Fixed in 1.03

[Derek Pullem]

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.

As an example, if you exclude the Rusian Revolution and its aftermath, civilian casualties in the First World War were only 10% of military casualties. In the Second World War, civilian casualties outnumbered military.

But for many (most?) combatants the impact of the First World War on their demographics and population growth was significant. Other wars had a negligible impact on population.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

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

Uh? French low population growth was real curiousity in demographic science, but first time i hear it beign dependent on wars. Really, it was mostly unexplainable, McEvedy mentions something about coitus interruptus

There are some problems with demographic model of Victoria. First is that pre-game (scenario) growth modifiers are applied to states not cultures. Really, if Russia's capture Normandy or France Rostov, it should have no effect on population growth there. It should stay low in Normandy and high in Rostov.

Secondly, healthcare should have almost no effect. Or no effect at all, maybe capping at lowest level. What matters for population growth is infant mortality and women mortality during, and post, birth. Which are solved by quite simple measures, and without state healthcare. General population knowledge is more important to this (education? culture tech? or nothing?)

Another thing is that emmigration shouldn't depopulate provinces. In emmigration, the most important are push factors-pull factors play only marginal role, and are mostly important in deciding where it goes. So, overpopulation (ie: lacks of jobs) should be the most important cause, so in practice, emmigration should be capped at the level equal to population growth.

What is good is that lack of POPs money prohibits population growth. Especially in uncivilized countries this is a factor, and i guess it can be abstracted as pre-modern level of growth. (do not confuse with industrial. Contrary to what is commonly though, industrialization does not make demographic growth, nor does high income makes population growth automatically slower, although it usually does)

Anyway, i don't think France low growth was due to wars at all

 

[unmerged(15042)]

Great website that addresses a lot of this: http://www.victorianweb.org/

 

[unmerged(15042)]

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.

I often disagree with what JScott (and others) have to say on these boards, in terms of gameplay, historical fact and opinion, etc. However, there is no place for a sarcastic, downright mean post like this. You degrade whatever merit your argument has by attacking a person in such a manner.

 

[JScott991]

You are wrong on every observation. Wars after 1815 and before 1914, outside of the ACW, involved very little infrastructure damage. The main reason is something you actually allude to: they were decided by decisive battles and thus were over extremely quickly. The Crimean War was fought exclusively on the Crimean peninsula. How could this depopulate Russia?

The Franco-Austrian War of 1859 involved two battles fought in northern Italy. How could this result in the depoulation of France or Austria? Especially considering the casualties at Solferino and Magenta were in the thousands. Even if I do multiply that by two or three for civilian casualties (of which there were an insignificant amount; perhaps you don't know the story of the ONE civilian casualty at the largest battle of the American Civil War), that's not enough to depopulate anyone.

The Austro-Prussian War was decided at the frontier and involved, again, one battle at Sadowa. Casualties were low because the Austrian army was outmaneuvered. In fact, the Austrian army was larger after the battle than before due to the completion of Austrian mobilization. Casualties during this war weren't even effecting the military, much less the infrastructure of the nation.

One last example; The Franco-Prussian War did involve multiple battles over a wider area than the previous examples. In fact, it involved guerillas as you allude to (incidentally, its the only war during this period that involved partisans or guerillas on any kind of scale). However, the casualties from the war were low and the effect on civilian economies and lives minimal.

Do some research on casualties or in fact on these wars in general. You are complete offbase. On your other point, about immigration in Victoria effecting depopulation, that is correct to a degree. But the real variable are war casualties. Otherwise, how can you explain the fact that the US's population declines in 1.02? Aren't they receiving an immigration bonus?

Derek, however, and Darkrenown make excellent points. The demographic effects of the Napoleonic Wars did help to flatline French growth in this period and the wars in Victoria now are much larger scale than the wars in the period, making depopulation more plausible.

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.

 

[Aragos]

I often disagree with what JScott (and others) have to say on these boards, in terms of gameplay, historical fact and opinion, etc. However, there is no place for a sarcastic, downright mean post like this. You degrade whatever merit your argument has by attacking a person in such a manner.

I couldn't agree more. I agree with the observations made but a certain decorum should be maintained.

Liked your book by the way. I believe the Pelopennisian Wars was one of your better works :rofl:

 

[unmerged(14180)]

i agree, no need for that insulting rubbish.

 

[unmerged(15042)]

Liked your book by the way. I believe the Pelopennisian Wars was one of your better works :rofl:

I am rather proud of it--thanks! And to think that people favorably compare that hack Xenophon to me! The nerve! Seriously, though, I do love that book. It has almost as much war strategy, political intrigue, and demagogy as this forum.

 

[Syt]

Very good post JScott. Indeed, decisive battles were the name of the game at the time, and while foraging was still commmon back then, the armies were usually located at relatively small locations, area-wise, not looting the whole size of Vic-provinces (except the smalles, maybe), killing 75% of the population while at it.

Michaelis - get your point across with facts, don't make faceteous statements, trying to ridicule the other's points.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Derek, however, and Darkrenown make excellent points. The demographic effects of the Napoleonic Wars did help to flatline French growth in this period and the wars in Victoria now are much larger scale than the wars in the period, making depopulation more plausible.

So I guess what should be done is to reduce the number and scale of the AI's wars? Like for example make Russia NOT DoW the OE every second year...

 

[Darkrenown]

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.

Most, if not all, the deals I've seen the AI proposing are about it trying to buy claims, if you don't colonise much you probably won't see deals offered. Anyway most deals look this this:

Clean coal,
Clean coal,
Clean coal,
and Clean coal
Plus £1500
for claim: Ifni
and claim: Ifni

when it is offering Clean coal and £1500 for your claim in Ifni.

 

[Darkrenown]

Otherwise, how can you explain the fact that the US's population declines in 1.02? Aren't they receiving an immigration bonus?

I never see the USA AI fight much and despite many wars in my USA game my population was shooting up despite no healthcare and ~40% taxes.

I see Europe depopulated a lot though.

 

[MegaPIMP]

To bad that almost all wars in Victoria is either no fighting or "It's the end of the world" wars

"Surr-end-er-god-damn-it I have your capitol, your women, your cars, your factories, your other wife and you pet dog Bobo!"

"Never, the partisans will fight on forever! I'll carve your heart out with a spoon"

"There is no spoon"

etc etc and so on

 

[unmerged(24157)]

Spain and USA are always eager to trade for Claims. They always spam me with offers like "Commerce Raider Doctrine, Commerce Raider Doctrine, Commerce Raider Doctine, 1550 for Ifni Infi".

Britain, France and Russia I've never seen make offers. In fact, Britain and Russia will rarely take deals that are greatly in their favor. I've offered Britain 4 Trading Posts that would allow them to claim Nigeria and asked for 1 Trading Post that would allow me to claim Volta. This with good (but not great) relations. And chances of acceptance was 5%.

 

[unmerged(23188)]

Really, I'd like to see a "Chances of Acceptance" model added to the peace settlement for warfare, just like the regular negotiations. Or make the whole peace process work like a standard negotiation. Something to make it possible to divine how the AI would respond to your offers. As it is, I have to use Neville a lot to even get wars to end at all, or the enemy just rejects even very reasonable offers for peace.

--Lenin401

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Britain dosen't seem to be particularly obstinate to me. I've bought off them Malta, the Bahamas, Jamaica, some more Carribiean Islands, and also gotten like the max amount of money per tech from them.

 

[unmerged(24160)]

You are wrong on every observation. Wars after 1815 and before 1914, outside of the ACW, involved very little infrastructure damage. The main reason is something you actually allude to: they were decided by decisive battles and thus were over extremely quickly. The Crimean War was fought exclusively on the Crimean peninsula. How could this depopulate Russia?

The Franco-Austrian War of 1859 involved two battles fought in northern Italy. How could this result in the depoulation of France or Austria? Especially considering the casualties at Solferino and Magenta were in the thousands. Even if I do multiply that by two or three for civilian casualties (of which there were an insignificant amount; perhaps you don't know the story of the ONE civilian casualty at the largest battle of the American Civil War), that's not enough to depopulate anyone.

AFAIK, civilian casualties did not occur in actual battles, but were mostly caused by disturbance in the organized society and occasional violence by the troops. Because of fighting in area there could be shortages of food, diseases etc. The actual effect of these were (I think) quite small in European wars because of their limited scope. E.g. Crimean war - contained in Crimean peninsula, the number of troops were quite small etc. I'd guess that most of the civilian casualties were caused by siege (and battle) of Sevastopol.

American Civil War was rather larger war, and its figures could be more useful for Victoria's engine in case of large European wars (well, at least in my games there are usually several unrealistically large-scale wars in Europe - e.g. in the last game Germany and Austria completely conquered and annexed France...). That said, ACW was not especially bloody in civilian casualties either... (AFAIK, again - gotta say my two cents even if they are fulla holes...)

Whoever, I wonder why there are no diseases etc. in Victoria. At least influenza epidemy of 1918 should be included - it did cause more fatalities than all of the fighting combined...

 

[Darkrenown]

New stuff added. And no more fighting!

 

[NobillyT]

bump

I'm thinking maybe this should get stickied.....

edit: Maybe the thread should be renamed to "Things that will be fixed in 1.03", so people don't think it is already available

 

[Darkrenown]

No one's thought that yet, but I don't mind if it's changed.