the view on blockade runners

[Spruce]

I think that brigs (blockade runners) should cost less war supllies and more money.

why =

1) to have a real choice to either do some (costly on war supplies - but permanent increase if succesfull) industrial development - or - to work with blockade runners ... now blockade runners are so expensive towards war supplies - you should be crazy not to invest in your industry ! For sure the industrial gains are permanent, and blockade runners in the blockading box will get destroyed one day sooner or later. And those things cost already much war supplies - blockade runners often don't meet their pay back time. So for the moment this is a no-brainer.

2) goods from blockade runners were so expensive, and blockade runners often were "captains of fortune" that used their own ships to operate. Perhaps the CSA goverment constructed a few of these blockade runners - but the "bulk" were captains of fortune IIRC.

So my proposal = less war supply cost - and a higher money cost.

[jimwinsor]

The CSA does get free blockade runners via event from time to time, though.

[Spruce]

The CSA does get free blockade runners via event from time to time, though.

that's not the point,

point is that investment to get the needed war supplies goes to industrial development because extra blockade runners are too expensive based on their cost on war supplies. They don't make they their pay back time - my previous game I build 8 blockade runners (approx. 100 war supplies invested). A few turns later they make in total about 10 war supplies - then they are sunk ... bey bey war supplies !

so = building extra blockade runners should cost less war supplies but more money - otherwise the whole concept of blockade runners is a no-brainer.

[Adam the VIth]

Concur with Spruce. Blockade runners were a money making operation (didn't you see Gone With he Wind?)

The war materiel that went into a blockade runner was minimal -- it was just a ship, sometimes not even a speedy one, just one willing to take the risks and sometimes with a deceptive captain.

On a similar note though, I'm not really happy with the "negative result" on industrial investment. I get no positive impact from massive investment sometimes....actually, I find it is more often than not that I get nothing.

I know that this can represent corruption, factory disasters, etc. But I think the ratio of successes should be greater.....the type of success can vary -- but if I do massive investment in a state with average potential, I would say I should atleast get some minor increases in ammo/supply production. If I have a good roll, I should get big increases and maybe even war supply.

[Pocus]

a brig cost 6 war supplies. I'm unsure it can qualify as being too much. Perhaps the chances to get caught can be lowered though, several players reports this problem.

[arsan]

Yeah!
One of my runners get zapped every other turn...
Well, thats on the first turns of the campaign... Latter i rarely have any runner left or care for spending money and supplies on them...

[Stonewall]

I think there is not a strong enough correlation between blockading ships/captured southern ports and the capture/sink percentage. In 1861 and 1862, barely 10% of blockade runners were captured/sank making their runs. This meant that an average blockade runner was able to make 5-6 sorties to and from Europe before getting caught.

By 1863 and 1864, this has grown to 1 in 3 chance of being captured and sunk, reducing the average number of sorties from 5-6 to 2-3.

By 1865, almost 50% of blockade runner sorties were captured.

This is a reflection of the capture of Confederate ports by Union forces as well as a massive naval expansion program undertaken by the Lincoln Administration.

Most blockade runners were ships built and financed in Britain. What this means in game terms is that a blockade runner should not survive very long at all. The chances of getting caught were very high and few runners made more than 10 journeys. There's a reason the Confederacy never invested much in blockade running, they lacked the resources. And even if resources had been available, the return on investment would have been minimal due to the large percentage of runners getting caught.

In the game, blockade running represents an alternative way to get money and war supplies. Ok, thats fine. But it should not be easy. And the game already rewards players who keep blockade runners present in the blockade zones. There is an event that fires (pretty regularly) that rewards 5 money and 1 war supply (or is it 1 money and 5 war supply) for maintaining a presence in the blockading zones.

I think the way the game works is pretty darn accurate, but the success chance could use a little tweaking to make the blockade running a little more lucrative. At least early in the war before all the southern ports are being closed.

[Spruce]

dear Pocus and Stonewall,

make your calculation based on brig = 12 war supply cost - not 6 war supply,

facts are facts so that means 13 succesfull runs to make the money back. That's too much imho



hey, I'm just trying out these french smileys

[Adam the VIth]

I'm not that worried about the blockade runners -- (and Spruce, Pocus means each brig is 6 WS, and brigs come in pairs, thus the 12 WS).

Pocus/Stonewall, what do you think about my comments above on industrial investment?

[Stonewall]

As the south, industrial investment should be hard, difficult, and expensive. The South was not industrialized and had no real potential to industrialize during the war. The Confederate government was perpetually lacking in funds and relied on local works for their manufactured goods. The south lacked the skilled labor and entreprenuership to effectively industrialize. They lacked the raw materials and finished goods to build iron works, foundries, arsenals, and the like in anything aproaching large numbers.

If anything, it was too EASY to industrialize as the south. This was dealt with very effectively by the reduction in the % chance that a war supply factory could be built on a given turn. I almost never invest in industry anymore as the south and thats not an ahistorical strategy.

Despite that, my main problem as the south lies with manpower, not money and war supplies.

[Adam the VIth]

As the south, industrial investment should be hard, difficult, and expensive. The South was not industrialized and had no real potential to industrialize during the war. The Confederate government was perpetually lacking in funds and relied on local works for their manufactured goods. The south lacked the skilled labor and entreprenuership to effectively industrialize. They lacked the raw materials and finished goods to build iron works, foundries, arsenals, and the like in anything aproaching large numbers.

If anything, it was too EASY to industrialize as the south. This was dealt with very effectively by the reduction in the % chance that a war supply factory could be built on a given turn. I almost never invest in industry anymore as the south and thats not an ahistorical strategy.

Despite that, my main problem as the south lies with manpower, not money and war supplies.

Agree on the history and glad that the WS issue was dealt with.
However, having ZERO payback for large investments seems silly. Granted, it may be ahistorical, but if as the South I want to invest in my economy, then results should be forthcoming. Currently, they are not.

[jimkehn]

I dunno, Adam the VIth. I am not sure how you define ZERO return. I have been investing one factory in Texas and I get a result almost every turn. This last turn I got a factory producing war supplies as well as ammo. I think there was one in Milan and I know there was one in Henderson. The cost of investment is real low in Texas.

[Stonewall]

You definitely get results. I rarely invest somewhere and get no resutls. Its just that the results you get aren't necessarily war supplies.

[bloodybucket]

One of the hardest things to simulate in a game is that the actual participants were making decisions based on imperfect information and often on flawed assumptions and predictions.

Probably the most simulative solution would be to have the return on investment be variable, so in some games building blockade runners would be a waste, and in others a moneymaker. How this would be coded, I have no idea.

[Pocus]

This zero result you can get should be very rare with a massive spending. This is how the engine calculate, in a probabilistic way, the return on investment. Consider that as a simplification.

[Adam the VIth]

This zero result you can get should be very rare with a massive spending. This is how the engine calculate, in a probabilistic way, the return on investment. Consider that as a simplification.

Guys --- I'll have to stand my ground on this one -- maybe cause I play on hard, but I get a result less than 1/2 of the time. I'll post results from a few turns tonight.

[Spruce]

I'm not that worried about the blockade runners -- (and Spruce, Pocus means each brig is 6 WS, and brigs come in pairs, thus the 12 WS).

Pocus/Stonewall, what do you think about my comments above on industrial investment?

?, so this means for a 2 brig unit - you'll get 2 war supplies a turn when you are in the blockade box? So this means when they do 6 succesfull runs, the investment has been payed back.

[Stonewall]

?, so this means for a 2 brig unit - you'll get 2 war supplies a turn when you are in the blockade box? So this means when they do 6 succesfull runs, the investment has been payed back.

Each brig has a transport capacity of 1. That means that it can hold 1 money or 1 war supply each successful blockade run. If you have 10 brigs, they can bring back a maximum of 10 items. If they are in a 20% blockade box, they will only bring back a maximum of 8 items.

The goods your blockade runners brings back depends on your stockpiles. If you have surplus WS, but little money, then the runners will bring back money. If you have an even distribution of both, they will bring back an even distribution as well.

[PJL]

Each brig has a transport capacity of 1. That means that it can hold 1 money or 1 war supply each successful blockade run. If you have 10 brigs, they can bring back a maximum of 10 items. If they are in a 20% blockade box, they will only bring back a maximum of 8 items.

The goods your blockade runners brings back depends on your stockpiles. If you have surplus WS, but little money, then the runners will bring back money. If you have an even distribution of both, they will bring back an even distribution as well.

So blockade percentages also has an effect on blockade runners as well? A bit harsh I think = they should be independent of that regardless. After all they are already penalised in sinkage chance (more Union ships in the box, greater chance to sink). At least if they carries 1 per tranport unit regardless, it would make them a more promising option under a heavy blockade.

[Stonewall]

So blockade percentages also has an effect on blockade runners as well? A bit harsh I think = they should be independent of that regardless. After all they are already penalised in sinkage chance (more Union ships in the box, greater chance to sink). At least if they carries 1 per tranport unit regardless, it would make them a more promising option under a heavy blockade.

The theory that blockade % affects the amount of goods that gets through is based off of my own observations. I can not confirm it through the game engine. But the theory fits with my observations so far.

[Pocus]

wrong theory The amount is fixed. Higher blockade % means higher chances to get caught generally though...