In the original boardgame, maintaining fortresses cost money, with larger fortresses being more expensive. If you failed to maintain the fortress, it dropped to the lowest allowed value (some to zero, some to one, some to two). Everytime a fortress was taken by assault (not siege), it dropped a level. Every time you captured a fortress, you had to sacrifice 2,000 infantry from the victorious force per level of the fort; these units served as the new garrison. All in all, it worked very well, though money didn't flow as freely in the boardgame as it can in EUII.
I suggest that there be a maintenance cost per fort level, but that fortress garrisons still not apply against a nation's support limit. Don't link fortress size to tax level (Gibraltar is an excellent example of how fortress strength can't be linked to province wealth).
As for manpower, war exhaustion, etc., these are all efforts to deal with the game's signature failure; the monetary cost of war in this era. War was very expensive to wage, something not reflected in EU2. Raising armies was easy, almost regardless of situation. What was hard was paying for them. The game exaggerates the cost of raising an army and completely underplays the cost of maintaining the troops. A soldier's equipment and signing bonus were the equivalent of six month's wages. So 1,000 infantry should cost twice as much to maintain in a year as they cost to recruit. Right now, even at full maintenance, it's probably about a tenth as much to maintain as it is to recruit.
Fixing that would require radical changes to the game model, especially in technology research (currently the big money sponge in the game, which is silly; which 17th century nation spent 80% of their revenue on Trade technology?) But some simpler fixes should help. For example:
Units not in core provinces (or not in friendly territory) cost double maintenance. Units moving cost double maintenance, cumulative with the above. Each time a unit fights, it immediately costs the treasury two month's maintenance. If the treasury lacks the money to pay maintenance, a bank loan is taken immediately to put cash in the treasury. Loans taken during a war cost one stability. Eliminate War Exhaustion (it's modeled in the stability losses for loans).
Now if you have the cash for a little war somewhere, you can fight it without endangering your nation. But if you get stuck in a big war and you start to run out of cash, you can't keep armies in the field and you're forced to make peace as best you can. That's how it worked in real life, after all.
I suggest that there be a maintenance cost per fort level, but that fortress garrisons still not apply against a nation's support limit. Don't link fortress size to tax level (Gibraltar is an excellent example of how fortress strength can't be linked to province wealth).
As for manpower, war exhaustion, etc., these are all efforts to deal with the game's signature failure; the monetary cost of war in this era. War was very expensive to wage, something not reflected in EU2. Raising armies was easy, almost regardless of situation. What was hard was paying for them. The game exaggerates the cost of raising an army and completely underplays the cost of maintaining the troops. A soldier's equipment and signing bonus were the equivalent of six month's wages. So 1,000 infantry should cost twice as much to maintain in a year as they cost to recruit. Right now, even at full maintenance, it's probably about a tenth as much to maintain as it is to recruit.
Fixing that would require radical changes to the game model, especially in technology research (currently the big money sponge in the game, which is silly; which 17th century nation spent 80% of their revenue on Trade technology?) But some simpler fixes should help. For example:
Units not in core provinces (or not in friendly territory) cost double maintenance. Units moving cost double maintenance, cumulative with the above. Each time a unit fights, it immediately costs the treasury two month's maintenance. If the treasury lacks the money to pay maintenance, a bank loan is taken immediately to put cash in the treasury. Loans taken during a war cost one stability. Eliminate War Exhaustion (it's modeled in the stability losses for loans).
Now if you have the cash for a little war somewhere, you can fight it without endangering your nation. But if you get stuck in a big war and you start to run out of cash, you can't keep armies in the field and you're forced to make peace as best you can. That's how it worked in real life, after all.
