Lobby to persuade Johan to do some alterations

[artemis667]

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

I've always believed that it's to stop endless wars. (I hope that un in front of the endless was a slip )

I think it achieves it's goal well in current implementation. It's not completely unhistorical, as it's still possible to fight wars for very long periods of time without being torn apart by war exhaustion, so long as there are significant pauses in the fighting.

 

[unmerged(12740)]

Re: Re: Lobby to persuade Johan to do some alterations

Originally posted by Johan
I am looking into Warexhaustion now actually, using http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82870 as a basis for suggestions.

johan: as long as you're looking at this, can i persuade you to take a look at WE in v 1.06b, ahistorical?? some of the thoughts in that thread are further developed in Suggestion for gold inflation (of all places) -- in the last post extant i give some historical examples for the profitability of wars/looting.

 

[unmerged(10630)]

Well my opinion about this is that in RL wars ends cause kings was not more able to supply with money their armies... Charles V is a perfect example for this. Every ruler of this time span got the same damned problem: the god money. That's the reason cause powers battled for so lon time for rich and wealth italy, for flanders and nobody matters about let's say... navarra or suiss.
They battled for this areas to gain their money, they battled so much till ruining this provinces.
I've really never readen about this fantastic rebellions happening commonly in game. Nobles joins invaders maybe... citizen could not help to defend theire city some province will maybe defect and create his own country if they were able to do it. But rebellions... there must be another way to stop wars don't you think so?

 

[unmerged(7307)]

Under 1.07 I have had very little trouble defeating rebs but maybe you are talking of 1.07+ or playing empires with low morale slider settings.
Maybe a solution to the WE problems would be to slow down WE for first 4-5yrs then have a increase at a faster rate.
I personally don't like all the changes to stablity. Serfdom slider is weaker and each point of BB adds to stabilty costs. Playing most latin countries it isn't a big problem but Byz,Ottoman and countries similar to them really don't have anyway to expand except by taking non-religion provs.
Also the increase in cost to manufactories in 1.07 is to much. I thought the 1.05 setting were right on.
Also for1.07+ tax collectors and govs are been tested for very radical changes that I would strongly disagree with.
Like someone in this thread mentioned 1.07 has some major changes that enhance game play but also really change the game in very drastic ways on every setting and going back to 1.05 isn't really something I want to do.
Positive changes in 1.07-BB rating given number ingame,troop maint.,annexing no stab increase, central slider fixed,new diplo system,new trade system(I do agree wth this one even though alot of people don't),WE(I like the increase better than before but would like a small scale back) and many more.

 

[Dinsdale]

Re: Re: Re: Lobby to persuade Johan to do some alterations

Originally posted by tpc
johan: as long as you're looking at this, can i persuade you to take a look at WE in v 1.06b, ahistorical??

I would second some of the excellent points brought up in that thread.

It is worth repeating 1000 times that revolts, WE, double WE in non cores, nationalism etc have very little to do with history and are game mechanics.

 

[unmerged(10630)]

What about giving war taxes even out of wars an option to be?
I mean kings were used to raise mostly taxes to prepare a war and less during a war.
Let's make it possible to raise it wathever we wants and give it a 3% increased rebellion chance decreasing to 0 in a time span of 6 years for every time you are going to have increased taxes.
Another thing that could be historical enough and easy to implement. Province that are able to raise as indipendent will have an increased rebellion chance too during wars cause they take the opportunity to delete from a weaker central power.
A question: how is nationalism working? Is nationalism increasing if i force annex a country that has not my same religion or culture? Or is it the same for all doesn't matter if similar to me or different?

 

[Velociryx]

Issac: For the record, I more-or-less agree with you, however, my arguments are based entirely on existing game mechanics.

For example - If you, as a successful conquerer, take control of a province with a different state religion and a different culture from your state culture(s), you are, under the current rules, dinged twice in terms of controlling the province (once for cultural differences, and again for religious differences).

Given this, I feel that there should be some WE consideration under condititions of the threat of same (ie - threat of conquest by a different culture/religion). Since the successful conquerer IS dinged for both after the fact, then some reckoning should be given to the defender before the fact.

-=Vel=-

 

[Szordrin]

I do think that all the WE debates will find more common ground and less things worth arguing if a simple and historical solution will be implemented: WE only starts after a minimum of 4-5 years, but raises rather drasticaly.

 

[boehm]

my thoughts on an ideal solution to WE and WT...

Originally posted by Barbalele
What about giving war taxes even out of wars an option to be?

I have been thinking a bit along the same lines....let me elaborate. I was thinking and set up a small model where the following assumptions are made:

War Exhaustion:
Results from the general fatique and unhappyness that spreads through society as a result from continually running the economy on a wartime footing, which is here defined as extraordinaire manpower conscriptions and tax collections. It is thus possible for a nation be at war for a fairly long period of time without causing severe WE as long as it does NOT run its economy on a continual wartime footing. I therefore suggest that the time element of WE should be dropped quite low to eg. +0.2 or +0.3 per year.

War Taxes:
Taking out WT is running the economy on a wartime footing and consequently NOT taking out WT means NOT running the economy on a wartime footing. I therefore suggest the following changes:
1) It should be possible to run the economy on wartime footing even while at peace, but this should cause immediate unrest thus -1 stability.
2) Taking out WT during a time of war should NOT cause immediate unrest ei. NO stability drop.
3) Since NOT taking out WT means running the economy on peacetime footing I suggest that the yearly manpower gain is reduced to 50%.
4) Taking out WT and thus running the economy on a wartime footing should increase the yearlymanpower gain by a factor of 4 so with WT the yearly manpower gain is 200% of current-No-WT-gain.
5) WT should increase tax & census tax by 150% (perhaps lower it a bit?), but as compensation increase inflation by 0.2%.
6) WT should have a duration of 12 months not 6...so as to avoid having to remember to include january 1st (why should WT be more effective in the fall than in the spring?!).
7) Finally since WT represents running the economy on a wartime footing for 1 year...it should increase WE with something like +0.7 or +0.8 per WT.

Using this setup it would be possible to have long lowintensity wars without too much WE...while at the same time I believe that taking out WT is advantageous enough in the short term, in a high stake war, to actually be used quite a lot. ....additionally I like the idea that this will actually allow a nation to respond to a persieved threat and put its economy on a wartime footing even while still at peace!

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Szordrin
I do think that all the WE debates will find more common ground and less things worth arguing if a simple and historical solution will be implemented: WE only starts after a minimum of 4-5 years, but raises rather drasticaly.

well to a certain extend thats already how it is since WE doesnt have any effect as long as the total RR risk is < 0.

 

[Hive]

Let this thread be ressurected with a simple request: re-establish the land connection between Sjælland and Jylland (perhaps even Sjælland and Skåne), and implement the excellent feature from Victoria were fleets can block troops from moving through straits!

 

[Castellon]

Let's not and say we did.

There are several current threads dealing with this topic, no need to resurect a 6 month old one.
*closed