• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would have closed the election except for two things: the server problem during the weekend and a big problem over the domestic policies.

The problem is with our armies policies. Our DPs might be getting quite swell, but offensiveness 4 is quite unacceptable, since both offensive 1 and offensive 9 are a lot more desirable for our armies. Offensive 1 offers a very useful bonus to siege that not only increases the speed of sieges, but allows default commanders to take over allies sieges leaded by default commanders (not always desirable), while offensive 9 gives a nice bonus to shock. Besides, from quality 8 to quality 9, a nice bonus to fire is given.

As it is, offensive is a concern to 4 of the 5 senators that have voted, but they are split, exactly in half, proposing an increase and a decrease. The result right now would be a sixtuple tie!!!! According to precedence:

First and second DP clicks : a tie between increase in Aristo and decrease in offensive (2 votes each)

Third DP click: increase in offensive (2 votes)

Also with two votes: another increase in Aristo, followed by a tie between an increase in Quality and a decrease in Mercantilism.

Obviously more votes are needed to solve this madness, or we are going to hurt our stability to decrease and increase our offensiveness every ten years :D
 
With a small bribe to one of the Doges' clerks, venerable senator Barbarigo got his vote back from the sealed urn where it had been kept for two days now. A new vote was put back, and a the clerk fastened a new seal...

[The actual vote is displayed in my old vote post.]
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen, after these inspiring goals by our doge, I declare that I would like to vote concerning our internal policies anyway.

Code:
O-, O-, O-

//Leonardo Lando


OOC: I would prefer a bonus in siege rather than in shock, as you can see. Better to take the enemies lands, as someone pointed out the way to winning a war.
 
Knud Dante enters, and realises there is an election going on, he casts his vote:
Code:
O-, A-, A-
He then leaves, not knowing that he might have added another tie in the votes.
 
Fellow Senators

I think we are mistaken persuing the land strategy of siege rather than shock.

We are not an expansionist state (our reputation prevents us acquiring much land). We may seek to gain a rich port or two (Alexandria), but we will be mostly trying to preserve what we have for the forseeable future.

Our armies are constantly losing battles to more land oriented nations, and given our geography there are many choke points to defend, so it is not easy to avoid battle and simply siege.

For these reasons I feel we must have an offensive strategy.

But as the wise Fodoroni says, we must go one way or the other.

I propose a simple offensive or defensive vote, and the side that loses agree to change its votes accordingly.

Ernesto Gandolfi II
 
Pesaro.gif
Noble Senators,
Honourable Doge,
Fellow Venetians,

I support Senator Gandolfi’s petition.

The matter of national defence is an important one, but it starts to thrust other serious discussions into the background. So let us decide in a separate vote about our military strategy, and then return to previous debates.

Regards,

Massimiliano Pesaro
 
Clearly this is an issue that divides the senate. It might be already clear by the number of votes that each option is getting, as four senators vote for reduction in offensiveness while two vote for increase and one does not vote on the issue. But I do find great the argument from senator Gandolfi that we must be offensive in order to defend ourselves :rofl:
Clearly senator Gandolfi has read "De re militari" from Flavius Vegetius Renatus, "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem"

In any case, as per rules and precedence, when two senators ask for an election, they get it. Currently the DPs votes stand at:

1) O- (4 votes)
2) O- (3 votes)
3) A+ (2 votes) with precedence for being first choice over other 2 voters (O+, A+ and O- in that order).

What I will do is close the election, and in order of not delaying further the session, I will apply an increase in Aristocracy in 1539. For 1549 and 1559 I will move the offensive slide according to the results of the following appendix to election 48:

[size=+1]Election 48b. Offensive Domestic Policy[/size]

Simply state if you prefer the siege bonus or the shock bonus. Remember to put it between quotes so I can find it easily.

Our current situation is at offensiveness 4. The siege bonus is acquired at offensiveness 1 and the shock bonus is acquired at offensiveness 9. Other effects are:

Code:
                    Off. 1   Off. 9
Morale difference:  -0.15    +0.15
Artillery cost:      -9 D     +9 D
Fortification cost:  -45%     +45%
shock:                -1       +1
siege:                +1       -1

The importance of the bonuses cannot be overstated and clearly outweight all the rest. Being offensive 1 or 9 are both equally viable in SP and respond to personal preferences. The shock bonus is very important in the first half of the game, and the shock malus of O1 does have an impact. As the importance of fire increases, fortresses increase and morale is obtained through technology, the siege bonus becomes more important. There is really no point in paying stability for going all the way in offensiveness or defensiveness once the bonus is obtained.

Elections 47 and 48 are now closed. Results for elections:

Election 47. 1539-1549 International relations

Dear Friends: Spain (5/5 votes), Theodoros (4/5 votes) and Bulgary (4/5 votes).

Friends (with carry over): Hungary (4/5 votes), Papal States (4/5 votes), Austria (4/5 votes), The Knights (4/5 votes) and France (3/5 votes).

Adversaries (with carry over): Ottoman Empire (5/5 votes), Genoa (4/5 votes) and Portugal (3/5 votes).

Enemies: Egypt (3/5 votes)

Peace was decided (4/5 votes).

Election 48. 1539-1559 Domestic Policies

1539: Increase in Aristocracy
1549: Change in Offensiveness to be determined
1559: Change in Offensiveness to be determined
 
Sigh--perhaps I must explain myself yet again. Clearly in war, there are two ways to win--eliminate your opponent's army or take all his land (thus eliminating his ability to create an army). In the former, if you strike hard enough, fast enough and catch your enemy at the correct location, you can take away his ability to hurt you, then, later, you can move to deal with his land. But you must also eliminate all of his financial resources in the process so that he does not yet again raise another army.

In the latter, you merely avoid the enemy's army. Yes that means that he will attempt to take out one of your provinces, but in general, we have far better leaders than he
[ooc--ESPECIALLY IN SP] Thus, we can have the ability to strike at the provinces of our enemy in multiple formation, taking on multiple provinces at once.

There are at least 3 reasons why the focus on the latter is far superior in our current setting
[ooc--meaning in a game like EU2, played single player; I would disagree with a game like PanzerBlitz or Allied General, etc...]. First, long term there is absolutely no doubt that the plus to seige bonus is HUGE and far, far outstrips any issue with shock. We can already see the advancements available in fortresses and seige warfare and they will only get better (or worse?). Secondly, the cost of recruiting and training troops cannot be over looked. While it is true that every army will lose troops due to attrition in seige or battle, it is clear that an army in actual combat will lose more. Thus, though we can win battles, we will find our cost far higher than if we merely evaded those battles and focused on taking land.

Thirdly, in the history of warfare
[ooc--and in particular this game, EU2] wars are won by taking land. You can win as many battles as you wish, yet find yourself struggling at the peace table with your opponent because he controls so much of your land or you control none of his.

In all of my long years as a student of history and war, I have yet to know of too many battles that have been won simply on the battlefield per se. In the end, an army must control the land of the enemy and that means seige warfare.

Dear Senator Gandolfi as said "and given our geography there are many choke points to defend, so it is not easy to avoid battle and simply siege." Now, this concept of seiging can be one that is less than satisfactory if you find yourself facing an enemy in which you only have one common border and thus only one direction of attack. The answer is, of course, you would augment that situation by gaining military access to your enemy's neighbors to flank your enemy. If you could not, then yes, you would be forced to meet your enemy on the battlefield in order to break through to the rear areas. But such narrow situations happen so infrequently that it is worthless to prepare for it other than to continue land research to stay basically abreast of your neighbors in military land technology. I know it may seem far off, but in the end, in the future there will be some sort of military advancement that will make the principle of shock with cavalry obsolete and every army will be able to stand its ground, in general terms. And let me REMIND the Senate that my grandfather and great-grandfather repeatedly WARNED the Senate of this situation. That had we not quailed at some illusionary fear of "poor" provinces, we would now control most if not all of the Balkans and would face no more "choke points" than others.

Expansionistic or not, when we are attacked, we will win that war by taking their land. Our wonderful General Fodoroni proved this very point in our last war with France. Imagine just how much faster (thus cheaper) his sieges in southern France would have gone with a better leader who knew good siege methods? We did not get France to seek peace because we had defeated an army or two; they came quaking to the peace table because WE TOOK THEIR LAND IN A SEIGE! Expansionistic or not, if you don't want to find yourselves spending too much money on new troops and on the bad end of a peace negotiation, then Siege work is the way to go. Perhaps some Senators would prefer that we become Vassals of the nearest large country so that we won't have to fight anyone anytime soon. I can't believe that they would prefer to send our sons and grandsons out into massive battles like so many Caesar's or Pompey's seeking for glory.

To me, this issue is much of the same reason we build a massive navy. Certainly we want to rule the seas and face down any challenge on the seas, but do we not also build a navy for the sole purpose of NOT having to face a superior army? We guard our beloved capitol, we guard the ancient Straights, so that we do not have to face superior numbers of a vast enemy. In the same way, we focus the learning and training of our commanders in the art of seige warfare, looking mostly to avoid open battle. We win at the peace table by holding most of any enemy's land even if they have won most of the battles!
[ooc--you check any of your wars with the AI; allow the AI to WIN every battle by retreating every time, but you take the land and then you tell me who had the larger warscore--since I have done precisely that (why stand and fight and lose costly troops when I can simply retreat, often to the very place I want my army to be, another siege of yet more land of theirs), I can tell you this works time and time again!!]

We are a Republic, so a vote has been called. I fear, though my Doge, you will rue the day you allowed this vote to be had. Hot blooded countrymen have already cast their vote for war; I wonder if they will be so inclined later when their grandchildren are bleeding the ground wet, even though we win the day, and we find ourselves unable to enact a quick siege of land to thus win the day at the peace table. We will find ourselves in the same shoes as Pyrrhus, having won all the battles yet lost the war!

Election 48b
Siege
 
Last edited:
OOC

Carlec,

With a normal land power (Austria, France, Spain etc.) I might well agree with you. However, given that everyone hates us, we can't afford long wars. We can't lose every battle and wait for the sieges because we risk being DoW'ed on every side. Given that, and the fact that we don't want much land, I think the ability to defeat the enemy quickly and peace out is more important.

As an aside, I really think it is quite gamey to exploit the poor ai by never fighting a battle, and constantly running away. I also personally don't have the patience.

We're going to win anyway, let's make it a little challenging, and fight like a real country would. ;)

ag
 
Wars can be won both by boldly standing ground and with the offensive shock disperse the enemy, and with building better fortifications [fortifications get a +1 in siege value too] and cunningly pick battles to fight. Since the forces of Venice are spread out, and when attacked we will need time to put up proper resistence, we are better served by the defensive stance. Timing reinforcments, and use local superiority also gives lower losses and is therefore a good option in any case.

The vote of the representative of the family Barbarigo:
Code:
Election 48b
Siege
 
aegandolfi said:
We're going to win anyway, let's make it a little challenging, and fight like a real country would. ;)
Venice was historically very much focusing on fortifications and sieges, even if that gradually changed. So you don't think Venice was a real country!!? :p

Fodoron: After the decision here, are we then abandoning the domestic policy votes until the wanted setting in offensiveness is reached?
 
Norrefeldt said:
Venice was historically very much focusing on fortifications and sieges, even if that gradually changed. So you don't think Venice was a real country!!? :p

Fodoron: After the decision here, are we then abandoning the domestic policy votes until the wanted setting in offensiveness is reached?

Nope, priorities have to be stablished at every moment according to circumstances. We might need to increase our quality first, or we might decide that more colonists or more merchants are a priority. In the present election two clicks go to offensiveness because it was the most voted option by far.

But we must realize that this is a one way ticket. Going for the shock bonus and coming back for the siege bonus (or vice versa) is a travel of at least 130 years just dedicated to that, so probably more like over 200 years during which we have none of the bonus and we deprive ourselves of the many advantages of moving other sliders. It is just not worth it the -13 stability incurred. This decision will have to stand, our sons will have to understand that some decisions of their ancestors are best left unchallenged. This is why the current situation should not be very important in taking the decision of what to vote, as the advantages should be collected centuries later by our descendants. The decision about when to close the election will be taken by me and it could take years until I make sure every senator alive has taken a decision on the matter. We have 30 years to decide.

Regarding fortifications, the Venetians, with a very small army and many places to defend, were among the firsts to pioneer what was called the Italian new system of fortifications. The Italian engineers were among the best in the world, because the first train of artillery was brought by Charles VIII in his Italian expedition of 1494 and they were the first to learn what was coming. The Italian wars truly revolutionized the art of war in many aspects. Several Italian States had only one fortified city and they could not afford to lose it, so they developped a system of massive earth ramparts, protected by regularly distributed arrowhead shaped bastions with ramps to move the defensive artillery around with the possibility of firing in all directions while protected from enemy fire. The Venetian engineers Sanmichele, Savorgnan and Martinengo applied these fortification system to Cyprus, Corfu and Crete. The results were amazing. The Turks lost 100,000 men in the conquest of Cyprus against only 10,000 defenders, the fortress of Candia resisted for 25 years, and Corfu could never be conquered despite repeated attempts.

Obviously these historic aspects have little to do with our election, but they are none the less interesting.
 
Do we really have to go for the extremes in this matter?
As Fodoron mentioned, it’ll be a long way and the expenses in terms of stab hits will be quite high. Is the siege / shock bonus worth it? I doubt it.

I therefore propose to transform this vote into one with a less final character: let’s just decide if we should be rather defensive or offensive, and forget about the extremes.
 
The Suebian said:
Do we really have to go for the extremes in this matter?
As Fodoron mentioned, it’ll be a long way and the expenses in terms of stab hits will be quite high. Is the siege / shock bonus worth it? I doubt it.

I therefore propose to transform this vote into one with a less final character: let’s just decide if we should be rather defensive or offensive, and forget about the extremes.

I think it is definitely worth it to get one of the bonuses and most senators seem to agree since many voted for two or even three clicks in this matter. Going to one of the bonus positions is 5 clicks at most, and along the way we might be helped by an Italian Engineer or a Foreign Drill Instructor if we are rich enough or willing to go into debt rather than suffer in our stability.

The standard opinion is that the bonuses is what makes this slider worth it, as the morale changes are halved respect Land slider and the cost of fortresses is negligible in SP since you simply don't build fortresses.
 
dogalshield.png
Dear Senators,

1539d.jpg

After one more year in office, our dear Doge Andrea Gritti has died. I, Pietro Lando, have been chosen to lead our nation. These are difficult times, when to the constant danger of the Turks we must add the impact of the price revolution, also known as the price-wage spiral caused by the overabundance of precious metals, mainly silver, from the Central Europe mines first and the Peruvian and Mexican Spanish mines later. This price revolution has pushed our inflation to 10.5% scaring investors and senators from financing needed manufactories and provincial infrastructures.

While we remain at peace, like an eye in the center of a storm, war rages around us. All our potential enemies fight each other, while we prosper in trade and our citizens are happy. Our science continues to advance a good pace, improving our navy to level 10.

But before entering into the details of our internal situation let's focus on international issues. Following their split, after an alliance of centuries, the Turks of the Black Sheep (Kara Koyunlu) attacked the weak Mameluks gaining Georgia and Syria. These are mostly good news to us, as it goes against Ottoman interests by keeping Sochi isolated (and Kerch safer), and perhaps leading in the future to the closure of the road to Egypt.

But not all are bad news to the Ottomans and good news to us. The war that Janos Zapolya, king of Hungary declared to Wallachia, the Ottoman vassal, looked auspicious, and Wallachia was soon annexionated by Hungary. But events far in the North were developping that would prove catastrophic for the Hungarians. Denmark was going through a crisis and started to shed ministates. Mecklemburg was the first, causing the Bohemians to leave the alliance. Meclemburg was quickly killed by Poland, but ArchDuke Ferdinand of Austria saw that his time had come at last. Ever since the death of his brother in law Lajos at Mohac, Ferdinand has had a claim on Hungary, calling Janos Zapolya the usurper. Now with all the Hungarian troops fighting the Turks in the South, and with his vassal Bohemia out of the picture, suddenly Janos Zapolya dies leaving an infant son, Janos II Zapolya, who is quickly chosen king by the Hungarians. Ferdinand of Austria claims the crown and declares war to Hungary, backstabing her badly.

1540b.jpg

Suddenly Hungary is fighting three enemies. The Turks in the South, the Austrians in the North, and rebels in the rest of the provinces. Luckily his allies provide some help, and both Poland and Denmark sent armies. The Danes sent an army under command of Otto Krumpen that temporarily recovers Steiermark, and he was probably more needed at home, as Holstein and Pommerania also independize from Denmark while he is here. Holstein pacts a white truce after 3 years, while Pommerania is still fighting for her life. Despite help from the allies, the situation proves too much for the Hungarians, and Suleyman is able to secure ownership of Wallachia from them. The war between Austria and Hungary still rages today, but it does not look good for Hungary. Specially since Ferdinand managed to inherit Bohemia, effectively doubling the size of Austria. It shows how little can you predict the outcome of a war. At the beginning it looked like the Ottomans were going to sustain a beating and lose some land, instead, everyday they grow stronger in Europe. To celebrate his victory, Suleyman turned his armies East and declared war to Dulkadir. Luckily to us, Dulkadir is no longer an ally of Egypt, but in any case Dulkadir is as good as dead, and the moment Suleyman gets a border with Egypt, there will be no stopping him until he reaches Cairo.

We only had a potential enemy at peace, France, when one day Conn III Bacach of Ireland went bonkers and declared war to Burgundy and France. This spells like a death sentence to Berg and Palatinate, both neighbors of Burgundy, that foolishly supported Ireland. Even more foolishly, since a few months later, Conn accepted the offer of Edward VI of England and Ireland became a vassal of England, leaving his alliance with Berg and Palatinate. I am afraid that Burgundy will be the only one to benefit from this stupidity, and we must consider the possibility that the Duke of Burgundy could one day take the crown of France from the head of his vassal, by annexionating France. I shudder from thinking about that possibility, a country going from Friesland to the Pyrenees and directly to our door.

Our internal situation has not been boring either. Our stability has been acceptable and we have been investing in research all the time. This is by itself quite an achievement.

1539.jpg

A vacancy in the archbishopry of Ancona in Marche was left to the Pope to be filled, since giving those states to the Grimani family would have resulted not only in a casino being built there, but also in a reduction of our tax income from Marche.

1539b.jpg

Then we had a fire in the Arsenal, our ship and cannon building facility, that destroyed our irremplaceable weapons manufactory. It shall be missed. We have lost also in tax income and quality of our armies. A real tragedy that will take time and effort to overcome. To compensate we have named a new provveditore, Field Marshal Leonardo Foscolo, known by his shock and siege capabilities (2, 3, 2, 1), and a certain ability to violate the time continuum*.

1539c.jpg

To investigate the explosion we created the Inquisitori di Stato, but we are as centralized as it is possible, so the Inquisitors were unable to find anything of substance. That is the time where I took over Dogeship, so I am not responsible for the unfortunate damage to the Arsenal.

1540.jpg

Chief judges have been appointed in Veneto and Lombardia, and the fortress in Napoli had been increased to medium size at no cost to our tax payers.

1541.jpg

My hard work in ruling the Serenissima has been rewarded by good government policies recognition. Regretfuly the stability obtained was wasted again soon, when the infiltrated minions of the Pope agitated our good clergy against us. We ignored their demands, as the Government of the Republic rests in her Consigglio, and our innovativeness is not to be messed with unless so decided by our wise senators.

1542.jpg

We also have problems with our orthodox subjects. Our third conversion attempt at Macedonia since 1490 failed. We have sent a fourth missionary there hoping he will be luckier with the Macedonians, so far they have costed us 925D.

1542b.jpg

But the people of Athens have received the Good Word, even if we have to threaten them with blowing the Parthenon. They have all converted, reducing our time to raise a level in stability (around five years) in 3 months, a significant 4.4% reduction.

1543.jpg

Seeing how reasonable I am, the citizens have started to make disproportionate claims for restoration of old rights. I was forced to accept by the risk of unrest if I turned them down (-2 stability). It is a pity that rare centralizing events were wasted when we did not need them, we will have to recover our centralization in the future.

I don't see outstanding issues to be decided at this moment. So my plan is to continue with the approved policies. We expect to introduce the new post of Provincial Governors in a little over 5 years, so some savings in anticipation could be wise at this point. Our alliance with Spain does not require greasing for the time being since they keep bussy in their extremely unsuccesful indian wars, but my natural prudence does not allow me to let our relations fall too low in case of a war against France, but the personal gifts are so expensive (over 150D), and my lack of diplomatic skills so evident that I doubt.

your Doge,


Lando2.gif
Pietro Lando, LXXVIII Dux Venetiarum. Dec. 1543. [No pic available]​

*Note: Some time ago I updated the leader table to 1.36, where Leonardo Foscolo is no longer present, but I forgot that the old leader table is already loaded and saved in the game, so it was not changed. I will fix it with the 1.37 leader table, but we already have this Foscolo and I am unsure about killing him ;). The comment about time violation is because he is a bug, since he is dated at 1540, but belongs to 1640 (the war of Candia). Haha what a mess, if you feel I should kill him I'll do it.
 
1539-1543 Account:

Year 1539
-Aristocracy +1 (now 4) Stability dropped by -1 to +0
Naval technology advanced to 10
Cessation of church functions to nobility happened to us, we declined, -5 VP (vs. +100D, Tax value in Marche -1)
Fire in the Arsenal happened to us, Tax value in Veneto -1, lose weapons factory in Veneto, Quality -1
Inquisitori di Stato happened to us, centralization +1
Pietro Lando became our new Doge

Important international events nearby
Scotland became vassal of Savoy
Wallachia was annexed by Hungary

Our diplomacy

Year 1540
Field Marshal Leonardo Foscolo new leader (2, 3, 2, 1)
Chief judge apointed in Veneto for 110D
Inquisition failed in Macedonia
Fortification event happened to us, fortress in Napoli +1

Important international events nearby
Austria DoW Hungary, Poland, and Denmark

Our diplomacy

Year 1541
We sent a missionary to Macedonia at 54% chance for 246D
Stability rose to +1
Good Governments policies happened to us, Stab +1, Infra +400, Trade +400

Important international events nearby
Austria inherited Bohemia

Our diplomacy
Savoy rejected a renewal of royal marriage at relation +0

Year 1542
Unhappiness among the Clergy happened to us, we chose to ignore their demands, -1 Stab (vs. -1 Innovativeness)
Our stability dropped to +1
Inquisition successful in Hellas

Important international events nearby
Egypt lost Georgia & Syria to Kara Koyunlu

Our diplomacy

Year 1543
Chief judge promoted in Lombardia for 110D
We built 1 warship for 44D
Citizens demand old rights, we chose to accept, centralization -1 (vs. Stab -2)

Important international events nearby
Hungary lost Wallachia to OE
OE & Mughal Empire DoW Dulkadir

Our diplomacy