There is an interesting difference that must be taken into account with AoN. Whereas in EUII the manpower is far superior to what the countries could possibly have managed the first 350 years, it is woefully inefficient for AoN.
Case in point...Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Roumania were able to field massive armies given the size of their countries. Example, Bulgaria with a population of 5 million was able to field 900,000 soldiers in WW1, and I believe about 300,000 total mobilized in the balkan wars. (I don't have my books with me, but I remember figures in these ranges) During the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars, the Turks had more then a million troops under arms throughout the Empire. 800,000 in Thessalonika alone fighting against the Balkan states. Some 500,000 directly confronted the Bulgarians and about 130,000 fought with the Greeks/Serbs.
So what steps, using the EUII situation, will be used to model the massive armies of this period? Such as the large armies in the American Civil War. In EUII, the army maintenance would destroy your economy, yet the North emerged stronger and more prosperous then ever.
Is it even possible to take steps to this effect? Even the smallest nations in Europe were capable of fielding at least a 100,000. The Balkan countries were each -capable- of putting at least half a million under arms. The Bulgarians/Romanians put significantly more.
I mention this because while 1819-1914 didn't see the mass conscription of WW1, there was still far larger armies, and standing armies at that. Especially in the Balkan wars.
The Bulgarians were of reasonable quality as well.
Has this question been addressed yet? I'm pretty sure manpower can be modified. Maintenance needs to be fixed though, and nearly all the provinces need to be made -significantly- more wealthy. In EUII, taking extra provinces can actually prove to be a financial burden, or not profitable at all. In AoN, all territory was extremely valuable...Even a small poor Dobrujda would be considered invaluable!
I'm thinking that when 1.05 comes out and the provinces can be modified, that we should do away with the population as based on the city, but instead make it the province as a whole. So the region of bulgaria will be given a significantly higher population (Will have to check a map to see what other provinces constituted Bulgaria so it can be divided equally, but say 2 million for now) and a manpower of like 75-150, which should represent the number of troops under armies, along with a conscription center of course.
This actually works out well, if you followed the 50-100 manpower per province rule. I did some basic calculations and I haven't noticed anything erroneous. It gives America, France, Germany, Russia historical yearly manpower and small nations like Greece, the chance to field armies as large as they did historical. Some provinces will be 40-50 (Such as provinces in the South of America) and some will be drastically higher, such as 100. (Some provinces in the north). Half-settled areas like California and Canada must be dealt with individually in regards to -population density-.
The Ottoman Empire during the Balkan wars/1st world war had a population ranging from 25 million to 30 million, and were able to field a military in excess of a million. Most nations had the capacity to mobilize 15 percent of their population on average. Anything past 5-10 percent however and there would be severe troubles if maintained indefinitely. Look at the populations of Germany and Britain and the massive numbers of troops they were able to throw away in a single series of pitched battles. To say that this is entirely in the realm of 1914+ is erroneous. There was a very real chance of WW1esque fighting breaking out far earlier and should have a chance to, given events. This would give the AI nations at least, a 15% chance of commencing hostilities earlier, and the player can whenever of course.
Thusly, each nation should be able to support 5% of it's population in the military with few penalties. In a way, EUII fails to model how having a large country, almost allows the provinces to pay for themselves in upkeep of a standing force. Hopefully, making all of the provinces far wealthier, and raising the manpower drastically, will offset the maintenance costs. There won't be much for the player to buy anyhow.
Now, if only cavalry/artillery were able to be removed to prevent the AI from splurging on idiot stuff and we included the modified CRT tables that allow for more historically accurate results.
Also, on the matter of technologies. I suggest that we let everyone start the game at max tech level, but starting at max quantity,max serf, mid naval/land. Depending on a countries advances in tactics/doctrines, the quantity/serf/land sliders can be modified. Yes, I know serfs/free subjects is supposed to stand for something different, yet it is invaluable in determining military effectivenss and oddly accurate to use in a way, if you take your mode of comparison from 1419-1819 to 1819-1914 (as if starting over, in perspective, rather then a continuation of say, what they were in the Napoleon scenario, more stand alone).
Also, note that the AI can't change its own sliders, only through events, so there would have to be events that take the sliders to where they should be for the AI.
I can imagine the advent of better rifles as the equilivant of lowering the serfs more towards free subjects. Higher morale, causing more effective fighting, yet a slight cost increase. Quantity/Land can be used as well of course.
Everyone should start mid naval/land except for the obvious cases where one nation was fixated on one more then the other, but no one should begin with more then 5, to be better used to simulate tech advancement.
Note that events should keep pace enough for the AI to remain on par with a player getting to tweak his own sliders. This should be easier done in a 95 year scenario then a 400 year one. People may even be persuaded to not manually change their settings except through events...
Anyhow, this is just what I feel, a very important issue.
Also, my stand is wavering somewhat on fortresses. After some research, there was some -massive- fortifications with up to 60,000 man garrisons. The problem is how well the AI can deal with it. It willl also encourage wars to be on a smaller scale. No more then one or two provinces should change hands.
This would be different of course, in say America. But in areas like the Balkans, they were very heavily fortified. The question is what better abstracts the results of a war...large fortresses or virtually non-existant ones. Depending on how well the AI manages its large armies to actually make it reasonable.
I can't wait to find out how much the scenario editor does!!!
Case in point...Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Roumania were able to field massive armies given the size of their countries. Example, Bulgaria with a population of 5 million was able to field 900,000 soldiers in WW1, and I believe about 300,000 total mobilized in the balkan wars. (I don't have my books with me, but I remember figures in these ranges) During the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars, the Turks had more then a million troops under arms throughout the Empire. 800,000 in Thessalonika alone fighting against the Balkan states. Some 500,000 directly confronted the Bulgarians and about 130,000 fought with the Greeks/Serbs.
So what steps, using the EUII situation, will be used to model the massive armies of this period? Such as the large armies in the American Civil War. In EUII, the army maintenance would destroy your economy, yet the North emerged stronger and more prosperous then ever.
Is it even possible to take steps to this effect? Even the smallest nations in Europe were capable of fielding at least a 100,000. The Balkan countries were each -capable- of putting at least half a million under arms. The Bulgarians/Romanians put significantly more.
I mention this because while 1819-1914 didn't see the mass conscription of WW1, there was still far larger armies, and standing armies at that. Especially in the Balkan wars.
The Bulgarians were of reasonable quality as well.
Has this question been addressed yet? I'm pretty sure manpower can be modified. Maintenance needs to be fixed though, and nearly all the provinces need to be made -significantly- more wealthy. In EUII, taking extra provinces can actually prove to be a financial burden, or not profitable at all. In AoN, all territory was extremely valuable...Even a small poor Dobrujda would be considered invaluable!
I'm thinking that when 1.05 comes out and the provinces can be modified, that we should do away with the population as based on the city, but instead make it the province as a whole. So the region of bulgaria will be given a significantly higher population (Will have to check a map to see what other provinces constituted Bulgaria so it can be divided equally, but say 2 million for now) and a manpower of like 75-150, which should represent the number of troops under armies, along with a conscription center of course.
This actually works out well, if you followed the 50-100 manpower per province rule. I did some basic calculations and I haven't noticed anything erroneous. It gives America, France, Germany, Russia historical yearly manpower and small nations like Greece, the chance to field armies as large as they did historical. Some provinces will be 40-50 (Such as provinces in the South of America) and some will be drastically higher, such as 100. (Some provinces in the north). Half-settled areas like California and Canada must be dealt with individually in regards to -population density-.
The Ottoman Empire during the Balkan wars/1st world war had a population ranging from 25 million to 30 million, and were able to field a military in excess of a million. Most nations had the capacity to mobilize 15 percent of their population on average. Anything past 5-10 percent however and there would be severe troubles if maintained indefinitely. Look at the populations of Germany and Britain and the massive numbers of troops they were able to throw away in a single series of pitched battles. To say that this is entirely in the realm of 1914+ is erroneous. There was a very real chance of WW1esque fighting breaking out far earlier and should have a chance to, given events. This would give the AI nations at least, a 15% chance of commencing hostilities earlier, and the player can whenever of course.
Thusly, each nation should be able to support 5% of it's population in the military with few penalties. In a way, EUII fails to model how having a large country, almost allows the provinces to pay for themselves in upkeep of a standing force. Hopefully, making all of the provinces far wealthier, and raising the manpower drastically, will offset the maintenance costs. There won't be much for the player to buy anyhow.
Now, if only cavalry/artillery were able to be removed to prevent the AI from splurging on idiot stuff and we included the modified CRT tables that allow for more historically accurate results.
Also, on the matter of technologies. I suggest that we let everyone start the game at max tech level, but starting at max quantity,max serf, mid naval/land. Depending on a countries advances in tactics/doctrines, the quantity/serf/land sliders can be modified. Yes, I know serfs/free subjects is supposed to stand for something different, yet it is invaluable in determining military effectivenss and oddly accurate to use in a way, if you take your mode of comparison from 1419-1819 to 1819-1914 (as if starting over, in perspective, rather then a continuation of say, what they were in the Napoleon scenario, more stand alone).
Also, note that the AI can't change its own sliders, only through events, so there would have to be events that take the sliders to where they should be for the AI.
I can imagine the advent of better rifles as the equilivant of lowering the serfs more towards free subjects. Higher morale, causing more effective fighting, yet a slight cost increase. Quantity/Land can be used as well of course.
Everyone should start mid naval/land except for the obvious cases where one nation was fixated on one more then the other, but no one should begin with more then 5, to be better used to simulate tech advancement.
Note that events should keep pace enough for the AI to remain on par with a player getting to tweak his own sliders. This should be easier done in a 95 year scenario then a 400 year one. People may even be persuaded to not manually change their settings except through events...
Anyhow, this is just what I feel, a very important issue.
Also, my stand is wavering somewhat on fortresses. After some research, there was some -massive- fortifications with up to 60,000 man garrisons. The problem is how well the AI can deal with it. It willl also encourage wars to be on a smaller scale. No more then one or two provinces should change hands.
This would be different of course, in say America. But in areas like the Balkans, they were very heavily fortified. The question is what better abstracts the results of a war...large fortresses or virtually non-existant ones. Depending on how well the AI manages its large armies to actually make it reasonable.
I can't wait to find out how much the scenario editor does!!!
Last edited:
!!
