War Exhaustion Out of Control

[Ugsome]

So I have a pretty massive nation at this point. Instead of getting easier that is making the game harder. As soon as I declare war on some one and move my troops in my war weariness starts shooting through the roof and then I spend the next ten years playing rebellion whack a mole until the number comes down.

I'm not even losing that many troops. My reserves are barely even touched. What is the deal? Is there a way to reduce the speed at which war exhaustion builds up. My nation can hardly be exhausted when I have 90% of my war machine intact.

Here is my current kingdom. After 1 year of war with spain my War Exhaustion is at 17+.

Thanks

[JoeGiavani]

Obviously controlling all of Germany, Italy, France and Hungary would be a complete walk in the park historically. It's not like any of those nations were proud or willing to defend themselves.

If you don't like war weariness, don't go to war.

[Ugsome]

I understand it as a mechanic to slow down endless war. What i dont understand is why i could go to war for 20 years at a time when I was a little nation with ten provinces. I would lose tons of men year after year.

What i want to know is why, when I am this big, when my army is massive, can I not handle going to war for more than a year.

[Azonalanthious]

What type of stack sizes are you looking at and are you running at over limits in provinces? My best guess from the screenie you posted is that you are running a large number of armies into enemy territory where they are getting attrited. WE is based on losses, NOT losses relative to size. Lots of casualties due to attrition, even if your battles aren't bad and it doesn't make a big dent in your manpower reserves, can produce the effect you are seeing. Try one or two large armies to deal with enemy armies, and keep the rest of your forces as smaller 3-5k siege forces to minimize attrition.

[JoeGiavani]

On the army overview screen you'll see a war exhaustion rating, hovering the curser over it will tell you what modifiers are affecting it. Usually it'll be a leader skill subtracting it, a peace rating (though that won't apply to you), an attrition rating and an occupation rating that is based on how many provinces are occupied by the enemy.

[Ugsome]

What type of stack sizes are you looking at and are you running at over limits in provinces? My best guess from the screenie you posted is that you are running a large number of armies into enemy territory where they are getting attrited. WE is based on losses, NOT losses relative to size. Lots of casualties due to attrition, even if your battles aren't bad and it doesn't make a big dent in your manpower reserves, can produce the effect you are seeing. Try one or two large armies to deal with enemy armies, and keep the rest of your forces as smaller 3-5k siege forces to minimize attrition.

It has got to be my doom stacks that are killing me then. I was sending massive sized armies in and crushing the opposition. I will try sending smaller stacks in.

[Viking]

Attrition counts towards WE, so be careful of your doom stacks.

But there is a problem with WE for large (and small) countries. If you are the HRE with a massive alliance built up against you and you go to war with Spain, The Ottomans, Poland, Naples, England, Sweden and Russia you will be fighting 20 battles on 7 fronts within a few months. This will give you 10 times as much WE as one of your enemies who only fought 2 battles on 1 front.

I've found this to be particularly bad in Russia where one year of fighting with huge stacks of low quality troops leads to 10+% WE usually within one year.

[Reinisable]

But that makes the game more balanced, where's the harm in that?

[Viking]

But that makes the game more balanced, where's the harm in that?

But why do two countries which fight battles with 50% of their army losing 10% each year for 5 years have WE proportional to army size rather than losses?

Why do peasants revolt against the king trying to protect them from invaders?


The problem is that it is not a balance mechanism, the problem is that it is part of a snowball mechanism. WE leads to revolts which lead to more battles which lead to more WE. More battles lead to less manpower which leads to less war capacity, which in turn means that other countries refuse white peace's at -20%, which in turn means the war continues. Which means that more countries pile in because both combatants are at 0% War Capacity.

I've seen it again and again (mostly with the A.I. and sometimes with me when I see my army wiped out due to low morale). Major powers get wiped out and/or reduced to a few provinces by this mechanism. Poland, France, The Ottomans, England as well as my Muscovy had this happen to them in my last game.

[Azonalanthious]

But why do two countries which fight battles with 50% of their army losing 10% each year for 5 years have WE proportional to army size rather than losses?

Why do peasants revolt against the king trying to protect them from invaders?


The problem is that it is not a balance mechanism, the problem is that it is part of a snowball mechanism. WE leads to revolts which lead to more battles which lead to more WE. More battles lead to less manpower which leads to less war capacity, which in turn means that other countries refuse white peace's at -20%, which in turn means the war continues. Which means that more countries pile in because both combatants are at 0% War Capacity.

I've seen it again and again (mostly with the A.I. and sometimes with me when I see my army wiped out due to low morale). Major powers get wiped out and/or reduced to a few provinces by this mechanism. Poland, France, The Ottomans, England as well as my Muscovy had this happen to them in my last game.

And, of course, history never saw great empires which eventually fell appart into smaller nations, often due to combinations of revolts and external wars... except spain. Well, and rome. And byzantium. And the ottomans, napoleonic france, brittian, the umayad muslims, alexander the great's empire... well, you get the point.

[gord96]

And, of course, history never saw great empires which eventually fell appart into smaller nations, often due to combinations of revolts and external wars... except spain. Well, and rome. And byzantium. And the ottomans, napoleonic france, brittian, the umayad muslims, alexander the great's empire... well, you get the point.

good post. thats why i like EU3. One of the challenges is holding your empire together. revolts from WE makes sense as the best time for someone to rebel against their king or emperor is when their troops are off fighting somewhere else. and of course people get upset when a king sends their sons off to die in some far off land. WE is a great mechanic. without it EU3 would get stale as you could go to war forever.

[Viking]

And, of course, history never saw great empires which eventually fell appart into smaller nations, often due to combinations of revolts and external wars... except spain. Well, and rome. And byzantium. And the ottomans, napoleonic france, brittian, the umayad muslims, alexander the great's empire... well, you get the point.

No I didn't get your point, but that is mainly because you didn't make one

None of you examples are to the point.

Spain, invaded and vassalized plus colonial revolts and war against Great Britain means that colonial revolts should succeed? No, they only did so after the occupation, war and blockade was ended after the Napoleonic Wars. Spanish colonial possessions remained fiercely loyal during the worst of the war as the British found out during their Rio Plata expedition.

Rome, at what point did roman peasants and anti-roman nationalists revolt?

Byzantinum, same question.

Ottomans, non-state religion revolters in highly intolerant empire. EUIII has mechanism.

Napoleonic France lost it's non-french provinces. This does not happen with the WE-WC-MP snowball, you lose everything. Only rebels against Napoleonic France inside Napoleonic France? Yes, Vendeé Royalists and Tyrol Nationalists Not a single peasant revolt in core cosmopolitaine provinces.

Britain - I blame the anti-colonialist Labour government of Clement Atlee. Apart from Aden, not a single colonial revolt succeeded. In fact in more than one place the successful suppression of revolt was a pre-requisite for granting independence (e.g. Malaya and Kenya)

I don't know enough about the Umayaids

Nobody, and I mean Nobody invaded Alexanders Empire. It is a case of 10 pretenders, not peasants revolting.


Put a country under stress and it will fail, yes. But do tell me since all your examples are outside of the time period of this game (yes I know Bolivar was in revolt in 1821 and that Byzantinum survived past the starting date) can you tell me a country which was driven to exhaustion by invasions and the ravages of war? Poland during the Deluge. And what happened? Did Mazovia, Krakow, Ukraine, Lithuania, Polotsk, The Knights and Kurland all declare independence? Nope, the country was destroyed and ravaged, the people to this day talk about it, but not a single sq meter of land was lost. The polish peasants rose against the swedes, not the polish king.

[Viking]

good post. thats why i like EU3. One of the challenges is holding your empire together. revolts from WE makes sense as the best time for someone to rebel against their king or emperor is when their troops are off fighting somewhere else. and of course people get upset when a king sends their sons off to die in some far off land. WE is a great mechanic. without it EU3 would get stale as you could go to war forever.

I agree WE has be a factor. But historically set in when kings no longer could afford to pay for the war and had to impose special taxes. There were no conscription riots during this time period. If WE is supposed to represent a king sending their sons to die in a far off war, then I assume you will agree that WE should not happen when some other king is sending somebody else's sons off to invade your country? The Snowball happens to the country being invaded. WE due to many battles, MP loss due to constant losses and WC loss when MP and WE is lost leading to more war with more WE and MP.

WE should stop me from futilely invading someone else. It should not provide a bigger threat to the state than the invading forces.

[Azonalanthious]

Fine: the Golden Horde. Its economic power and trade routes were devistated during an unsuccessful war of conquest against the timurids near the end of the 1300s (just a hair before the start of the game) - war exhaustion in game terms. Following the end of that war, it never managed to fully recover, being plauged with internal revolts and pretenders and ultimately disolved into the successor states of Qasim Khanate, Khanate of Kazan, Khanate of Astrakhan, Kazakh Khanate, Uzbek Khanate, and Khanate of Crimea. And before you argue that the tribe succession events already in place cover this, they don't break up the empire, the just cause chaos in taking full control. The Golden Horde fell appart.

[Ugsome]

You guys are getting a little too far down in the weeds on this one. I wasn't so much looking for 'does it make sense?' so much as 'what mechanically is causing it?'

[Viking]

You guys are getting a little too far down in the weeds on this one. I wasn't so much looking for 'does it make sense?' so much as 'what mechanically is causing it?'

Basically anything happens during a war causes it. You get it from attrition, battles, losses, occupied provinces etc. etc. It is reduced by Monarch ability and by being at peace.

It is a global modifier adding revolt risk, reducing economic output AND increasing recruitment time and cost for units.

Azonalanthious argues that it works just fine. To a large extent I agree with that, but I believe it has some balance issues as well as ahistorical consequences.

[Grunthex]

But that's what makes the EU forums so much fun! Once the question is answered, things go all a-skelter into some random topic, and you end up learning something half the time on a subject you never expected!

[Viking]

Fine: the Golden Horde. Its economic power and trade routes were devistated during an unsuccessful war of conquest against the timurids near the end of the 1300s (just a hair before the start of the game) - war exhaustion in game terms. Following the end of that war, it never managed to fully recover, being plauged with internal revolts and pretenders and ultimately disolved into the successor states of Qasim Khanate, Khanate of Kazan, Khanate of Astrakhan, Kazakh Khanate, Uzbek Khanate, and Khanate of Crimea. And before you argue that the tribe succession events already in place cover this, they don't break up the empire, the just cause chaos in taking full control. The Golden Horde fell appart.

Agreed. As you pre-empted we do have pretender event, we have the succession +10% rr for the Tribal states. And the player playing the golden horde should and can resist this. The succession crisis is a function of the nature of tribal states. During this time period we have many disasterous wars between european powers. We have multiple cases where a state will have it's army destroyed the bulk of it's provinces conquered and descend into chaos only to not break up.

Only in EUIII HTTT it happens way too often. Then the question is, what is causing it. I've suggested that War Exhaustion, War Capacity, Manpower and Bandwagoning are causing many of these national collapses.

[Viking]

I understand it as a mechanic to slow down endless war. What i dont understand is why i could go to war for 20 years at a time when I was a little nation with ten provinces. I would lose tons of men year after year.

What i want to know is why, when I am this big, when my army is massive, can I not handle going to war for more than a year.

To answer this

Each time you fight a battle you will see a little report screen showing the losses. Above the losses there are some letters and numbers

P:+4.50
T:+2.40
WE:+0.50

For winning that battle the winner got 4.5 Prestige, 2.4 Naval Tradition and 0.5 more War Exhaustion the loser lost 4.5 prestige, gained 2.5 Naval Tradition and gained 1.75 War Exhaustion

like in this image below



From http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...d.php?t=450752
Range's Morocco - Casablanca AAR

So imagine this at the start of the game you have 3-5 provinces, 1 army and you fight countries with 3-5 provinces and have 1 army. You fight a long war with one or two battles per year assuming you win one and lose one you gain 2 WE per year, your monarch reduces that by up to 0.9 per year (for a ADM 9 monarch). In effect you gain 1 WE per year of war.

Now, fast forward 100 years. You are now a continent spanning empire with 200 provinces and 20 armies. This time you go to war again, against an alliance of similar size to your own country. Again each of your armies fights just as hard as that first one two battles per year one lost for 1.5 WE and one won for 0.5. This time you gain 40 WE in the first year and lose 0.9 for your monarch. There are upper limits on WE, so you won't see it go past 20 iirc. This is a bit simplified, but this is pretty much the case. You'll get more WE from attrition and other things, but since you now have 20 armies, you will gain it 20 times as fast.

[Reinisable]

To answer this

Each time you fight a battle you will see a little report screen showing the losses. Above the losses there are some letters and numbers

P:+4.50
T:+2.40
WE:+0.50

For winning that battle the winner got 4.5 Prestige, 2.4 Naval Tradition and 0.5 more War Exhaustion the loser lost 4.5 prestige, gained 2.5 Naval Tradition and gained 1.75 War Exhaustion

like in this image below



From http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...d.php?t=450752
Range's Morocco - Casablanca AAR

So imagine this at the start of the game you have 3-5 provinces, 1 army and you fight countries with 3-5 provinces and have 1 army. You fight a long war with one or two battles per year assuming you win one and lose one you gain 2 WE per year, your monarch reduces that by up to 0.9 per year (for a ADM 9 monarch). In effect you gain 1 WE per year of war.

Now, fast forward 100 years. You are now a continent spanning empire with 200 provinces and 20 armies. This time you go to war again, against an alliance of similar size to your own country. Again each of your armies fights just as hard as that first one two battles per year one lost for 1.5 WE and one won for 0.5. This time you gain 40 WE in the first year and lose 0.9 for your monarch. There are upper limits on WE, so you won't see it go past 20 iirc. This is a bit simplified, but this is pretty much the case. You'll get more WE from attrition and other things, but since you now have 20 armies, you will gain it 20 times as fast.

Isn't that exactly what happened to Napoleon? When he went to war with Russia he mobilized around 650 k soldiers, but most of them were Germans, Italians etc. and no one was willing to give their life away for Napoleon except the French and Polish. In game terms Napoleon went into scorched provinces, that caused attrition, which caused war exhaustion, which caused his empire to fall. I know it is not entirely how it happened but the game represents it that way. Imagine your HRE has a lot of French who are not willing to fight for you, they die, you get a lot of WE, you get a lot of revolt, and if you don't deal with them your empire will collapse.