Devastation question

[Apollyonna]

Sorry if this has been discussed. I am on an old laptop coupled with a very poor internet connection and so am not inclined to do much searching.

The concept of devastation is a nice addition to the game however, there is something I do not quite grasp.

When an army occupies a province, the devastation 'clock' starts ticking. When the army moves off of the province, devastation can recover (which makes sense to me). However if the army only moves after the province officially becomes occupied and is now under their control, devastation starts to increase.

So what happens when an army moves away after they have taken control of a province ? I get that when a 40k army was stationed anywhere, they destroyed large tracts of land, often-times trying to feed themselves on whatever was stored and grown in that province. Now though the army has moved on, control established yet devastation continues to increase. How is this justified ?

I get that an occupying force stationed in a fort that exerts control over said province may steal some food here and there but does that equal the devastation of a 40k army ?

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the continued devastation, but rather am looking for a better understanding of it.

 

[Quaade]

I will post now so I get notification, and return with an answer when I can if not someone else did ;-)

 

[deathbypie]

I agree that it is a bit odd that occupation increases devastation when no forces are present.

However, looting, which requires troops, increases devastation a lot faster than the very slow occupation tick. So that might justify it.

 

[IndraSunrise]

It's under the command of you'd country, but, like the carpetbaggers of American Civil War history, your local governors/military rulers don't take particularly good care of the province /loot and despoil, even without the army present.

 

[Zohtun]

Well considering once it's occupied its basically got a small amount of supply lines present and they're continuing (in a vague sense) to use smaller looters to just grab what they can off the land. Since there's no formal governor the system is inefficient and an overall drain on the province. Once the province is under control of a governor again (either by the original owner regaining control or it being seized in a peace treaty) a system which allows sustainable benefit from the province is placed in effect and the province begins to remove the devastation.

 

[Badesumofu]

Generally speaking being under military occupation has not been good for the prosperity of a province. It makes sense to me that this would gradually increase devastation.

 

[Apollyonna]

Thanks for the answers everyone

 

[Lacost]

Well, just "walking" over a province with 40,000 men doesn't mean it's occupied. For occupation important settlements and cities have to be captured and have to stay under the control of the occupying nation. So, a small portion of the army would have to stay permanently behind in the occupied province to control city halls, trade, production facilities, barracks etc.. This passive devastation tick could be just this army staying behind, being horribly corrupt of course and in general disturbing the balance of power in that region. Bandits roaming the countryside, harvests being pillaged to further supply the enemy army and material wealth being sacked by less chivalric members of the army.

All in all, I suppose, having an enemy army present in your province will not let your peace, trade and production prosper. It would be a time of turmoil were the law isn't enforced as harshly as it should and opportunistic people taking advantage over their weaker brethren.