I was about to comment the exact same thing. Even if the nation is still in decline it'd be neat to maybe be able to turn it around a little with my economic expansion.
@@heathclark318 Yes, though it’s more just changing the files yourself, which is basically modding. It takes a good while to go through it. But I changed things around so much that the economy was not debt based. Tax and tariff changes. This affects AI, so the union will have a substantial economic advantage for income over the CSA. If you play CSA mostly, rush ironclads and take naval supremacy and you can overtake Union economy.
Nice, thanks... after playing this for awhile, I agree "don't build buildings." As CSA though i believe it is worth it to upgrade your Iron and Nitre mines. PS: Raiding is OP!
@greatscots in my current game, the entire Union West is starving. Many immobile armies. Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Springfield are all smoking ruins with ZERO industry.
That actually sounds just right. Considering the duration of the war, it's unrealistic that general economic development would have a high enough return on investment to actually be worth it for the war economy. Building buildings should, indeed, be a way to deal with critical shortages and other specific war-economic challenges. Which would be particularly relevant for the CSA if blockaded and unable to import what you need. I kind of line the deep-but-under-the-hood nature of the economy. Mostly it's there and runs on its own without you having either the need nor the ability to affect it much. But the fact that it's there enables the game to handle the consequences of economic warfare, of how lacking one thing leads to another thing and ultimately results in you having less money and credit for the war effort.
A couple of thoughts: 1) I know you're not a fan of the Industrialization starting policy, BUT...for someone trying to figure out how to help keep their economic situation from running away from them, I think you'd agree that it's a good starting policy to pick. Maybe it's not the most balanced or appropriately costed starting policy, but if a new player is trying to keep their economy from becoming a dumpster fire, wouldn't you agree that it's a worthy starting option? 2) On the navy, one thing I've noticed since the latest patch (V 1.119) is that it now seems to take much longer for ships from the harbor to reach a fleet. What used to take maybe 5-7 days is now taking closer to 19 days in my current campaign. I think the devs might have caught on to the whole "just keep them in harbor to cut costs, deploy them real quick for a battle/fort assault, then send them back to harbor" approach to managing naval upkeep costs. Or, maybe it's just a coincidence based on a small sample size in my current campaign. Time will tell.
1) Industrialization is a good policy. The railroads give you military utility. The population bonus can be nice and the morale penalty isn’t much. In a few tests with and without it, I noticed tariff revenue was lower with it and income tax didn’t seem to rise with the 20% population buff. 2) I believe the devs indicated in a Steam post reply to someone else they would increase it because someone showed how you could cheese your navy all around by moving ships to harbor and then making them reappear half the country away by adding them to a fleet there.
@@greatscots On #2, this completely makes sense. Now they just need a way to allow for legitimate transfers of ships between fleets, otherwise the same anti-cheese mechanic will make a ship take weeks to move from one fleet to another in the same location...
I didn't even realize the policies had an adjustment slider! Thanks dude! I just started a Union campaign and boy I wish I hadn't burned so much pre-war credit on buildings.
I play on max difficulty across the board and I've found that the economy means literally nothing. Like I've never had issues getting weapons or things I need....lol like literally pointless.
I will say this, NEVER DROP politics subsidy...i did it on my campaign for CSA after November 62' and it removed act 2 from my policies and had to rereseach everything on act 2 and it killed my credit like a greek tragedy, went from B to CCC- before i even realized it, cut my army in half and still nothing... until i saw my policies...😅 ahhhh shit
Nice video for once to the point and straight. Now the only one i disagree is on import for CSa and only Austrian rifles/ Lorenz guns. In my game csa takes 258 days to deliver any home made rifle project for 10k rifles and cost 6.2/6.3m. Lorenz is an amazing value for money rifle for csa and more important it is scalable because they deliver 10k rifles in … 37 days for 6m. There is no way you beat that with any csa made weapons especially if you don’t invest in industry/buildings (which i don’t disagree on profitability argument). So no import at the exception of Austrian rifles:)
So i am currently playing 1862 scenario and from beginning you already have the funds to get the Austrian rifle. Now for scalability and value for money (Lorenz) purpose, with csa on 1861, i think it is definitely a must otherwise how can you get enough rifles for your troops.
@@greatscots yes you explain that but i think you simply cannot avoid it for south at least for scalability issues. Otherwise you can’t deliver rifles and you will let your valuable soldiers getting slaughtered. And cost wise the Lorenz is extremely beneficial it is the cheapest gun to get with above average effectiveness. I have not played north for a very long time so maybe for federal side your point is valid. Again it is an exception, outside of Austrian rifles i don’t see import as profitable.
Don't you need to build prisons? Mine always gets overpopulated as I'm pretty aggressive in attack. Also, don't you need to build more farms to feed your army as it grows?
Yes, I usually end up building prisons, especially with the way I've modded the game. In vanilla, I think it's a roleplaying choice and there are cheaper ways to buy support. No, you don't need to grow more food. You would think so, but the game does not model shortages well, so you will always be able to import whatever you cannot produce. In fact, the game incentivizes you to do so since you can place tariffs on those imports and the detrimental effect of those tariffs is not felt.
@GreatScots Wow ok. Was going to ask if your foreign support is low (i.e. intervention %) does it cause a problem for imports, but I doubt it, lol. Anyway, thanks for the help man! I'm a micromanage junkie also
Game developer makes unusable and punishing ecenomy system in game insteasd even somehow working UI or units in field or ordering system etc. Game is beyond saveable unfortunately.
The stage of the campaign doesn't affect much for me, but it's usually Re-bored, Legacy Rifles, and Confederate Rifles for infantry, Medium Carbines (and I use all 3) for cav, and then Cast Arty (for 12-lb Napoleons) and then either Parrots or Rifled Arty.
@@greatscots What economic polices and projects do you recommend for CSA? I was watching part of your newest CSA playthrough; do you ever subsidize industry, and if so, how much and when do you start? Thanks for your wealth of info.
@@JoeDillanger To your question about industrial subsidies, no, I no longer really pursue them, unless there's something else I want. In my current Union campaign, I want Trade Routes and I need Industry 2 for that, so I'll do it, but not early. With the mods I've made, in part because of how the economy functions, it just doesn't make sense to pursue industry on either side. With respect to projects, I like Civil Order early and then Propaganda later with my political/ admin subsidies. I like Farm Mechanization with my Ag subsidies. Military subsidies, I like Recruiting Offices til I get my numbers up and then Logistics Reforms to get the costs down. On Eco subsidies, either don't take them or the Credit Rating one. But I do this all on my modified campaign that plays a bit differently than vanilla. On policies/ acts, my main focus is on 1) manpower and 2) money/credit rating, so a lot in the Military and Economy research tree and a little bit in the Ag tree.
I wish they would update the game to make buildings essential to winning. That would make the game much more fun.
^this is exactly how I feel.
Yea I mean when there is a general consensus to simply avoid an entire element of the game - tells you something
I was about to comment the exact same thing. Even if the nation is still in decline it'd be neat to maybe be able to turn it around a little with my economic expansion.
Can any of these issue be solved with modding?
@@heathclark318
Yes, though it’s more just changing the files yourself, which is basically modding. It takes a good while to go through it. But I changed things around so much that the economy was not debt based. Tax and tariff changes. This affects AI, so the union will have a substantial economic advantage for income over the CSA. If you play CSA mostly, rush ironclads and take naval supremacy and you can overtake Union economy.
Nice, thanks... after playing this for awhile, I agree "don't build buildings."
As CSA though i believe it is worth it to upgrade your Iron and Nitre mines.
PS: Raiding is OP!
I have to get into raiding. I’ve done a little as the Union but almost none as CSA.
@greatscots in my current game, the entire Union West is starving. Many immobile armies. Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Springfield are all smoking ruins with ZERO industry.
That actually sounds just right. Considering the duration of the war, it's unrealistic that general economic development would have a high enough return on investment to actually be worth it for the war economy. Building buildings should, indeed, be a way to deal with critical shortages and other specific war-economic challenges. Which would be particularly relevant for the CSA if blockaded and unable to import what you need.
I kind of line the deep-but-under-the-hood nature of the economy. Mostly it's there and runs on its own without you having either the need nor the ability to affect it much. But the fact that it's there enables the game to handle the consequences of economic warfare, of how lacking one thing leads to another thing and ultimately results in you having less money and credit for the war effort.
A couple of thoughts:
1) I know you're not a fan of the Industrialization starting policy, BUT...for someone trying to figure out how to help keep their economic situation from running away from them, I think you'd agree that it's a good starting policy to pick. Maybe it's not the most balanced or appropriately costed starting policy, but if a new player is trying to keep their economy from becoming a dumpster fire, wouldn't you agree that it's a worthy starting option?
2) On the navy, one thing I've noticed since the latest patch (V 1.119) is that it now seems to take much longer for ships from the harbor to reach a fleet. What used to take maybe 5-7 days is now taking closer to 19 days in my current campaign. I think the devs might have caught on to the whole "just keep them in harbor to cut costs, deploy them real quick for a battle/fort assault, then send them back to harbor" approach to managing naval upkeep costs. Or, maybe it's just a coincidence based on a small sample size in my current campaign. Time will tell.
1) Industrialization is a good policy. The railroads give you military utility. The population bonus can be nice and the morale penalty isn’t much. In a few tests with and without it, I noticed tariff revenue was lower with it and income tax didn’t seem to rise with the 20% population buff.
2) I believe the devs indicated in a Steam post reply to someone else they would increase it because someone showed how you could cheese your navy all around by moving ships to harbor and then making them reappear half the country away by adding them to a fleet there.
@@greatscots On #2, this completely makes sense. Now they just need a way to allow for legitimate transfers of ships between fleets, otherwise the same anti-cheese mechanic will make a ship take weeks to move from one fleet to another in the same location...
10:14 "this game is an exercise in controled fiscal decline" - Well put. Closest game similar game is Attila Total War.
I didn't even realize the policies had an adjustment slider! Thanks dude! I just started a Union campaign and boy I wish I hadn't burned so much pre-war credit on buildings.
I play on max difficulty across the board and I've found that the economy means literally nothing. Like I've never had issues getting weapons or things I need....lol like literally pointless.
there is the prison camps and other things like hospitals and all which are a must. especally to keep the casulities down.
Yea those two and supply depots as needed are the better building options.
Nicely informative. Thanks.
Very helpful. Thank you!
Thank you for your tips.
I will say this, NEVER DROP politics subsidy...i did it on my campaign for CSA after November 62' and it removed act 2 from my policies and had to rereseach everything on act 2 and it killed my credit like a greek tragedy, went from B to CCC- before i even realized it, cut my army in half and still nothing... until i saw my policies...😅 ahhhh shit
Yeah, Politics usually can be used at least for Propaganda if nothing else looks good.
Nice video for once to the point and straight.
Now the only one i disagree is on import for CSa and only Austrian rifles/ Lorenz guns.
In my game csa takes 258 days to deliver any home made rifle project for 10k rifles and cost 6.2/6.3m.
Lorenz is an amazing value for money rifle for csa and more important it is scalable because they deliver 10k rifles in … 37 days for 6m. There is no way you beat that with any csa made weapons especially if you don’t invest in industry/buildings (which i don’t disagree on profitability argument).
So no import at the exception of Austrian rifles:)
How long does it take for those subsidies?
So i am currently playing 1862 scenario and from beginning you already have the funds to get the Austrian rifle.
Now for scalability and value for money (Lorenz) purpose, with csa on 1861, i think it is definitely a must otherwise how can you get enough rifles for your troops.
@@patricebarrau308 If it ain’t broke, I guess. I stopped importing weapons when I found their recurring cost was so much.
@@greatscots yes you explain that but i think you simply cannot avoid it for south at least for scalability issues.
Otherwise you can’t deliver rifles and you will let your valuable soldiers getting slaughtered.
And cost wise the Lorenz is extremely beneficial it is the cheapest gun to get with above average effectiveness.
I have not played north for a very long time so maybe for federal side your point is valid.
Again it is an exception, outside of Austrian rifles i don’t see import as profitable.
Don't you need to build prisons? Mine always gets overpopulated as I'm pretty aggressive in attack. Also, don't you need to build more farms to feed your army as it grows?
Yes, I usually end up building prisons, especially with the way I've modded the game. In vanilla, I think it's a roleplaying choice and there are cheaper ways to buy support. No, you don't need to grow more food. You would think so, but the game does not model shortages well, so you will always be able to import whatever you cannot produce. In fact, the game incentivizes you to do so since you can place tariffs on those imports and the detrimental effect of those tariffs is not felt.
@@greatscots
Ok thanks. That's one less thing to worry about. Was thinking I would need to make metal/ iron ore factories for weapons and ammo?
@@Alex-ej4wm Yeah, you would think so, but, no, you don't have to. You'll just be able to import whatever you don't produce.
@GreatScots
Wow ok. Was going to ask if your foreign support is low (i.e. intervention %) does it cause a problem for imports, but I doubt it, lol.
Anyway, thanks for the help man! I'm a micromanage junkie also
Game developer makes unusable and punishing ecenomy system in game insteasd even somehow working UI or units in field or ordering system etc. Game is beyond saveable unfortunately.
Appreciate the video.
Sure thing!
you cant tell me what to do, your not my dad!
Which firearms do you employ for CSA early, mid, and late game?
The stage of the campaign doesn't affect much for me, but it's usually Re-bored, Legacy Rifles, and Confederate Rifles for infantry, Medium Carbines (and I use all 3) for cav, and then Cast Arty (for 12-lb Napoleons) and then either Parrots or Rifled Arty.
@@greatscots Thanks for info.
@@greatscots What economic polices and projects do you recommend for CSA? I was watching part of your newest CSA playthrough; do you ever subsidize industry, and if so, how much and when do you start? Thanks for your wealth of info.
@@JoeDillanger To your question about industrial subsidies, no, I no longer really pursue them, unless there's something else I want. In my current Union campaign, I want Trade Routes and I need Industry 2 for that, so I'll do it, but not early. With the mods I've made, in part because of how the economy functions, it just doesn't make sense to pursue industry on either side.
With respect to projects, I like Civil Order early and then Propaganda later with my political/ admin subsidies. I like Farm Mechanization with my Ag subsidies. Military subsidies, I like Recruiting Offices til I get my numbers up and then Logistics Reforms to get the costs down. On Eco subsidies, either don't take them or the Credit Rating one. But I do this all on my modified campaign that plays a bit differently than vanilla.
On policies/ acts, my main focus is on 1) manpower and 2) money/credit rating, so a lot in the Military and Economy research tree and a little bit in the Ag tree.
@@greatscots Thanks for input. I appreciate it.