I am skeptical that the Bavarians have in fact built past their forcelimits, and stand certain that Catalunya did not build past their force limits; and am certain that neither Bavaria or Catalunya built past to the extant that their economies would've been economically strained as mine was.
In fact the Stats pages bear this argument out: Bavaria's inflation went down by .3% while Catalunia's went up by .4% meaning that their military buildup or lack there of, was done entirely without straining their economy.
Had they spend the money, and they certainly had the economies to fund it, they probably could have raised significant mercenary armies as well as doubling past their forcelimits.
Yeah checking the save, day 1 of the war: Bavaria has 420 regiments to a forcelimit of 340; 80 above, but they are spending virtually none of their GDP maintaining it, 90d/mo on military expdenitatures when they're total monthly income is 750d, or roughly 10% and thats without wartaxing (I was wartaxing about half my income during the war), 350d of their income is from trade, my rule of thumb is that minting about 80% of your trade income is well within sustainable for a large economy like Bavaria's.
If Bavaria minted another 200d they could have possibly fielded another 100-200 regiments depending on the price increase curve for mil-maint, and raised mercenaries.
Catalunia only has 225 regiments out of a support limit of 211, barely above it. Minting 116d per month with a total income of 500d and also spending only 80d, (corruption!) but they're economy relatively speaking while smaller than Bavaria's is still larger then Novgorods and should be in a better position to spend past their means to support a vastly larger military; I could see them easily maintaining 320 regiments.
It's like their scared of inflation, dudes, winning a war is more important then your economic health.
For comparison Novgorod has an income of 360 was only 20 regiments above their forcelimit costing them 80d.
Croatia has only 274 regiments out of a support limit of 284, spending only 70 while only having an income of three hundred.
In short Novgorod and Croatias combined totals were arguably the same or only minorly ahead of the BFFA (Best Friend's Forever Alliance, or =F=, for failure) while only minorly inconveniencing their economies while having in both absolute and relative numbers a much smaller combined economy compared to Bavaria's and Catalunias.
Meaning that if Catalunya and Bavaria been willing to walk the walk and spend as much as they could for the obviously upcoming wars for dear life, sure the immediate effect would've been to just force Novgorod and Croatia to spend more and match them, which they can. Whats not certain is for how long the two obviously hostile blocks can keep spending past their means in a race to see how blinks or otherwise collapses first. It's obvious to my mind, looking at the numbers that the combined economies of Catalunya and Bavaria are much larger then Novgorods and Croatia's, overwhelmingly so if we included their natural allies like the USA into the mix who is currently the number one world's trading economy and substantially more likely to conduct lend-lease then the African brotherhood would be.
If both coalitions spent only 10% then its 1,500d to 1,000d, a large difference; deceptively actually much worse then that because suppose that the BFFA was willing to spend 33% (I had to mint *higher* then 40% due to my income dropping to dangerously low levels, they would not have that problem) while supposing the Axis could only mint 15% thats 5,000d versus 1,500d for military spending, nearly four times difference in magnitude.
Combined this with strategic misconduct; they failed to appoint common military leadership and more or less struggled separately in different disjointed theaters leaving it so that if ONE of the partners failed his front the whole war was arguably lost and then you have the questionable tactics of either commander in each theater.
Bavaria aimed to strike across the Oder first seeking a "knock out blow" which is about strategically on par with the Schiffilen Plan and equally doomed to failure, losing any defencive modifiers they might have had while facing headfirst into VonR's abundantly available ubergenerals from the previous wars when they lacked the strategic reserve to fall back on in case of failure. When it would have been more prudent to engage defencively along the Oder and whatever hills they might have possessed, widening the front to force VoNR to also widen his forces; doomstack tactics don't work all that well in EU3 due to attrition mechanics and the relative ease in being able to shuttle reinforcements into a battle using defencive bonuses to their best.
In the south Catalunya put some forces to engage the Croatians in hills and mountains basically gauranteeing defeat when a defencive strategy while shifting forces to Germany to act as support would have been best, the Croatians would've had difficulty in forcing Catalunya out with high casualties and would've been very time consuming.
Wars are not won by the winner, they are lost by the loser and it was the BFFA's war to lose.
aar reward 10 army tradition.
. How come Spain is so low, is that a result of war from continued war ? Also how did dano managed to top in income with such small population ?
