The Price of War

[unmerged(18007)]

Originally posted by 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.

We're talking about the physical effects of war here. The damage to cities, permanent damage to economies (even if you take a loan in EU2, how long do you wait to repay it?), depopulation of areas, a large loss of production power, etc. etc...

I know that in EU2, I can go on huge war sprees, and so long as I can take the diplomatic reprecussions, there's nothing holding me back from doing it. I don't even have to take loans. That's one of the more unrealistic things in my opinion, as if I were to, say, conquer the entirety of the Balkans and the Middle East as the Ottomans in a series of bloody wars where many thousands of men died on the field of battle and long seiges of almost all the cities in said areas, I'd expect SOME sort of negative population, income, production, or manpower problem, but that could only really possibly occur in the situation that it's a non national province, and then its because the people are upset with my rule, not with the death I have visited upon them and their families (nationalism). To put it in perspective... If I were to seige Constantinople for 10 years and then finally, after breaching the fortifications and slaughtering the guard, take the city, would it be as productive 3 years after the war as it was before the war, and with a larger population? It seems more than a little weird.

 

[el freako]

Originally posted by 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

Actually you are reading this wrong.

It's a 5% fall per decade not per month - and as such makes sieges have a fraction of the effect on urban population than they did.

I have been bemoaning this since EUI so I doubt it will get fixed (even though it should be relatively easy,by doubling or tripling the effects of siege and looting)

 

[unmerged(4396)]

Really though, how long do the physical aspects of war really last? In my opinion it is actually very, very rare where there is a war or battle that can be marked as a 'turning point' in a civilizations history with really long lasting effects on society and terrain. Take WW2. Incredibly destructive, millions dead. Those millions have long been replaced and the buildings rebuilt. US Civil War, same deal, but indeed, the war caused the South's industry and rail capacity to boom with the influx of Yankee investment into a wide open market (sure, it was inequitous, but the effect was the same). I know it seems callous, but the real scars of war are primarily psychological to me, but with even the most destructive wars, 10 years later the physical scars are almost gone. Life goes on, children get born. I hope Victoria does not OVERstate the cost of warfare.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

I think it depends on the type of war and how long it lasted. I dont think britains wars against china in 19th century hurt their population much neither did it affect the chinese population much since the emperor knew that it would cause huge instability in the empire so he went for early peace.

 

[Colon]

Don't forget regaining your population also happens much slower than IRL, so I'd say EU's models evens out the impact and reconstruction.
For instance, during a war IRL a city may lose half its population in a couple of years, but after it ends it will also be repopulated about as quickly. (take Tokyo, it was completely flattened during WW2, but nowadays 30 million people live in the greater metropolitan area)
And more generally, the population loss in a country during a war tends to be balanced by a baby boom afterwards.

Besides I've seen plenty of instances in EU in which provinces and entire countries were severely crippled because of wars. (yet another example: all Dutch provinces having only 5000 population after the war of secession)

So ideally, Victoria would model a much stronger impact of war, but also model the reconstruction that usually takes place after a war.

And to add just one more note: population loss during wars are mostly caused by emigration, famine and epidemics, not actual combat.

 

[Moltke]

I think wars in Victoria will be fairly costly. Probably in the order of several hundred £ on average, just like they did in real life.