California

[chris0827]

Can the amount of resources needed to build an improvement be modded? How about the resources provided by those improvements as well as cities and regions?

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

As noted above, the map extends as far west as Indian Territory, which is present-day Oklahoma. To have included the entire country would have made the map too large. We do not include money from California, but the Union does not lack for resources, so it doesn't impact the game. (As is being shown in the PBEM AAR, resources come from specific cities and provinces within the game, so having money come from elsewhere would require additional programming that wouldn't add anything to game-play.) However, we most certainly do have the California Brigade as one of our "Legendary Units," so the state's contribution does not go unrecognized.

Million's of dollars worth of "hard currency" at a time when inflation is eating both sides resources and credability, and you have chosen to "ignore" it? I didn't expect California or Nevada to be on the map (the South couldn't do anything that far away in any case); but I did expect their contribution to show up on the docks at New York or other ports. No wonder the Union is hurting for money. Sad gentlemen, really sad....

Duh, it's a game with play balancing of all sorts of resources. From all practical perspectives it's built into whatever financial resources the Union has. There's no need to model it separately because what would it accomplish? It's just a number. If it makes you happy, pretend that whatever relevant historical percent of Union money comes from CA, caculate it, write on a Post It Note each turn, and stick it to your monitor. There, you have the CA/NV contribution. That should make you happy.

This is really silly IMO.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Once again I find myself defending my McClellan adversary. What Mike's points lack in tact they make up for in substance. From reading the AAR it seems to me that the south is close to equal footing with north in terms of producing money. Now that can be because JC has made some mistakes in the fiscal department but It still seems rather close and that should not be the case.

Well that's a play balancing issue and has really nothing to do with whether CA/NV is in the game.

[jimwinsor]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Can the amount of resources needed to build an improvement be modded? Yes How about the resources provided by those improvements No, that's part of the game code, however...as well as cities and regions ...Yes, cities and regions have base resource values independant of buildings, and altho I have yet to try this, it looks pretty much like they are moddable, yes. It's pretty much a matter of finding the .txt file in the FoF Data directory you want, then opening it with Excel, then modding away!?

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Sarge, can you count up the total poulation for the CSA cities and compare that to the starting pop for the USA in the game. I would hope we find a large difference, I am afraid that we may not.

Pop, like people or like in Manpower ?

[Jim D Burns]

Just to pass the time and perhaps add to this threads theme, does anyone know how many warships (both sea going and river going) were produced during the war by the Union? I did some digging on the web and found that the Union started the war with approximately 90 warships (about half of these were overseas and took weeks to get home once recalled if ever recalled), 42 or so were operational at home soon (took about a week or two since most were dry-docked) after war broke out.

I also found that the Union spent about $300,000,000.00 on the navy over the course of the war which was 9 - 3/10ths percent of the total cost of the war for the Union. So if we can find out how many ships the Union built during the war we can deduce the in-game cost of those ships is approximately 10% of what the Union should be getting total.

Here’s where I found these figures, it’s buried inside the text and requires extensive reading to get to any figures:

http://www.tarleton.edu/~kjones/navy.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/navalwar.htm


Unfortunately I didn’t find a decent OOB for the ships after a few hours of reading, so anyone out there with good data on the numbers and types produced please chime in.

My guess is the Union is getting far too little in the way of money, resources and manpower right now. I realize game balance is an issue, but you can’t call it an historical simulation if both powers start about even.

The South should be far poorer than the Union but have much better leadership initially allowing them to fight better in the first year or two. But eventually the Union should overwhelm the south with sheer numbers.

Jim

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Sarge, can you count up the total poulation for the CSA cities and compare that to the starting pop for the USA in the game. I would hope we find a large difference, I am afraid that we may not.

Pop, like people or like in Manpower ?

for manpower

the Union Begins with 152
and the CSA has 76

most of the Union Bdes are full strength and the CSA needs to rebuild most of it's Bdes

(manpower can be used to build troops, also, it has a effect on resources being made with in the city)

[Jim D Burns]

Just to emphasize the production differences, read this page:

http://civilwarhome.com/civilwarindustry.htm

Specifically this paragraph:

One major economic result of the war was that it helped change the U.S. from a country with an essentially agrarian society to one dependent on mechanization and a national market system. Only the North possessed an industrial base, small as it was, before the shooting started. During the fiscal year ending 1 June 1860, the country possessed some 128,300 industrial establishments. Of these, 110,274 were located in states that remained in the Union. The most heavily industrialized states, New York and Pennsylvania, each had more industry than all the seceding states combined. In 1860, too, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.

New York alone outproduces the entire south easily. Pennsylvania as well.

Jim

[regularbird]

thanks HS.

[jimwinsor]

I have a source book here that says the Union constructed 208 vessels and purchased 418 during the war, if this helps...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

I have a source book here that says the Union constructed 208 vessels and purchased 418 during the war, if this helps...

Were these all warships, or perhaps warships and merchants combined?

Once we know how many warships there were, we need someone with the game to tell us how much each type costs in game. Then multiply the total cost of those ships by 10 and you have a rough ballpark of what the Union should be getting dollar wise over the entire war.

My guess is its some astronomical figure and would break the simulation since I doubt the designers calculated their design using historical production figures.

This isn’t intended as a slam though, I’m waiting to get the game with baited breath.

I just want the Union to be 9 times more productive then the south is, (as they should be) is all. And the available southern leaders should be far superior to the available Union leaders for at least a year.

Jim

[Missouri_Rebel]

I just want the Union to be 9 times more productive then the south is, as they should be is all. And the available southern leaders should be far superior to the available Union leaders for at least a year.

I would like a fun, balanced game with victory conditions achievable for both sides. Facts are facts but the war could have gone very differently we are mostly in agreement.I want that possibility and it looks like we will have it.

[Gil R.]

Hard Sarge is right -- the Union's enormous advantage in manpower makes the fact that horses are the currency that gets reinforcements a relatively unimportant point from a game-play point of view. If the two sides were equal in every respect but horses, there'd be cause for complaint. Right now, I believe that the system makes for a more competitive game -- which is, after all, the main point.

I hope that people who think otherwise will reevaluate their positions once they have played the game. If they still disagree with the way the game is designed, as I've noted before, we will welcome any and all suggestions for changes that would be widely recognized as improvements.

[jimwinsor]

I'm sure the ship figures I quoted above includes transports (armed and unarmed), as well as warships.  So, ???
 
 

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Hard Sarge is right -- the Union's enormous advantage in manpower makes the fact that horses are the currency that gets reinforcements a relatively unimportant point from a game-play point of view. If the two sides were equal in every respect but horses, there'd be cause for complaint. Right now, I believe that the system makes for a more competitive game -- which is, after all, the main point.

I hope that people who think otherwise will reevaluate their positions once they have played the game. If they still disagree with the way the game is designed, as I've noted before, we will welcome any and all suggestions for changes that would be widely recognized as improvements.

Frankly, I might have some issues with "serious flaws", but I am waiting for the game to decide. From what I have seen though, I might have to look awfully hard to find them. WitP it ain't, but I play WitP, so who cares?

[bountyhunter]

I must say that I understand the "not a big part of the war" argument, but if you are supposed to be the leader of the nation shouldn't have the whole nation to worry about? There were plenty of factors to deal with out west other than the threat of a Confederate invasion - Indians for one. It's not necessarily being able to invade California as the Confed player but more of having to manage all that territory and politics. We always seem to focus on what happened to historically but isn't the whole point of such games to have the ability to alter history - if it isn't represented then you can't alter it...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Once again I find myself defending my McClellan adversary.  What Mike's points lack in tact they make up for in substance.  From reading the AAR it seems to me that the south is close to equal footing with north in terms of producing money.  Now that can be because JC has made some mistakes in the fiscal department but It still seems rather close and that should not be the case.

I love what Eric and company have done and I really appreciate the way they take much time in answering questions and listening to suggestions.  I will forever be a loyal customer because of it, however many folks have been waiting for an excellent ACW game since CWG3 was put on a shelf.  I understand Mike's passion at wanting this game to be perfect.  I know it is not going to fill all of my expectation, no game ever will.  I think Eric will be open to making improvements as he was with COG.

Please listen to some of Mike's suggestions Eric he makes excellent points that I am sure will help in perfecting your product.

Thanks, "Bird". I see I've been savaged by most everyone else for suggesting that the North is being "cheated" of money/resources. According to figures posted from the game in this thread, of total money ast the beginning, the North recieves 55% (318), the South 45%(255). So let me quote a few of those annoying "facts".

The 23 Northern State had over 90% of the nations Capital when the war began, the 11 Southern States less than 10%. The South had no reliable source of specie once it had sent the approximately $1 million in gold it began with to Europe to pay for imported arms and equipment. The North had a continual influx from California Gold and Nevada Silver to back its currency and for international exchange. Over 80% of all the nation's factories were in the Northern States, and they were the larger more efficient ones employing over 90% of the Nation's skilled industrial workers. And while the descrepancy in RR trackage for the South wasn't too bad (South 30% of the milage vs. North 70% of the milage), the real "edge" shows up in RR Equipment, with the North having over 95% of the Engines, Rolling Stock, and other impedimentia needed to keep the trains rolling. The South could not maintain or repair what it did have while the North could expand as needed.

Basically, the North's economy was not only stronger to begin with by a large margin..., it was expanding throughout the war years. The South's was eaten up by inflation which reached 2,000% by 1863. The North could not only continue to field much larger and better equipped and supplied Armies throughout the struggle..., they could also support the maintainence and construction of what was arguably the worlds largest Navy by War's end. And that in addition to vast Riverine Forces both ironclad and otherwise. The South started with a better overall "pool" of leadership, and one could probably make a case for a somewhat higher quality of manpower based on the rich Southern Militia tradition. Economically, they were a "basket case" from the start. The achieved some admirable things within the limits imposed by reality..., but for every Southern ironclad, the North could (and did) launch 10.

I'm not saying that the North should have unlimited funds of money and other resources, or even the massive superiority it did have. But a 55/45 split is way too "equal", especially with the burden of the offensive placed on the North. The North has over twice as many States, and way over twice as many people. It should also have about twice as much money in the game. Morale should be the Union's problem area..., not resources. It's struggle needs to be one of showing enough "gains" to justify to it's own people the sacrifices they are having to make in continuing the war. Remember, the South doesn't have to "win". It only has to survive.

I'm looking forward to purchasing and playing the game..., but I must admit I'm beginning to expect a number of dissappointments...

[Jonathan Palfrey]

It seems quite clear that the Confederacy suffered a number of crippling disadvantages: outnumbered, almost no industry or navy, poor railways, lousy economy, and so on and so forth. And yet it somehow managed to come fairly close to gaining its independence by destroying the Union's will to fight.

The challenge for a game designer is to represent all the disadvantages accurately and yet somehow to preserve that chance of winning that the Confederacy actually had. Tricky.

I don't think the real Confederacy had a 50% chance of winning in 1861. But, just maybe, if it had sold its cotton while it was still able to and used the money well, it might have increased its chance to about 50%.

[Hard Sarge]

Really guys, I think you are going to have to see how the game works before you can say if it is right or it is wrong

most of my games as the CSA, I have "working" money of between 80-90 bucks, you got to throw as much as you can into Diplo, and some of the Cities that make money, also are your main Labor sites, so if you change to labor, you lower you money income

(and most of my games, I no not play with unit upkeep on)

most turns, it is going to be your runners or friends from overseas that is going to let you do anything, money wise

overall, and I think I have said it more then a few times, as the CSA, you never have enough of anything to do what you want or need to do

[Mike Scholl]

"overall, and I think I have said it more then a few times, as the CSA, you never have enough of anything to do what you want or need to do"


Which is exactly as it should be. Economically, the South was between a rock and a hard place. Her basic source of pre-war income had been the export of Cotton and Tobacco. With the war and the blockade and the loss of shipping (most Southern trade had been carrier in Northern or foriegn-owned "bottoms), this revenue was no longer available.

The North, richer and more self-suffecient overall, simply didn't have this problem to anything like the same degree. She could afford to build and maintain her armies on a scale the South couldn't begin to match (remember the wild jubilation of Jackson's men when they captured Pope's supply dump at Manassas), and in addition build and maintain a large and effective Navy and Riverine force. Plus expanding her economy. The North's problem was that it had to conquer and hold down most of the South. Economically she was in great shape when compared to the Confederacy.