Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

hmmm according to this Food is also wasted ?

You are right! I would suspect it has a similar structure then but the threshold is much higher. With a few more data points we can likely determine the exact formulas.

(EDIT: By the way, the economy report has an "Income Report" that shows how much of each commodity was actually produced. I generally use that as it is actual production versus the estimate that is given below the sliders.)

Hi, Sweden is not developed. But Sweden cannot support expanding the Army right away so the barracks are not required right away. The situation for expanding the Army in Turkey and Russia is even worse. I don't even think about going to war before I have the economy on the rise. Wars cost money.

I'm not talking about expanding the army. I'm talking about building corps so one can defend oneself and building artillery and cavalry so one has a balanced force. That is Turkey's problem. Irr Cav are useless for anything but running down routed enemy and scouting.

Against the AI, it is pretty easy to buy time as Austria and Russia are occupied. Against humans, a smart Russian is going to see easy pickings down south and the Turks will be hard pressed to defend themselves without a combined arms force. Turkey just has no maneuver units to work with and no leaders. Winning battles requires heavy quantitative superiority, which cannot be accomplished within the army structure without corps.

The Turks do have a Moral problem overall, their level of Baracks and general large quantity of Irr or Militia compounds this. Against Russia, unless it is a determind attack this is not so bad, but against the much higher quality Austrian troops a human vs. human engangment would not be pretty.

I can definately see that wastage of food. The ability to store and transport consumables during this period was a major challenge. For example, during the ACW, the Confederacy actually over-produced food stuffs, that, unfortuately, tended to rot in storage at the train depots, for lack of transport....

Brad

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I can definately see that wastage of food. The ability to store and transport consumables during this period was a major challenge. For example, during the ACW, the Confederacy actually over-produced food stuffs, that, unfortuately, tended to rot in storage at the train depots, for lack of transport....

Brad

Unless food is vastly different from other commodities, I suspect that waste happens due to overproduction and not due to overstockpiling. The game tends to "consume" stockpiles of consumer demanded goods.

Hi, My waste as Sweden in 1798 (1792 scenario)

Western Euope had an excellent canal system which is sill in use today...I think that even in present times it would stun you the amount of barage tonnage compared with truck tonnage in Germany.

Hi, Transport is only part of the problem. How do you move material to the canal and from the canal? hand carts?
Just how much traffic could these canals handle in 1792?
Hauling coal and coke to iron works increased to ludericris levels would result in what impact to canal traffic of food?

I think it makes a huge difference in how we look at game. (Modern economic genius or period National leader)

Modern Genius:"It costs 5 waste to gain 1 extra why bother?"
Period leader"I can get another 1 point? Excellent"

Canals were radically expanded during the period the game covers. As an example the Nantes - Brest Canal was built to move Navl Stores from Nantes to Brest without exposing them to the British Ships on Blockade. The Nantes end of the Canal hookd up with the Loire River and was all connect to the Ille and Villane making it possible to go north to Rennes and St Malo. This is just local traffic. It was possible in this time period to go from Brest to Amsterdam via canal an river.

By the end of this period there were very few cities of any consequence that were not on a river or canal.

In answer to your specific question...most industrial facilities were located river or canalside. The only exception to the canal/river situation were places like Aubusson which had some other specific geographc advantages but even still were not all that far from water transport.

Inspired by all the threads you guys offered, I came up with an idea about waste. Waste may be just a collective term that represents a range of uncontrollable events that include, besides waste (whether due to natural deterioration, failed/limited storage capacity, or insufficient/improper safeguard against sabotage/theft/disaster), generous doling out to the citizens of the produce as it piles up, corruption, sumptuous court balls/parties, and the like. Even so, it yet remains mysterious that so large a portion of production - up to 90% - has to vanish.

Designers ought to have explained more about it in the manuel, or simply chosen a more suitable term, so as to make us less inclined to argue about it. My suggestion is that waste simply be left out and to let levies and taxes eat more into production. [:'(]

Designers ought to have explained more about it in the manuel, or simply chosen a more suitable term, so as to make us less inclined to argue about it.

We will try to explain it more thoroughly in the manual errata/update.

Hi Mogami
the hassle with most of your posts on this subject, is you got a side that is not makeing much, and so does not get hit with much waste

my game as France, I got more waste then you do on the first turn of the game (let alone, once I take some land or improve my cities)

HARD_Sarge

Hi, I am running Russia in scenario that began in 1792.
Russia has not fought a battle outside Russia the date is June 1800
Russia has the most cash (2k) only 1 other Nation is over 1k (France)
Russian Army has grown from 330k in 1792 to 560k in 1800 (with 50k in pool)
Russia has maintained 100 percent readiness
Russia has raised training level from below 5 to 12 (Austria has 12.7) 5 countries are below 7 (Spain is below 4)
Russian morale over 4.75 (training level)
Feudalism level 12 (down from 50)

I have done nothing but develop and scored over 400 points so far. (ahead of 3 Nations)
If I unleashed the army I could score points quickly.

Hi, Well it is Apr 1802. Russia is in 3rd place.
I have never fought a battle outside Russia.
Russia has the highest training level 14.5 Spain in 1st place is a 4.5
Russia has the most wealth
The Russian Army is now over 600k organized in 3 Army with 2 Corps each (plus attached units)
I think I will do away with the last bit of fuedalism next year (national morale is around 700 so it can absorb the hit)
Russia has even aquired new territory (2 provincens) as a result of defeating invaders Sweden invaded with 200k troops lost around 50k and surrendered when Russian Alliance members Britain and Austria captured Stockholm. Russia took 1 province and liberated Swedish controled areas of Finland and parts of Poland.
I do nothing but adjust my production everyturn and develop. It is getting quite expensive now to do any upgrades (they require a lot of labor and textiles) I have to spend a few turns saving up material. However now that the war is over I can spend more on developing and less on the Army.
The present system has allowed Russia to catch and pass Britain in industrial output. Raise and train the most advanced Military (I think I am number two in total strength but I don't have a lot of milita units. I place one in each city but the Field Army is composed of good units. In the one detailed battle the Russian units crushed the Swedes (and the Swedes are one of the more advanced)
I think I could take first place now simply by marching down to Constantinople and forcing another surrender out of Turkey. (Already clobbered them once when they came north)
I still don't see where the system is not working. Anyone else trying this and playing more then a few turns?

If I unleashed the army I could score points quickly.

Well it is Apr 1802. Russia is in 3rd place.

I think this says it all. You are pursuing an economic strategy. You are, by all rights, swamping the AI opponents in sheer econ. Yet you are in 3rd place.

As you stated (and I agree), if you unleashed the army, you could crank in glory. I submit that had you done so more or less from the get-go rather than trying to invest in the econ that you could easily be in first place, not third. The resources you spent bettering your econ could easily have translated to more glory through conquest.

Also, not to disparage your accomplishments in the game, but the getting ahead of the AI by using 'x' strategy does not mean that it is a good strategy. I think in most games, a good human player can beat whatever AI using almost any strategy unless the AI is given some pretty healthy bonuses. What difficulty level are you playing on?

Again, I'm not trying to say that its impossible to grow your econ...obviously its not. But the cost for doing so (resources and opportunity) are better spent on military units, upgrades, and campaigns if you want to earn glory. The point is the same as its been all thread long...the cost for investing in the econ is not commeasurate with the pay-off in most cases.

Hi, While I could have just sent the Army off gathering points I think it important to note that first place is currently held by a Nation with a training level of 4.5
Russia has a 14.5 The nation that has done the most conquering Sweden is a 12.75 however Sweden droped from 1900 points to under 300 in less then 1 year. (When she had to fight everyone at once.)
Nations do not wage war and then build their industry. You first have the industry in place and after it has provided the means you wage war.
My current game still has 5 years to run. Victory does not go to the nation who has been in first the longest but to the one in first at the end. Because I have spent 10 years developing Russia I could if I chose embark on a war of conquest and maintain the Army.
The Russian economy can support the Russian military better then Sweden was able to do. (All the other nations are on the verge of going broke)

In multiplayer games the best strategies will all revolve around forming combinations. It is Alliances that matter. I don't think anyone will be left alone long enough to do nothing but develop. But then the game begins after the period where these nations have been develping.
The war has already begun. THe Allies won WWII not because they were able to develop during the war but because they had already done so before it began. (They just required time to gather and use the output)
I think it important to realize that in COG the World War has already begun.

Hi, OK I am going to start a game as France ("for what we are about to recieve make us truely greatful")
I have been avoiding even booting the French up because of the amount of work required to play France.
I'll will post first reports in a few minutes after I analyze French starting conditions