Raze = high unrest

[Secuter]

So it should be. Razing a province should equal a high increase in unrest. Either that or if you increase autonomy you wouldn't be able to raze. and if you raze, you can't give them increased autonomy. This would also increase the idea of you either take and control the land, or take/raze and return the land.

If you just raze and still want to hold on to it you should face some nasty rebels who surely doesn't like to see their daugters raped, houses burned and food pillaged..

 

[1nf3ct3d]

Or are they too scared cause 70% of their fighting male population just got massacred?

 

[Korashy]

Or are they too scared cause 70% of their fighting male population just got massacred?

Basically this. The mechanic is too powerful, but unrest makes little sense.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Some people might respect you for strong actions like murdering their male family members and forcefully making your own to replace them?

 

[Wizzington]

Razing does not kill 70% of the male population. It was not possible for a horde to kill that many people. Even a modern state would have trouble with it.

 

[Zehir]

Razing does not kill 70% of the male population. It was not possible for a horde to kill that many people. Even a modern state would have trouble with it.

Well, while that's true, I have to mention the Paraguayan War.

 

[romothecus]

Razing does not kill 70% of the male population. It was not possible for a horde to kill that many people. Even a modern state would have trouble with it.

I'm not sure this is historically correct. There are certainly estimates of Mongol destruction in Persia that put the population loss at 90%, and that's for a whole country, not just one province. Admittedly some of that is due to famine after the massacre of the peasantry, but it's also not restricted to just adult males - it's 90% of everyone.

It's tough to compare because of massive demographic changes during the EU4 period, but the adult male population in any given province was probably like 60-66%, and then only half of that male, so only 30-33%. Killing 70% of that would only be killing 21-23% of the total population. Something we know hordes could easily have done, because they did much worse than that in many places. And certainly many cities in Persia and China saw tens or even hundreds of thousands killed. Merv was probably the most populous city in the world in 1221, and it was nearly completely wiped out.

That said, it doesn't mean razing should cause unrest if causing unrest isn't a good gameplay mechanic, of course. The historical reality is always something of a collateral matter.

 

[Wizzington]

Such death figures are from famine and the like, which tends to coincidence with unrest and revolts. The 'they won't revolt because everyone is dead' argument is quite poor.

 

[romothecus]

Such death figures are from famine and the like, which tends to coincidence with unrest and revolts. The 'they won't revolt because everyone is dead' argument is quite poor.

I agree but I'm not sure why it matters - if people are put to the sword, or die within months because they have no food, the province is depopulated either way. Maybe "they won't revolt because everyone is starving" is a better semantic argument, but it amounts to the same thing.

Regardless, maybe revolt risk from razing is a good way to balance hordes, maybe it isn't; I don't know.

 

[Desertfox]

Razing should cause badboy/infamy or whatever it is called nowadays.

 

[tobias.mb]

Razing does not kill 70% of the male population. It was not possible for a horde to kill that many people. Even a modern state would have trouble with it.

Well Wikipedia isn't a completely reliable source, but in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire it mentions 90% population loss in Persia and 50% in Russia as a result of the Mongol invasions. Surely not everyone was put to the sword, but burning their homes and taking away their food isn't much better...

 

[Secuter]

Such death figures are from famine and the like, which tends to coincidence with unrest and revolts. The 'they won't revolt because everyone is dead' argument is quite poor.

Indeed. Mostly, pillaging leads to unrest through brigands and such who defies the rule. At some point, some noble with a flair for military will rise to he occasion and rise against the opressor.
For what it seems, it does look like Paradox intended the hordes to burn and pillage all they can, but not necessarily to keep the territory (hence why there's no loss in giving back the lands).

Anyway, this would be a nice proposition - either choose to keep the land (by not burning and pillaging it) or actually do that to get the one-time bonus and have a harder time to keep check of the area (because of rebels and the like).

People don't tend to forget raping and murdering easily and will be very very hostile to the occupier centuries ahead.
It should also increase separatism so that it will take even longer before you can culture convert for instance.

 

[ragnarokk]

Razing does not kill 70% of the male population. It was not possible for a horde to kill that many people. Even a modern state would have trouble with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War - and it's not even a modern state. According to some data 90% of adult male population died.
Somehow I can imagine Mongol Hordes killing 70% of people - that was a usual strategy of Timur when an surrender wasn't agreed beforehand.

 

[Wizzington]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War - and it's not even a modern state. According to some data 90% of adult male population died.
Somehow I can imagine Mongol Hordes killing 70% of people - that was a usual strategy of Timur when an surrender wasn't agreed beforehand.

90% of the population was not directly killed by invading armies, and it happened over a period of six years. It likely also includes people who didn't actually die but rather just fled the country, 19th century census methodology was hardly perfect.

 

[Secuter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War - and it's not even a modern state. According to some data 90% of adult male population died.
Somehow I can imagine Mongol Hordes killing 70% of people - that was a usual strategy of Timur when an surrender wasn't agreed beforehand.

I don't think it was a "usual" strategy. The mongols did it usually to one of the larger cities in the area so that the rest of the lands would bow without resistance. Thing is that, the mongols did not have an Iron grip of the areas.
It should be a trade in the game - burn the areas and get the bonus but also high unrest and not being able to give autonomy, or keep them which = no burning but being able to raise autonomy.
In my world it also makes sense somehow.

 

[Yeekim]

Could even make it so that razing a province also means "abandoning" it to itself or its former owner?

 

[fleetothemoon]

In CK2, razing increases the revoltrisk in that province considerably. However, I think generic rebels are a much bigger pain in the bum in EU4 then CK2, so I would prefer the RR increase not to be too massive.

 

[paulatreides0]

In CK2, razing increases the revoltrisk in that province considerably. However, I think generic rebels are a much bigger pain in the bum in EU4 then CK2, so I would prefer the RR increase not to be too massive.

Scale it to development, so that burning down useless provinces has little effect, but razing Constantinople/Beijing/Vienna/Paris would have a massive effect.

 

[semaphore]

Well Wikipedia isn't a completely reliable source, but in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire it mentions 90% population loss in Persia and 50% in Russia as a result of the Mongol invasions. Surely not everyone was put to the sword, but burning their homes and taking away their food isn't much better...

Wikipedia's unsourced claim (that Persia's population dropped from 2,500,000 to 250,000) is almost certainly wrong. No one disputes that the Mongol conquest was bloody and destructive, but there are no way to know exact numbers. Or more to the point, all estimates I've seen points to a much higher starting population than just 2.5 million in Persia.

John Man for example estimated that over 1 million were killed out of a total of 5 million. Steven Ward estimates that it was 10 to 15 million deaths.

Actually, within a few months of the Mongol sack of Merv in 1221, the city revolted.

 

[Varvs]

i personaly dont like that it gives free mana. If it would just give money i would like it much more gameplay whise.