The Price of War

[unmerged(18007)]

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but how is the game going to handle the negative aspects of war?

In EU and EU2 (even in HOI), there were almost no ill-effects of war. The few that exist (a possible stab hit, the cost of troops, BB, WE) are almost all short term, and the only one that has any effect 5 years down the line is the BB, and that's a cost of reputation.

I'm talking more along the lines of actual, physical costs of war. The Thirty Years' War (yes, in the EU timeframe) destroyed something like 1/3 the population of Germany, wars utterly destroyed cities, economies were ruined, cultural acheivments completely erased...

There really has to be some negative, long term, physical consequence of war, because while war can bring in large amounts of land, it can also completely weaken a nation to the breaking point (good example: the wars of Justinian and the Byzantine economy) where it must give up all of its gains.

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? Has this already been addressed?

 

[unmerged(20138)]

I completely and totally 100% agree.

hmm I can go to war..oh no dont pillage me so its a litle pain in the arse for 12 months...anything but that

 

[unmerged(3168)]

I'd totally agree, we should suffer the negative effects of war. I don't know how it could be modeled but maybe Pops will take casualties when a combat occurs in their province? or increase in militancy to simulate EUish war weariness? You could also have a system like HoI were the provinces production drops to zero and then rebuilds when it changes hands.

 

[John Poole]

I think the destruction of infrastructure, factories, Resource centers...etc...that all need to be rebuilt at considerable expense would be a good start. Also refuges as in POPs emmigrating, would good as well.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

19th-20th century the wars were rather limited.
At most it was a bad siege or something but other then that Armies met, Armies got killed, the winner won.
Even WW1 had limited effects on civilians.

 

[unmerged(18007)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
19th-20th century the wars were rather limited.
At most it was a bad siege or something but other then that Armies met, Armies got killed, the winner won.
Even WW1 had limited effects on civilians.

Regardless of how pristine the combat was, mass military movements had adverse effects on the civilian populace.

But you are right, my concern would be more applicable to EU and EU2, though it would still be something considerable to have in Victoria.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
19th-20th century the wars were rather limited.
At most it was a bad siege or something but other then that Armies met, Armies got killed, the winner won.
Even WW1 had limited effects on civilians.

Except for the fact that they died.

 

[Moltke]

^ and horribly.

Not to mention entire generations of young men can be decimated, as was the case with France.

 

[unmerged(11253)]

Considering the fact that actuall populations are in Victoria... I would think that if your country has a population of say, 18 million, and your army is at a strength of 500,000... and you fight a war with another country, in the process losing 75,000 of your men in battle, that it would be reflected in your total population count.

Perhaps a slight decrease of population in a province under siege is in order, but not much... as far as I know, in this time period battles were generally on fields and away from major population centers and infrastructure

 

[unmerged(11874)]

AlexanderG: 19th-20th century the wars were rather limited. At most it was a bad siege or something but other then that Armies met, Armies got killed, the winner won. Even WW1 had limited effects on civilians.

Entire cities were burned during the American Civil War; Paris bled in 1871; from what I understand the surrender of Russian forces at Port Arthur was motivated partially by the Japanese shelling of the city.

And the First World War's eastern front was, I imagine, while to a lesser degree than that of the Second, somewhat unpleasant for civilians. Especially considering that war went on there for another four years after Versailles. I know less about occupied Belgium; while I don't think they were happy, it is true that at the same time they were not indiscriminately blown up.

This not even counting the indirect impact of the strain of war--the food shortages all over Europe by 1916, genuine famine in the east by 1917, and the potential for genuine famine to be found in a more effective blockade of Britain.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

And what about the positive sides of DOW-ing? This is the age of nationalism, people! It is total nonsense to get a stabhit as Russia when declaring war on the Ottomans, or Napolean III declaring war on Prussia. WWI is also a great example: the different nations exploded in an orgy of nationalism. If anything, a stab rise should be in order. Only a war turned bad (Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI) should cause the populace to rebel.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Suvorov
And what about the positive sides of DOW-ing? This is the age of nationalism, people! It is total nonsense to get a stabhit as Russia when declaring war on the Ottomans, or Napolean III declaring war on Prussia. WWI is also a great example: the different nations exploded in an orgy of nationalism. If anything, a stab rise should be in order. Only a war turned bad (Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI) should cause the populace to rebel.

Yes you should only take a stab hit when you take casualties or lose battles....or lose battles AND take casualties...or lose battles while taking casualties and losing half your empire to rampaging Russians for example...

 

[unmerged(12761)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
19th-20th century the wars were rather limited.
At most it was a bad siege or something but other then that Armies met, Armies got killed, the winner won.
Even WW1 had limited effects on civilians.

World war one had a huge effect on civilians. Russia - Revolution. Germany - Revolution. Austria-Hungary - Independence for all minors, leaving just a few provinces to the Austrians. France - On the brink of revolution.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

Not to mention rationing and ofcourse the blockade of Germany. Hundreds of thousands starved to death in the "turnip winter" of 1916/17, when due to a lack of farm labor, draft animals and fertilizers led to a potato harvest of only 50% of the pre-war level. In summer 1917 rations were cut to 1000 calories per day.

And my grandparents still regard turnips as poor peoples' food, even though they were born a few years after the war... and turnips are not all that bad. (I like them)

 

[unmerged(6206)]

I have to say that I agree with the subject of this thread: civilians have always been the first casualties of war even if it's not in the History books.
I used to live close to Verdun in france.. where a battle between french and german lasted for some 6 months in winter 1916 (was it 200,000 deads? too much anyway)

Well.. back to the point: in a museum there was reported the population of the cities and its evolution through the 19th and 20th century in this area. After 1871 war population dropped by almost 30 to 40%. The same after WWI... and actually population never went back to initial levels after 1871 and WWI.. another reasons for this is also maybe that most of the land around Verdun is still today red ares and impossible to cultivate..

When a certain level of loss is reached it's not possible for any population to be restored anyway (dixit the strategists who developped the nuclear desuasive theories).

For WWI, and 1871 war, probably inhabitants moved to other places or maybe they died because of shortage in supply etc.. it's true that it's only with WWII that civilians became full victims of wars in a planned way. But still: wars have a dramatic impact on civilians


...
I really wonder too if this bad effect of war is modelled in victoria. Well.

 

[pimparel]

Did you played EU2? Cause there was another effect of war. The province captured or occupied, loose population at a rate of something like -5%/month (which is a lot on a 1 or 2 years siege) and you lost the income of that provinces. And with the stab hit and the WE increasing, your income always decreased.
War to me was always economic hell (more sizeable with a minor), even with the peace deal reward.
Not to mention the previous stated BB, WE, raising army costs, maintenance and the stab hit (which had a another effect, that was the change of rearch priorities). And the inner revolts across you empire.

New smiley!!!:rofl:

 

[unmerged(6206)]

yep... I play EUII.
you're right: but -5% isn't dramatic when the birth rate can reach +12%.
WWI has been the end of the demographic domination of europe over the world. No need to say why.

 

[unmerged(6206)]

Humm... but this brings me to wonder if the consequences of WWI will be correctly described in victoria.. Because damages to the infrastructures is one thing but the WWI was also the first war where chemical warfare was extensively used. The longterm effect of this is more important than a decrease in birth rate during war time. And also the extensive use of industrial war was totally devastating to the lands. Still some 40 to 60 years ago in some of the battle fields in the north of france or belgium the land had still more a moon appearance than earth's like. If you go to some places it's not uncommon to find unexplosed shells of the 1st...
In the time span of victoria, the end years might be interesting in the doomed landscape... at all points of view (socially, economically, politically, ...). I really look forward to this: this should be a good lesson for total warmonger I guess.

 

[SecondReich]

I think it is unfair that negative aspects are all that are ever covered. Just think of 9/11. It had a Stabilitating (word?) effect on America, not the opposite. I think if you have a Casus Belli on a country and you declare war, you should get plus 1 stability.

 

[unmerged(6206)]

I guess this can be taken into account in the game (??). It would depend on the politics of the country (proportion of nationalist and pacifist).. With high nationalism, the stability goes up... Just a guess.