Capitals

[unmerged(181)]

A suggestion for EU2:

From what I read from the AARs, a country's capital cannot be moved. It is located in one province and remains there for the entire campaign.

Historically, this did not necessarily happen. Poland moved its capital from Krakow to Warsaw in the 16th century. Russia moved its capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg. And, to allude to an alternate history of an AAR, if the Knights of St. John ever captured and secured Jerusalem, they would most certainly have moved their capital there.

Perhaps in EU2, there could be some way of moving a capital, either through rules or through choice. Perhaps there could be some sort of bonus to moving a capital when it is appropriate.

 

[unmerged(13)]

A sensible idea for EU2, however out of the 100's of new things to implement this is a rather minor one .. wouldn't thou agreeth, kind sir?


Expansion in diplomacy is one .. expansion in the economic model .. expanion / changes to the military / battle system. Changes to the tech / research system making it more complex, yet at the same time more specifically tailored to eaach country ..

I could go on, but I'll leave that for the other forum Needless to say many of the beta testers are already working on a 1001 new ideas ..

Sapura

 

[unmerged(252)]

Yeah, this would be good in case you capture a capital. The victim nation could still cede that province and just move their capital to a different city. I know this didn't happen often, but it has happened.

 

[unmerged(255)]

i agree that this is a minor issue, but it wouldnt be so if the capital city had a more clear-cut purpose in the game somehow.. which brings up the question: what, if at all, purpose does the capital serve?

 

[unmerged(181)]

Originally posted by Sapura:
A sensible idea for EU2, however out of the 100's of new things to implement this is a rather minor one .. wouldn't thou agreeth, kind sir?


Expansion in diplomacy is one .. expansion in the economic model .. expanion / changes to the military / battle system. Changes to the tech / research system making it more complex, yet at the same time more specifically tailored to eaach country ..

I could go on, but I'll leave that for the other forum Needless to say many of the beta testers are already working on a 1001 new ideas ..

I know it is a minor point but I thought I would mention it. We plebians do not have access to the Beta forum to express suggestions so we count on tribunes like yourself to pass them on.

BTW, I would consider the founding of St. Petersburg to be an important historical event worthy of consideration.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by Pole:
...
BTW, I would consider the founding of St. Petersburg to be an important historical event worthy of consideration.

Yes and quite remarkable, bulding the new russian capital in the middle of a swedish swamp (when they started building it no peace had been agreed upon).

[This message has been edited by Janbalk (edited 16-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(252)]

I have another concern about EU--the idea of attrition. I realize that during the time period, some men would die on the march. Some would also die while in enemy territory while desieging, etc. But from what I have heard the beta testers say, you can regularly lose 1/2 and more of your army just through this arbitrary notion of attrition. This can even happen when you march long distances through your own territory. I don't think this is very realistic. The word attrition applies to a gradual loss of forces due in part to sickness, desertion, weather, etc. but due mostly to combat. The idea that my army could shrink from 100,000 men to 30,000 marching from one end of France to the other is a little ridiculous.

 

[unmerged(312)]

Originally posted by Vurbil:
I have another concern about EU--the idea of attrition. I realize that during the time period, some men would die on the march. Some would also die while in enemy territory while desieging, etc. But from what I have heard the beta testers say, you can regularly lose 1/2 and more of your army just through this arbitrary notion of attrition. This can even happen when you march long distances through your own territory. I don't think this is very realistic. The word attrition applies to a gradual loss of forces due in part to sickness, desertion, weather, etc. but due mostly to combat. The idea that my army could shrink from 100,000 men to 30,000 marching from one end of France to the other is a little ridiculous.

I don´t think I agree with you on that one. Perhaps 100,000 to 30,000 within your own country is a bit exaggregated, but attrition certainly were a big problem from time to time (best ex. fighting in Russia). And a think attrition gives the game a strategic dimenson that we wouldn´t like to be without. However all this can be concluded when we own the game.... hopefully soon

/Janus

 

[unmerged(252)]

I know what you are saying. I too applaud the effort to put realism into every aspect of the game. And this idea of attrition is an admirable attempt to do that. I only argue with the degree to which it diminishes your forces. And on that I could be misinformed, but from what I have heard betatesters say, I think it is quite excessive. It should be almost non-existant within your own territory. You have established lines of supply, the local populace is friendly, etc. And even in enemy territory it shouldn't be so excessive that it alone decides the outcome of a war. You mentioned Russia. Yeah, Russia is an extreme case--their winters are notorious for turning the tide of battle. But they are more the exception than the rule. Most of the campaigns I've read about were decided on the battlefield, not by your army being cut in half without being in a single battle.

 

[Generalfeldmarschall]

i totally agree! your own armies should not be depleted when marching through ones own territory.

 

[Doomdark]

Most of the campaigns I've read about were decided on the battlefield, not by your army being cut in half without being in a single battle.

Indeed, that is the kind of history we read about; battles, tactics and brilliant generals. However, I would argue that the perspective of wars being won solely on the battlefield is quite skewed. It is difficult to overestimate the vital importance that foraging and local supply held for armies of the time. Operational planning of the era was a game of logistics; making sure that your own army moved through 'unforaged' land while trying to force the enemy into areas that were sucked dry.

Every major war of the time you look at revolves around this parasitic play. The primary goal of the armies of the 30YW was not really to attempt to take and hold cities, but rather to destroy the enemy's ability to supply its forces (preferably for a long time).

During the GNW, the greatest strategic victory of Charles XII was not any of the famous battles (Narva, Fraustadt, etc), but the shrewd encirclement of the huge Russian main army at Grodno in early 1706. The Muscovites lost half their army to starvation. We are talking 17000-25000 men dead of enforced attrition.

Victories on the battlefield were mostly psychological, but the great majority of casualties were due to starvation and disease. Plague followed every large army like a ravenous shadow.

For this reason, a realistic system for EU 2 would be that provinces slowly stock up supplies, that are then used up by any army that stays there (hostile or friendly). This would make it impossible to stay in the same province for any great length of time, just as it was in reality. It could also be used to hinder enemy movements (like digging a fire ditch), again like in real history.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 16-10-2000).]

 

[unmerged(26)]

Attrition is really much lower when crossing your own provinces.
Travelling across France will make only very few attrition even to a big army.
That is the point: when you make war in your country, you nearly suffer no attrition while your ennemy suffer more, especially during winter.

To those who think that attrition has not really a big effect, just an historical anecdote: in 1812, when invading Russia, Napoleon's Grande army has lost 6000 horses the FIRST night of invasion due to humidity.
After 2 week of march without encounter russian, the bavarian corps was having only 6000 men available on 20000, all others were out due to disease.
And Napoleon supply was better than those represented in EU.

 

[unmerged(328)]

I agree with Doomdark. I do not think that people today have any concept of the mortality rate brought about by disease at that time. And the effect of disease was likely more a factor of nutrition and weather than of whether you were in friendly territory or not. It might be possible to argue that the nutritional state of your troops should be better in friendly areas, but I suspect that during active campaigning when forces were on the move, logistics were not a strength of most armies of this period.

 

[unmerged(201)]

... and I don't think that even in their own territories, armies were granted generously food by the local population as they were perceived as being the next worst disaster after plague...

 

[unmerged(13)]

Eh guys, attrition in EU is all combined: dying of disease, forced marches. It's all combined into the term 'attrition' in EU.

quote:
i totally agree! your own armies should not be depleted when marching through ones own territory.


When are they? The only time they are is if a province cannot support the army. Surely thats right and proper? e.g. Moscow province may have a max weight capacity of 20. i.e. can hold 20,000 infantry men w/o attrition setting in. However if there is more, there is simply not enough food, or peasants to help out in feeding the army.

Sapura

 

[unmerged(221)]

Originally posted by Vurbil:
I know what you are saying. I too applaud the effort to put realism into every aspect of the game. And this idea of attrition is an admirable attempt to do that. I only argue with the degree to which it diminishes your forces. And on that I could be misinformed, but from what I have heard betatesters say, I think it is quite excessive. It should be almost non-existant within your own territory. You have established lines of supply, the local populace is friendly, etc. And even in enemy territory it shouldn't be so excessive that it alone decides the outcome of a war. You mentioned Russia. Yeah, Russia is an extreme case--their winters are notorious for turning the tide of battle. But they are more the exception than the rule. Most of the campaigns I've read about were decided on the battlefield, not by your army being cut in half without being in a single battle.

According to what I have seen in different AARs showing total losses in battle and due to attrition, it seems like attrition is smaller in EU than it was in real life. In real life most men would never even participate in any big battle, they would die from attrition before they got a chance.

Infectious deceases, bad hygiene, low rations, low quality food, exhaustion, sleeping outside in cold and wet wheater, inadequate clothing, no medicines. Together they were a very mortal combination. Also note that most of these parameters aren't affected by whether you are in friendly or hostile lands.

Now an extreme example of weather attrition:
January 1st 1718, 5000 men set out to march from Trondelag to Jämtland. Three days later, 1000 men reach their destination.

Surely wars were decided on the battlefield, but if you don't have much of an army left when you reach it...

/Tommy

 

[unmerged(234)]

The loss in soldiers during the 30y war was somenthing like 90% caused by what in EU is called attrition and less than 10% in battle.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by Tommy:
...
Now an extreme example of weather attrition:
January 1st 1718, 5000 men set out to march from Trondelag to Jämtland. Three days later, 1000 men reach their destination.
...
/Tommy

That is a very extrem example, marching/retreating through a mountain ridge and a snowstorm happend to hit them. Most of the ones who survieved lost fingers or toes to frostbite.

 

[nomoi]

Yeah I think that this matter(pole said) is important but the gibraltar and constantionoples' situation about the ships crossing by is more important I guess.It would've been very fun for the nations that has those cities.Think about it.You close the way and 100 ships can not enter the meditarrentian if you are spain.How strategic places they would have been!!

 

[nomoi]

Yeah I think that this matter(pole said) is important but the gibraltar and constantionoples' situation about the ships crossing by is more important I guess.It would've been very fun for the nations that has those cities.Think about it.You close the way and 100 ships can not enter the meditarrentian if you are spain.How strategic places they would have been!!