Lobby to persuade Johan to do some alterations

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Pirates preying on fishermen? That would be something interesting

Don't like blockading affecting WE, really. It would make no sense to blockade Ingermanland and see Russia WE climbing faster.

Just RR increase for the provinces that have pirates around them.

that would be better, not WE

 

[unmerged(5023)]

(quote: Besides which allowing less war exhaustion in sucessful wars undermines one of the game mechanisms that hinders massive expansion. )

"It depends". I think "we" would like to see a model where
only a "righteous" fight is more likely to sustain public support.
If your war involves fighting to "free" provences with shields,
less WE, more "will to fight". As your fight extends out beyond
that, the chance for public support to fail, increases. If your
fight is going well, that fall in support happens slower, if
your fight is going poorly (many battlefield losses outside
shield-prov's) WE goes up faster. So a poor war-mongering
effort sees public support collapse very quickly, but even a
successful one sees flagging support before long. And a
"righteous" war on the home front that is going well, can
be sustained nearly indefinitly (compared to the other half of
that war, the invader in theory loses public support and needs
to look for peace).

I'd also have the WE penalty for fighting in non-shield provs
be increased when the enemy country's religion/cultures
are similar, to reflect discomfort in invading "someone like us",
while lessening the WE increase when fighting a "war against
the infidel" countries (pagan, diff religion tree) to reflect a
crusade mentality.

 

[Owen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to mean WE should be lower if you have a casus belli on your enemy?

That sounds a reasonable suggestion, but probably only really becomes relevant once nationalism becomes a fully fledged idea throughout the populace, very late in the EU2 timescale.

 

[unmerged(15881)]

My 2 cents

I don't think WE should be double in non-core provinces, but this goes back to my not liking the fact "cores" have such an influence on the game. Since the AI doesn't handle rebels that well, what the effect is that these non-cores for the AI tend to break off more often, causing the game to look a little more historical.

As for the WE in general, I think that the "real/historical" tact should be that WE increases slowly but should increase in provinces that have events happen. These are (but not limited to) having the fort taken, being pillaged, being blockaded for a certain period of time, rebellions. Since WE is supposed to show a province's increasing probability to revolt, I think these are the factors that would increase it.

I recognize that this will have two impacts. You will have fewer provinces with WE, but those that do will have a much greater WE score. Provinces on a disputed border where there is a lot of fighthing should be more unhappy than one that is miles and miles from any action. I think the slower increasing WE for those provinces, and their reduction in taxes is enough. Second, the tactic of letting the AI run around your country until it exhausts itself will not look as attractive. This will give extra incentive to take the fight to them. Since the AI is pretty stupid about attrition, I think this will help in that aspect as well and plug up an exploit.

 

[unmerged(15881)]

One more thought

I also don't agree with the line of reasoning that there should be less WE for "CB Wars". Nationalism wasn't a concept during a large portion of the time period EU represents, and I think that "good or bad" wars are a byproduct of national identity. Besides, this is already built in by lowering your stability, and therefore your stability bonus to RR, when you declare certain wars. I think building this impact into WE would just double the impact.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Again, tying WE to looting, loss of forts etc. hurts the weaker party in the war and helps the stronger. To me this udnermines the gameplay purpose of the WE mechanism.

 

[unmerged(10630)]

About pirates, are they affecting trade like embargos by now? Or are they only a thread for fleets?

 

[Velociryx]

Master Brock! I agree in principle, it (WE) need not express itself in that manner.

Let's say that you and I are duking it out. You attacked me.

Our WE rates should be related, but not intertwined in all places.

If I lose a big battle to you, my WE should rise a bit, but....you attacked me, so my people are gonna be a LOT more understanding, since losing the war will mean their subjugation....if we're of the same religion and culture group, that subjugation won't be so bad/different, so in that case, losing a big battle may well cause a bit of testiness among my population, but if you're some heathen religion, I'm envisioning that even a major upset defeat would cause few, if any ripples--after all, the troops are, winning or losing, out there trying to keep the land free of heathen influence...WE makes that rather more difficult, so if it's a choice between subjugation by the heathen hordes, and sucking up a few more war taxes, the rank and file will tow the line).

On the other hand, if I win some stellar battles against you (as the aggressor), then your WE will spike, and this is as it should be. You started the fight....if it goes south, the people paying for the war effort will begin to find it most unpopular, and there's no better way to force someone out of an unpopular war than some good ol' fashioned rebellion back home.

I think WE should have more to do with cultural/religious differences and who the instigator was, modified by war score (but not dominated by)....this would, IMO, solve the problem of "too many spoils to the victor" while more accurately representing WE.

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I dispute this interpretation of war exhaustion. To me it's about the populace being sick and tired of all the taxes and recruitment. By and large they could not care less who is winning the war and who is losing the war. And they certainly couldn't care about the legal niceties and vague nationalistic rationales. What they want is the war to end no matter how it ends. And, of course, they don't want either army to end up in their particular neighbourhood eating them out of hearth and home and commiting whatever other crimes they're liable to commit.

We're not talking about the 19th century here. No one is getting worked up about Alsace and Lorraine, or the unification of Italy.

That doesn't mean I think that WE should simply increase by a fixed amount per year, clearly if troops aren't being raised and aren't moving around there shouldn't be an effect. But it does mean that I think that the country winning the war and the country losing the war should have identical war exhaustion (except for DPS, AI cheats etc.)

 

[Velociryx]

Not arguing that point at all, bro....I agree. It's about people being sick and tired of a war, BUT....

a great way to whip up popular support in a deeply religious people is to talk about a crusade against the heathens of (fill in the blank). Suddenly, war doesn't look so bad, cos the money is going toward something "important."

Likewise, yes, the peasantry want the war to end, but if the end of the war means the heathens from (fill in the blank) will ride into their villages and behead everyone, suddenly war taxes don't look so bad (and thus, WE would be.....not gone, but certainly the lesser of the two evils).

-=Vel=-

 

[unmerged(10630)]

A question: what should war exaustion reppresent? Unrest among the folk or among the nobles?

Cause there is a big difference: folk should keep an eye only on war taxations, instead nobles, well that's all another story...

 

[unmerged(10630)]

Well it seems that nobles had been influencede by diplomatic skill of invading king... and military situation...
Another point for lost battle higher WE and rebellion chance is that this makes central power much weaker... When people are not having the fear of kings army... pfeeewww ... well they'll rebell

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Velociryx

a great way to whip up popular support in a deeply religious people is to talk about a crusade against the heathens of (fill in the blank). Suddenly, war doesn't look so bad, cos the money is going toward something "important."

Likewise, yes, the peasantry want the war to end, but if the end of the war means the heathens from (fill in the blank) will ride into their villages and behead everyone, suddenly war taxes don't look so bad (and thus, WE would be.....not gone, but certainly the lesser of the two evils).

I suspect that the heathen soldiers that occupy and despoil the village/town are most likely from the home country.

However, I will give you that there is a reasonable case that WE could be affected by the religion of the opponent. Not the culture though, and (in my opinion) not on how well the war is going overall.

Local affairs matter a lot, but are handled right now through increased revolt risk when the province is occupied or controlled by someone else or looted. I don't see WE as needing to take into account these effects.

To a few posts ago - pirates don't count as blocakades until there are 5 of them. Prior to that they each reduce income by a small amount and that's it. Once there are five you have a blockade in addition to the loss of income.

 

[unmerged(15881)]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Not arguing that point at all, bro....I agree. It's about people being sick and tired of a war, BUT....

a great way to whip up popular support in a deeply religious people is to talk about a crusade against the heathens of (fill in the blank). Suddenly, war doesn't look so bad, cos the money is going toward something "important."

-=Vel=-

This is already take into account with the drop in stability (or lack of drop) due to religion and CB. If you have a "just cause" and religious differences, you don't have an impact. If you are attacking a fellow (insert religion here) for no good reason, your stability drops by 3 and so does your stability modifier which is the same as raising WE.

 

[Szordrin]

Some points!

While i do agree that WE isn't as good as it could be and doesn't fully represents all the aspects, it's really hard to add new modifiers to it and keep everybody happy and the motive coerent.

Now, i am for WE to be influenced by the religion of the combatants, the initial ones. If they differ in the sense that are incompatible or oposed, the defender should have an advantage.

Next, while nationalism is not an issue, there was at the time a sentiment of pride and fame, and even the poorest peasent would bragg if in a foreign town about the war won by his curent ruller against someone else who dared to upset him. Peoples generally hate incertenty, and a posible change in rulership could bring a lot of bad things. TO make it short, people will tolerate a somewhat prolonged succesfull war, and at the same time won't run hiding if there are some defeats.

Therefore i'm for some deduction in WE for a victorious campaign, perhaps also dependant on the raport between your loses/their loses. One more thing, given the curent rate of WE, it should really kick in only after 2-3 years, and it may stay at the current rate.

After all, armies must move, skirmishes take place, generals must do maneuvres, cities change alegiance, spies must do their thing, indecisve battles must take place, men and reinforcement regroup, news arrive from the front...news dismised as inconclusive, rummors spread, both bad and good, heroes are born....and only after some time resentment begins to apear, in the begining only whispers, then it grows, at meetings and in inns talks about the taxes and bad shape of the army are heard, resenment grows....and only after some more time nobles makes their voice heard, people comes to the street, people yell and spitt the oficials.....people atack oficials...people stop paying taxes...people rise in arms!

Call me creazy but all this seems to hapen in 3 years EU II time!

 

[unmerged(10630)]

As i've studied guicciardini's work about charles VIII italian war in 2 years of war 2 rebellions had been reported:

Pisa rebelled against Firenze;
Some naples nobels joined france new ruler.

In eu II terms only 1 rebellion cause nobles rebelling to france is not possible to implement in game if enemy army is sieging or owning your land.
Anyway i'm quite sure never have readen about some important peasentry rebellion due to war in 15th or 16th century.
Rebellion where maded first of all by nobles and not on theire own battlefield (i mean never heard of a nobles army raising against his king during a war). Nobles rebelled by changing party, joining the enemy against his ancient king accepting the claims of the invaders.
Rebellion in this different view make only a sense for province that could raise ad a country... like pisa in RL.
Can anybody else report about that?
Ever seen peasentry rebellions due to war?
Ever seen big nobles rebellions due to war?

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Barbalele

Anyway i'm quite sure never have readen about some important peasentry rebellion due to war in 15th or 16th century.

XVI century "peasant war" in Germany.

 

[unmerged(6042)]

Originally posted by Hive
This is a lobby to persuade Johan into changing the rapid WE increase and AI cheat to apply on VHARD only.

Am I the only one tired of not being able to be at war for very long anymore? With the implemention of WE rising when War taxes are collected and troops are hired, I really don't think it's fair to make it rise automatically as well - and certainly not that rapidly! And now that colonies changes culture (which, btw, kinda makes a historical Canada impossible...), why should anyone bother concquering non-core privinces in non-colonial areas? They are nothing but trouble as it is now - even with the same culture, since WE always increases twice as fast as in core provs...

And about the maintenance cheat: yes, it certainly made it impossible for players to have huge standing armies with 1 province minors - but as long as AI is able to do it, what good is it? It still doesn't prevent minors from expanding crazy and unrealistic, and - as pointed out in another thread by MKJ - it partly prevents nations such as OE from expanding historically. Besides, I don't like the fact that AI Lombardia can field a larger army than me as Venice! I know that a lot of people wanted the game harder, but this is plain crazy... so why not just implement it on VHARD? Then we can all enjoy the game the way we prefer...

If you agree with me, please post - maybe Johan would consider it if enough people are craving for it...

Hi, Hive. I've always had a serious problem with the concept of war exhaustion in a game that covers a time period of limited freedom for people to express such things and perhaps even more limited capability for them to do anything about their feelings. I remember a game as Spain in 1.04 or 1.05 when I fought a very long war with the Inca (long due to the ahistorically large army they had built up, because I didn't have guns yet, and because I was still fairly new to the game), and the WE was just kicking my ass toward the end in a completely ahistorical manner. I mean, 99.99% of Spaniards had no clue a handful of adventurers was subduing Peru in real life, and were certainly not getting unhappy and rebelling over it.

I think that the war exhaustion increases for conscripting relatively large numbers of troops based on your country's size and for levying war taxes makes things much more realistic and finally provides the real possibility that automatic unhappiness over the diplomatic nicety of a declared war could be completely eliminated. In short, I agree with you.

 

[unmerged(10630)]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
XVI century "peasant war" in Germany.

Was it a consequence of a war (war exhaustion?) or only a social related rebellion?

 

[unmerged(10630)]

Another question: is the first target of war exhaustion stop unendless wars (gameplay effect) or is it supposed to reproduce some historical event?