Goin' (for) broke in '62 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Scona -> Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 7:28:14 AM)

Or rather "Going broke in '62". After 3 do overs on the opening months of the Standard game as the Union, I find myself triped up by the same problem. I start to max out economically by the begining of March in 1862, and there is so much that has to be done what with building infrastructure and arming the "mustered mob" with something better than shotguns.[:@]

What would be a good economic plan to follow in the opening months of the Union war effort? Should I print more money (Mints), try for compound interest on investments (Banks) or go for more of an activist approach on monetary polcies (Capitol)? Also, what financial returns can be had from good foriegn relations, apart from those excellent Enfield rifles?[&:]



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 8:27:19 AM)

If you're the USA, you can't get money through diplomacy -- only the CSA can. Because of their cost and build time, banks only make sense if you build them in the first year of the game -- otherwise, they probably won't pay for themselves before the war ends. So mints is probably the way to go. (And make sure not to make the rookie mistake of building a mint in a city that is set to produce labor instead of money!)

Here's a question: if you're playing with supply rules toggled on, are you making sure to put your divisions/corps/armies on low or no supply when you can, in order to save money? For example, if it's winter and the AOP is back in Maryland and not about to fight, it would be a waste of money to put it on normal or high supply (unless you're trying to steer replacement troops to it). So a great way of maximizing one's money is to pay close attention to supply.

As for diplomacy, you do want to invest in it, not only to prevent the South from doing well, but also because some of those European guns are great for sharpshooting, and maybe you can take out some of those superior CSA generals and even things up a bit.

And as for capitols, you need one for a province to be productive, but a second one does nothing, so don't build capitols!



Erik Rutins -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 1:17:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scona
Or rather "Going broke in '62". After 3 do overs on the opening months of the Standard game as the Union, I find myself triped up by the same problem. I start to max out economically by the begining of March in 1862, and there is so much that has to be done what with building infrastructure and arming the "mustered mob" with something better than shotguns.[:@]


If money is the problem, try not spending any for the first two turns to build up a good reserve, then limit yourself to not spending more than a certain amount so that you will continue to have a good ongoing interest-based income as well. Building mints and banks (as Gil said, particularly in the first year) can definitely help. You have to keep a balance between expanding your economy's production and spending it on the military needs, otherwise you will definitely start outpacing your production.

Also, don't over-muster/over-draft until you have an economy that can support those troops while continuing to expand.

Regards,

- Erik



Ironclad -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 3:16:26 PM)

Scona:

In addition as the Union tends to be labour rich during play consider switching more of your cities (without factories) over to money at the start . I find that very helpful in Southern Steel and probably is equally valid in the standard scenario. By doing so you reduce the number of extra mints required and so save on money and building slots that will be needed for other critical developments or weaponry.



Scona -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 8:26:11 PM)

Additional material for this thread. I did some resource shifting and found that the money problem can be eased by making New York city a "money" supplier instead of a "labour" supplier. With a shift from 20 labour to 17 dollars in the big apple, I seem to be not so cash strapped and still have enough labour for my current schemes. As it has such a large production base, New York is the "tail which wags the dog" in the Union economy[X(]; but just changing provincial outputs without carefull analysis is not something which ought to be done. Based on prior posts, it seems that provinces have to be organized around specializations in the 4 commodity groups for the economy to function well.



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 8:28:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scona

Additional material for this thread. I did some resource shifting and found that the money problem can be eased by making New York city a "money" supplier instead of a "labour" supplier. With a shift from 20 labour to 17 dollars in the big apple, I seem to be not so cash strapped and still have enough labour for my current schemes. As it has such a large production base, New York is the "tail which wags the dog" in the Union economy[X(]; but just changing provincial outputs without carefull analysis is not something which ought to be done. Based on prior posts, it seems that provinces have to be organized around specializations in the 4 commodity groups for the economy to function well.


Yes, that's a good thing to do. Obviously, it's economically inefficient at the micro-level to have NYC produce 17 of something instead of 20, but overall that one change can make a difference.

I'd also advise playing with winter rules (that is, forces have trouble moving in the winter months), which provides a much-needed breather for both sides to build up their economies and buff up their forces.



Ironclad -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (10/17/2007 8:48:21 PM)

Good to see that you found a manageable switch. I had forgotten just how much tighter the resources are for the Union in the standard game so there is less flexibility for doing that than suggested previously.




Scona -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/4/2007 7:51:48 PM)

Update!

After patching up to 1.923 the economy is no longer a problem, there is losts to spend on everything! Now I can focus on the historic Union problems of 1861-62, namely shaky troops. In my latest run at the mod scenerio "No Bull Run", I presided over the collapse of my fall offensive into Virginia at "1st Fredricksburg"; 36,000 Yanks against 17,000 Rebs fought over 1 and 1/2 days back and forth over a wooded stream valley. Results 8000 northern losses versus 5000 southern, a rout and several able brigade commanders wounded.[8|] Back to the training grounds...



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/4/2007 8:47:41 PM)

Excellent! Keep plugging away. But my advice would be not to get too attached to your current game, since the upcoming patch will break all save files.



Mike Solli -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 5:27:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Excellent! Keep plugging away. But my advice would be not to get too attached to your current game, since the upcoming patch will break all save files.


Upcoming patch?! I was planning on starting a game over the Thanksgiving break. Should I wait?



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 5:59:23 PM)

I'd expect that should be possible. No official word on a release date for the gold patch, but it shouldn't be too long.



Mike Solli -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 6:36:00 PM)

Very cool.  Is there a list of what's changed anywhere?



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 7:43:56 PM)

Not yet, but if you read the threads announcing the public beta-testing for 10.5 and 10.9, that would have most of them. This is not a patch on the scale of what I call our "Omnibus Patch" (1.9.23), but is nonetheless a VERY significant patch, in terms of bug fixes, game-balance issues, strengthening the AI further, new features, historical details, etc. Those who have been waiting for the gold version of the patch will definitely like what they see.



Mike Solli -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 8:18:41 PM)

Ok, thanks Gil.



Gil R. -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 8:33:56 PM)

Sure. By the way, it's good to see that you're still out there. I haven't seen your squirrel avatar in these parts in a while.



Mike Solli -> RE: Goin' (for) broke in '62 (11/14/2007 9:24:08 PM)

Yeah, I'm still around.  My unit is getting ready to deploy and getting busy preparing.  Once I get through the pre-mob stuff and the time at the mob station, I should have plenty of time to dig into this game. [:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.445313