• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
War Plans

Noble Senators, Respected Doge, and Honored Captain-General,

It is good to see the Senate so active in the affairs of state.

As the war with the Tuscan alliance has shown us, we never know when war may be upon us, forcing Captain-General Fodoron to fight and formulate war objectives without the advice of the Senate.

Perhaps it would be wise to debate and formulate war plans against our likely enemies now, so the Fodoron will know the wishes of the Senate in war comes.

For example, In a war against the Genoese Alliance, we would ignore the other allies, and seek white peaces, and focus on gaining the TOC in Kerch.

If the Senators like this idea, I would be happy to work up a set of draft war plans for debate.


Senator Arturo Ernesto Gandolfi
I would certainly welcome any word of advise from the senators of this noble council, even if we should not forget that no war plan suvives contact with the enemy.

I did not want to surrender control of military operations, because those things are decided by a high command in every country for a good reason. Democracy has never been instituted in an army as far as I know. I also had the fear that if I sit to play for a few years and immediately a war starts, and later more countries join or leave, I either had to live with it or stop the game continuously into a consultation crawl. But my biggest fear was and is that the goals set by the Council would probably be way over my skills. This fear is fueled by the honor of counting with very good players as members of this noble chamber. I have already learned a lot from this experience.

Nevertheless I have decided that the good of our Serenissima Repubblica is above myself. The High Council is above the Doge and the Capitano Generale and should have the right of deciding about war and peace.

Declaration of war is a voluntary act and therefore can be decided by the senate. Joining a war when called by an ally has to be decided by the player, because if the game is saved and reloaded is the same as answering no.

And finally the goals that should be attempted to achieve in a war, wether offensive or defensive, could also be decided by the senate. The game can always be saved immediately after starting the war, and probably the AI performs better that way.

Regarding strategies, some people are better at doing things in certain ways. For example I don't think I could pull out a synchronized looting as ws2_32 does without extensive practice. I don't know if I can fight efectively with somebody else's strategies. But I can try.

[size=+1]Election 14. War/Peace policies[/size]

Answer yes or no to the following:
1. Should we continue with the actual system where I chose whether to declare war and when to stop it?
2. Should we introduce the following change/s?:
A. Leave war declarations in the hands of the senate. Consult when casus belli are obtained against enemy countries or other good oportunities to join a fight.
B. Consult the senate on the goals that we should seek for every enemy country at war.
C. Consult the senate on recommended war strategies.

Answer according to your own preferences. I am perfectly happy either way as long as it does not interfere too much with the game flow. We can always change it if it does. That's the good thing about democracies.

This election was open for a very long time because I had no clear ideas about the best system. Seeing that the vote was split, I feel at liberty to take what I believe is the best decision for the game, the AAR and myself.

I want to continue being at liberty to DoW without stopping the game as long as the war fullfills one of the following criteria:
1) Enemy and war condition are aproved by the Senate. i.e. why ask again for the same thing?
2) As field commander I decide that it is too good an oportunity to pass. In that, I assume I know the will of the Senate and I will have to justify it to the Senate runing the risk of being censored. Even in Democracies, the Parliament does not control the war decisions. The Head of State does.

Experience tells that I am not too likely to abuse of 2), but I don't want to surrender that power, and I feel that about half of the senators support that view.
Last edited:
Election 14
1. YES
2. No

Dear Senate, perhaps I did not make myself clear at our last meeting, but I was serious and intent that we call a vote on the matter of dealing with the scourge of the Ottoman Empire!

I agree with the others that in most all cases with our Christian nations, we should refrain from warmongering and should attempt no attacks with out causa belli.

We are NOT dealing with a Christian nation in this matter. We are dealing with a plague, that left alone, can and will swamp our small efforts in Constantinople. While I agree with the doge that perhaps Egypt can be of use to us in a future confrontation with the Ottomans, forget not that neither would be sad with all of Christendom reduced to memory. We cannot wait and hope on the Egyptians to remove the Ottomans out of Europe.

Let me remind you that at last accounting, the Hungarians were in dire shape which will only serve to make the infidel stronger, not weaker. The longer we wait to deal with this, the worse it can become for us.

I am NOT calling on the Doge to declare war tomorrow, but I am saying that in this isolated case, against the muslim horde, he should have the ability to send us on the great crusade even IF there is no CB.

Can I be plainer? I call for a vote that in this one instance, against the Ottoman Turks who we all have agreed are a mortal enemy to us, the doge be allowed to declare war without a CB, if the moment is there.

I find it amazing that Senator Miozozny would question me on this matter and then admit that he, himself, so desirous of controlling trade in the Black Sea would attack a Christian nation (yes, even evil Genoa still must be afforded that title) without a CB? Convenience? Perhaps family ties to money? Let me remind you all that our trade in the Black Sea is dependent on one thing--removal of the OE from our shores.

I do NOT call us to war after war after war, yet war unspeakable will descend upon us unless we are active in preparation and able to strike when God gives us the moment. Do you want to protect our trade in the Med? Give the Doge the ability to strike! Do you want to expand our trade to perhaps controlling Alexandria? We must deal with the OE first. Do you want to control Italy? How can we while our southern front is surrounded by enemies that have so easily dispatched the Hungarians! Be wise my fellow Senators--we do NOT need war after war, but achieve that kind of lasting peace, we must remove the greatest danger to peace!

Again, I CALL for a VOTE on the matter!
Last edited:
Election 14

1. Yes
2. A, B, C, only when time shedules are handy.

I mean, the current system is fine. Decision is yours, otherwise we're going to make this experience last forever.

But if a situation arises where you deem it interesting to let the Senate vote, ask for it. Likewise, if a war is gonna last enough time, come in and ask what are the objectives. You don't have to let an election open for several days : even 24 hours are enough. If somebody answers, perfect. Those who didn't never showed up in time to the Senate, or were currently held abroad or otherwise unable to come to Venice.

I'd also like the possibility that the Senate could Dow on its own, whether with or without a CB. More precisely, short-termed temporary CBs are of your only resort, but long-termed temporary and permanent CBs should probably be submitted to the Senate.
aegandolfi said:
Perhaps it would be wise to debate and formulate war plans against our likely enemies now, so the Fodoron will know the wishes of the Senate in war comes.

For example, In a war against the Genoese Alliance, we would ignore the other allies, and seek white peaces, and focus on gaining the TOC in Kerch.

If the Senators like this idea, I would be happy to work up a set of draft war plans for debate.
It would be wise indeed, although war-plans might be too precise.

What I propose is that every time the Doge calls a vote on our diplomatic stance, everyone puts his opinion on what goals to achieve from wars against each enemy.

For example, if I declare Aragon a bitter, dire enemy, and that our goals should be to take all the isles and crush its navy, I would write :
4. Aragon (sink navy, conquer isles)

And a sixth point might be 'What to do with our enemies' allies'. There, each of us would state his opinion on what to do (take as much provinces/money as we can, force-vassalize, achieve white peace ASAP, etc).

What do you think, fellow Senators ?

* Ghost of Senator Lawkeeper Dandolo, currently at Barcelona *
carlec said:
Dear Senate, perhaps I did not make myself clear at our last meeting, but I was serious and intent that we call a vote on the matter of dealing with the scourge of the Ottoman Empire!
Again, I CALL for a VOTE on the matter!

And I answer your call :)

If any other senator formally supports this call, I will issue an election on how and when we should deal with the Ottoman menace. That is if they don't attack us or give us a CB in the 5 year period I am about to play...
Fodoron said:
If any other senator formally supports this call,
From far away, across the sea, I do.
Speaking OOC

Just to clarify my suggestion, I did not mean that the Senate should decide every DoW or short term CB, or be consulted on every war decision, that would slow the game too much. Although, I do agree that we might want to discuss long term CB's when there is a natural game pause (ie after 5 yrs).

What I had in mind was to decide general war objectives versus each likely opponent ahead of time, for both offensive and defensive wars. That way Fodoron can fight a war without needing to consult the Senate, but will still know what it is we want. We could do it at each election as suggested, but I don't know if we have to change it that often.

I certainly don't want to tell Fodoron how to fight, just what to fight for.


I think the matter of this election was already decided when we had our 'constitutional crisis', at the time of the Carmagnola trial. The Supremo Terribile Tribunale ruled 2 against 1 that the doge had acted within his powers in deciding war and peace with ample latitude. A clear precedent was established, and we should now bear its consequences. Although I was the one who called for the investigation on his conduct, democratic decisions must be uphed by all.

Election 14
1. Yes
2. A, B & C would be nice at Fodoron's discretion, though.
Dear senators,

Three years have passed already (1449-1451, read the account at "Il Senato.."), and while we resolve the dilemma over senatorial control over former Dogal prerogatives on war, I bring to you an example that can illustrate how the Doge sees the current international policies mandates.


A temporary casus belli of six months has been obtained yesterday 20th of April, 1452, on Saxony due to their diplomatic incompetence. Saxony (2 prov.) is in alliance with three other countries. Friesland (1 prov.), Provence (1 prov.), and Genoa (3 prov.). Our current relationship to Saxony is +100 (but likely to reduce due to the CB, reducing the stability hit to -1). Our current relationship to Genoa is +89. Relationship between them is +125. Genoa has military access both through Savoy and Tyrol into our lands. We have military access through Savoy into Liguria (Genoa). Our vassal and ally Tuscany has given us military access to their country and their port in Genoa's sea square. Saxony would have to get military access through 3 countries that have +125 relationship to them (possible). Provence and Friesland can only reach us by sea. We have a tarnished reputation (7.9/37) and absolutely no money in the coffers. Our inflation is still 3% and our stability +2.

There is no guarantee that a Dow on Saxony will produce a war against Genoa. I don't have intelligence on these countries strength (defense forces in Kerch, Corsica and Liguria are unknown). Getting this information would consume at least half of the available time if not more, so we will have to act blindly, but could cancel the war declaration if we face very strong opposition in our landing points. Tuscany has no armies at all, and Naples just a few men.

The war would mean +1 BB and +2 BB/province. +6 BB if we annex. Given our lack of funds and the expense of our troops, it is likely that we will have to mint to support the war effort. We could be locked in a war against an enemy we cannot reach that refuses to settle.

Given so many uncertainties I don't feel in the position of taking the decision by myself. So I hereby call an election on a declaration of war on Saxony. This is not a clear case to me. First because it means a DoW on a nation that it is not in the list of adversaries or enemies. Second because is not a CB on Genoa, and there are no guarantees she would join the war. And third, because we voted peace. Under this conditions war would not be declared by me. However, since interest on a war against Genoa has been expressed by the majority of the senate, I would have stopped and consulted the possibility even if we weren't having an election on this issue.

[size=+1]Election 15: War on Saxony[/size]

Pending intelligence on the enemy, that could give Capitano General Fodoroni the right to cancel the operation,

1. Shall we declare war on Saxony in the next six months?
2. Shall we invite our allies Tuscany and Naples to the war? (please answer even if you voted no to 1)
3. What would be the goals of such war? (please answer even if you voted no to 1)
4. Feel free to express any opinion on the war, or the current situation, that you may have.

Election open for 5 days.
Dear Capitano Fodoroni,

The case perfectly illustrates our issues about Senatorial prerogatives about foreign policy. Despite our relations with Saxony are not so bad, this seems to be a clear chance to move war against Genoa. And we should take it, but carefully: our allies are not ready for such war, and should kept apart ...

Just to avoid any doubt, we should fight hard and defeat them but not completely annihilate their power: depriving them of both Kerch and Corsica could help newcomers in seizing the city and annex it before we can move to defend it. If Kerch can be seen as a valuable province for its CoT and greek culture (making simplier potential conversion to Catholicism), Corsica is out of our primary sphere of influence (Eastern Mediterranean) and should remain to Genoa. Once taken Kerch and their Italian lands (obviously I'm speaking as if our enemies had been already defeated), asking for their vassalisation should convince them to abandon their hostility toward the Serenissima Republica and join our alliance with Naples and Tuscany. I don't know if you see our future: a league of Italian cities - Venice, Naples, Florence, Genoa - under the high patronage of St. Mark, against the menaces coming from outside, the North, the East, the West...

Election 15
1. Yes
2. No
3. Kerch and (if possible) vassalisation of Genoa
Last edited:
Election 15

1. Yes, under condition (stated below)
2. No
3. Kerch and Corsica
4. Extreme caution has to be used

Honored Capitano Generale Fodoroni,

It is my deep inner feeling that Venice's fate is to lead all italian cities to glory. Genoa is one of two cities which still denies us our great destiny. Genoa delenda est.

However, our current military and financial situations are not perfect, and genovese mercenaries could be numerous. If the war lasts for too long, situation might worsen to the point where our hungarian or heathen neighbours would want to turn on us. So, I urge you to be extremely cautious in the conduct of the war, and to only act against their interests if our navies, coming in sight of Kerch and Corsica, don't see any significant opposing forces. If they do, cancel the war declaration.

Be swift and deadly, but not reckless.

Senator Lawkeeper Dandolo, on board the stormbird,
off the coasts of Majorque, en route to Venice
Election 15.

1. YES
2. NO
3. Kerch, and if possible Corsica

We have six months to prepare. At least that is time enough to find out more about the forces defending Liguria, and perhaps a speedy innocent-looking merchantship can spy out Corsica's defences. The size of those have to influence the final decision too. In order to make them give up the valuable COT we might have to take Corsica as well, but I'm not sure they will agree to give up the COT and become vassals. Corsica is of low importance, but if we have to take it to force them on their knees, we might as well keep it. This could lead us to a victory as big as the one when we took Constantinople. I can hardly sit still at my desk when thinking of it!
Well, what's the worst case scenario: Loss of international credability (1BB) for declaring war, as well as worsened relations with almost all of Europe outside our alliance. If Genoa doesn't heed the call of it's ally, all we have to do is wait and stay defensive to get a white peace. Being at war is bad for business of course. If Kerch is taken it's another hit on our reputation (2BB). Fodoron spoke about annexation and the horrendous costs of that, but I fail to see what we should want to annex?

Another matter. I support a vote on the Ottoman question brought up by Carlo Cornaro, though it should be postphoned until well afte this war. I hope senator Lawkeeper Dandolo get's back in time to not become prey of genoese pirates.
Last edited:
Election 15
1: No
2: No
3: Kerch
4: Don't use up too many resources.

The ambassador from Denmark feels that the time is not right, we have not much money, and the situation is uncertain, furthermore, the increace in BB would most likely result in increased difficulty in incorporating peacefully Naples and Tuscany into our great realm.

The Ambassador
Norrefeldt said:
He still got it in him, despite his 79 years! :D

Yeah, and all this mess only for his greediness ... as if the Bucintoro went with real fuel!
Honorable Senators,
Wise Doge,

Please suffer a young field officer to mess with the affairs of the Serenissima Repubblica.

I may be inexperienced compared to all of you, great minds and shrewed diplomats, but maybe my freshness can be of good advice here.

Back in Cyprus, my masters and teachers, which I've left not so long ago to join our armies' ranks, once told me that the outcomes of a war were decided long before the war erupted. They taught me that, in order to face your enemies without their allies, you had to make sure your enemy's allies were your friends, and that your allies should be your enemy's worst foes. In that way, your enemies' allies would dishonor their alliance, while your's would honor their's. They said that although there's no glory to fight without risk, there weren't any casulties either. They said that having to battle your enemy's allies is a waste of time and resources. My father uses to say "swift and deadly", but my teachers used to say "swift, deadly, and to the point".

Now, our situation is the other way around : it is in the greater good of the Serenissima Repubblica that our archnemesis, the so-called "republic" of Genoa, honor their defensive alliance with Saxony. The confusing thing is that, even if you consider Genoa our foremost enemy, it is our diplomat's credit to have succeeded in deceiving them, to make them believe in our presumed friendship. The situation is such that, should we declare war to the germans, Genoa would probably fail to honor their alliance, out of friendship (and also out of fear of our might).

So, in order to achieve our primary objectives, we need Genoa to honor its oaths.

And there's only one way for us to push them in that direction : we must tarnish our relations with them. Be it by issuing insults or staging diplomatic incidents, or even by formally proclaiming our sovereignity on them.

Once they will hate you, they will understand there's only one way to deal with us, that words are useless, that now it is time for steel.

I thank thee for your attention, Wise Me.

Commander Enrico Dandolo
Fifth Regiment of Eastern Militia
Byzantium's Garrison

Prudence and patience are of essence at this time. I understand the enthusiasm of some of you, but we have stretched the blanket of our resources beyond what is wise.
Yes, we cannot forget the ancient enmity between our noble Republic and that nest of godless usurers. But at present we cannot deal with any unforseen event that should happen to us.
I agree with sending for our spies immediately, but I will support war only if their military strength is negligible. Provence also worries me, they may be in a position to relieve the siege on Genova (by land or sea). We should find out about their strength too.

Should we find favorable conditions, then surprise must be achieved at all costs. I suggest having a fleet sent to the Ligurian Sea to ascertain the situation, but with an army already on board, ready to land in Corsica on the same day we declare war.

If the Almighty grants us victory, then do not leave Genova vulnerable by taking Corsica. Tyrol is just across the river, France and the vicious Aragonese are not far.

Election 15
1. Yes, under conditions.
2. No
3. Kerch, Vassalization
4. Use utmost prudence before declaring war. Check Provence. Any sizable enemy army in Corsica would make our goals basically unattainable.
Hastu Neon said:
Yeah, and all this mess only for his greediness ... as if the Bucintoro went with real fuel!

We had to send the rowers home for lack of money to pay them. You are not suggesting a man of my age should take a 50 ton barge out to the canal and back for the enjoyment of the ambassador from a small obscure german country that has got two days left once our Habsburg friends start moving, are you?