you industrialize at higher levels, but there are no guarantees. You place your bet and hope lady luck favors you that turn.

I usually start with 1 state, and stay with it for a few turns/months (until I get some good results), and then switch states. I try to even out all the states as the CSA, as I usually don't know where my forces will get trapped or have to retreat to. Like Banks6060 says, I try to avoid states with battles (nothing like getting 20 GS or 1 WS added to a city that just fell to the union).

[Banks6060]

Granted, I haven't played the 1.16 version of the game (in fact, I haven't played the game at all for more than a year, technical issue) but I TYPICALLY would try to balance CSA industrialization with brig production.

I would certainly say brigs take precedence in the "very early" part of the game. But soon enough, you have to plan on the Union blockade percentage going up quickly....I'd say from 1862 onward. (Of course.....this is in PBEM against a good opponent...I'm afraid I haven't the patience for the AI in this game after playing a human opponent.)

So, very light "targeted" industrialization in 1861 (Virginia and Georgia....or possibly Arkansas and Louisiana) with more of a focus on building brigs, troops, guns and replacements...then by mid 1862....start shifting focus to industrialization.

I never went nuts on brigs, because like I mentioned before....a salty Union opponent (equipped with overwhelming naval potential) will find ways of slowing your brigs down....or simply sinking them. (with lots of frigates I think.)

I think building up the south's ironclad fleet is much more productive in the long run. In the version I played....one southern ironclad could basically handle two Union "turtle backs" on the river....and still fare pretty well 1 on 1 against Monitors along the coast.

[MarkCSA]

Call me strange, but I never ever (need to) industrialize as the CSA. But then I only play Athena.

My Strategy is purely NM based (this makes the most sense to me), avoid NM decreasing choices (like printing money and mobilizing) and let the enemy come to me (and hand the Yankee invader more NM costing defeats). With a 30 point gap in NM and me on the defensive, it is quite hard to lose battles, even when outnumbered 2:1).

This, however, means that:

A) I will run out of cash first (and after that men, never WS)
B) My armies in the field will be quite small (but hiding behind rivers and at least 35k guys on Richmond under a at least level 5 defender)

[Stauffenberg]

The issue is the randomness of the new industry. I have gone 5-6 turns getting nothing, and next time got a new foundry (GS, Ammo, and WS) on the 1st turn.

It makes it hard to compare or chart the spend vs. output.

As the CSA, I always start industrializing when I run out of CS points. This usually happens somewhere in 1862. Long term survival depends on getting enough GS to your troops. I have played 3 games into 1864+ as the CSA, in every one, my armies are in much better condition than what happens in the 1864 campaign (everyone starves in that campaign). It is the only way to keep going.

Yes, thanks for that, it was the randomness that was preventing me from getting it. Some other obscure (to me) items:

--Industry in a state will assist the situation in that state first and then in diminishing returns to adjacent states? according to front "draw" or need wherever the greatest? along the best transportation links first?

In particular I am looking at the issue of industrialisation in Alabama--Georgia is clearly a good choice for the CSA, given its secure position generally, and rail web going in all directions. But if you start building industry in Alabama and are fighting on an active front in Tennessee to the north, there is the issue of where this industry is located. Realistically it would be Mobile or in the south of the state; however, there are no direct links at all to Tennessee from the main production part of the state in the south. The RR in the north is just an east west connector with no link to the south.

Someone else indicated ironclads could be begun to be built with industialisation, in locations you normally can't. Texas for example for the CSA. What level would be needed--light, medium, or heavy? With all, but increases the odds the more it is built up perhaps. Do naval engineers affect things here, or they just speed the build time I suppose in states that can build them anyway.

--Finally, does an army besieged in a state capital get the benefit of industry in that state?