-
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.
crap, i bet you just let the cat out of the bag. 
Febuary release everyone, hear that? as said and promised by DN!
Febuary release everyone, hear that? as said and promised by DN!
Right now the depopulation of Europe is a major problem. Most nations experience serious population declines, which is completely ahistorical.
In fact, for those of you who have not fixed the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian AI files to make eastern wars less likely, you must noticing extremely dramatic drops in population in that area.
I also notice dramatic drops in the US if they fight a prolonged Mexican war and after the Civil War, as well as in Turkey if they do the every five years a war with Egypt strategy.
In fact, for those of you who have not fixed the Russian, Prussian, and Austrian AI files to make eastern wars less likely, you must noticing extremely dramatic drops in population in that area.
I also notice dramatic drops in the US if they fight a prolonged Mexican war and after the Civil War, as well as in Turkey if they do the every five years a war with Egypt strategy.
Michaelis said:
JScott991 said:
Do you think that the population drops are appropriate for the intensity of the wars that occur in Victoria?
I have not really looked at this matter in detail, but I am just wondering if this problem would be solved by a less agressive AI or if the problem is more a result of how wars are fought in Victoria. With the concept of a front, large armies, dug-in bonuses, and instant reinforcement; many conflicts seem to turn into massive bloodbaths.
--
EnPeaSea
From what I understand, the massive and apparently unstoppable emigration to the Americas contributes to the depopulation as much as anything else.
Also, I must say I didn't like the fact population growth rates were cut in 1.02. People were complaining the growth was unrealistically high. Well, in times when families with 10 children were the norm, population growth WOULD have been very high indeed if it weren't for the fact that there were constant wars, little or no healthcare, etc. If you play the game without getting into any fighting, give your people good healthcare plus other life-comfort enhancing reforms, why shouldn't they multiply like rabbits? Remember, there were practically no contraceptives in Victoria's time.
Also, I must say I didn't like the fact population growth rates were cut in 1.02. People were complaining the growth was unrealistically high. Well, in times when families with 10 children were the norm, population growth WOULD have been very high indeed if it weren't for the fact that there were constant wars, little or no healthcare, etc. If you play the game without getting into any fighting, give your people good healthcare plus other life-comfort enhancing reforms, why shouldn't they multiply like rabbits? Remember, there were practically no contraceptives in Victoria's time.
What about the triggers for the Italian unification? They still need work. Ive played aroun a 100 games now and never seen the AI create Italy.
I wish events could be added so that one could unite Italy by controlling the whole of the north and Rome, independantly without any french triggers.
I wish events could be added so that one could unite Italy by controlling the whole of the north and Rome, independantly without any french triggers.
Kvlt 45 said:
the problem seems to be that you have to take into account the effect of the great powers,
I've seen Austria steamrollling Piedmonte Sardinia too many times to ever get an Italy,
I dont get all that talk about depopuplation. I'm playing Russia right now, I've been fighting a whole lot (and conquering) and my population in 1872 hit 300 million.
Check the AI countries then.
In most every game I play, the Austrian population starts at around 50M and drops to around 40 M over the first forty years of the game.
The American population I've seen drop below 30 M in my last two GC's.
Also note Prussia/Germany and Turkey if they are involved in a lot of wars against Russia. The AI loses divisions; a ton of divisions. Those division losses depopulate their country. I doubt you as a player are suffering those kind of losses.
There was a comment before that wars kept populations down during this period. That's almost a laughable statement, but I don't want to seem like I'm insulting anyone. The wars during this period, save for WWI and the ACW, were small, localized conflicts that resulted in few casualties and certainly had ZERO effect on a nation's demographics. Wars had very little to do with population growth in the 19th century.
In most every game I play, the Austrian population starts at around 50M and drops to around 40 M over the first forty years of the game.
The American population I've seen drop below 30 M in my last two GC's.
Also note Prussia/Germany and Turkey if they are involved in a lot of wars against Russia. The AI loses divisions; a ton of divisions. Those division losses depopulate their country. I doubt you as a player are suffering those kind of losses.
There was a comment before that wars kept populations down during this period. That's almost a laughable statement, but I don't want to seem like I'm insulting anyone. The wars during this period, save for WWI and the ACW, were small, localized conflicts that resulted in few casualties and certainly had ZERO effect on a nation's demographics. Wars had very little to do with population growth in the 19th century.
Akilles said:
Kvlt 45 said:
Isn't the main problem now that Austria squashes whatever minor tries to unify Italy? With it's population tweaked down it should be much less of a superpower.
I honestly suspect this has more to do with the AI habit of taxing the poor 100% and subsequent emigration (maybe even starvation) than with wars. I wouldn't actually mind if war population losses were a bit higher than they are now.
Am I missing something? The AI has never offered me any techs, ever. In fact, I've never been offered a diplomatic deal of any kind by any AI country other than a peace treaty, alliance, or guarantee of independence.
JScott991 said:
I missed this little jewel on my previous visit to this thread.
Oh, it's laughable, is it... Of course! Post-Napoleonic wars in Europe consisted mostly of some marching back and forth, guerrilla warfare didn't exist, and throughout it all apple-cheeked peasants gambolled happily on evergreen meadows, got drunk, and gorged themselves on roast meat...
I think this is the most entertaining statement I ever saw on this board - I'll be on the lookout for future gems of historical wisdom from the same author. No wonder some people are still eager to go to war in this supposedly advanced, modern age.
I'd recommend looking up the casualty figures for the battle of Solferino alone, then using your imagination a little and multiplying that number by two to include civilian casualties in the area before, during, and after the battle. Maybe 'civilian casualties' is a misleading phrase: to put it bluntly, I mean people murdered by soldiers looking for food, money, sex, or all three. You don't imagine those semi-permanently drunk (and permanently tired, hungry, and angry), illiterate morons in uniforms behaved like characters out of a historical novel, do you? If you do, well, one can only offer one's deepest sympathy.
About the only thing I liked about your post was the fact you capped the word ZERO. It does acquire a special meaning in the context.
Darkrenown said:
Possibly, but I still think there should more then one way to create Italy. There should be a trigger that if you control Genova, Milano, Firenze & Rome you have the option of creating Italy and moving your capital to Rome.
It is a clear ahistoric possibility that an Italian kingdom could become powerful enough to do it on its own without being at the mercy of French AI decisions on events.
How I won't miss liberating Italian provinces from Austria only to find that they have one pop of less than a 1000 left and no one wanting to go there to fill the vacancies.
JScott991 said:
Agree with most of your observations. However I'd argue that war did keep populations down in this period only it was an indirect effect. Much of the cause of France's low population growth can be laid at the the feet of her military exploits in the Napoleonic Wars. If the wars were as brutal as the game portrays and you put emmigration on top of this then depopulation is possible.
The fact that it is probable at the moment would suggest that either the impact on population is too high or the number of wars is too high
Michaelis said:
I don't know what army you are describing. Some factual information, please.
The behaviour of troops directly reflects the values of the society producing them. The 19th Century was an age of declining crime. Military discipline was harsh and troop control very strict. There was, as a consequence less maltreatment of the civilian population in war than at any other time in history.
Which is why Henri Dunant was concerned with the suffering of the military wounded only at Solferino.
Fallout_Boy said:
Once I received a negotiation offer from Japan when I was Russia. They wanted to trade some techs and cash. I've yet to see another one.