War and migration

[CaptRobau]

As far as I know, war in V1 does not directly lead to migration. It might raise the militancy if it's not going well for a country but I mean directly. So when a province is on the frontlines (static like in WWI or if many battles are fought over it) it should make the POPs in that province want to migrate either to somewhere more peaceful in the country or abroad. If you're a poor North French farmer in Verdun you'd pack up your things and move to your relatives in the Provence, at least until the war ended. Or even to the US. So warfare should promote the (e)migration in a province. This could be a constant factor during all wars. Only the really big ones like the Great War or perhaps the ACW would lead to any large migrations.

Secondly, civilian casualties. War always costs some civilian casualties and warfare should activate an attrition factor in the province that is being ravaged by war.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I completely agree, and I also think there should be a good chance of infrastructure and factories being destroyed in provinces involve din wars.

 

[Orinsul]

and landmarks too, alot of the damage done to france in the franco-purssian war was in the destruction of the palaces [like st-cloud] and other important propaganda defeats that caused just as much hurt to the spirit of the french people as the military defeats.
imagine if westminster was blown up by flemmish artillery fire, would england recover? or would it be what they need to be spurred into the counter-attack? who knows, belguim never conquered after of europe and then crossed the channel so i guess we'll never know

 

[Xz2]

how about all economic activity ends in a province where their is a battle? then the people there would have to move to get some income for bread if the frontline pass there to often or standstill.

 

[Orinsul]

how about all economic activity ends in a province where their is a battle? then the people there would have to move to get some income for bread if the frontline pass there to often or standstill.

im seeing how that'll backfire when alsace-lorraine ends up empty.

 

[Zakath]

There should always be a few diehards which stay behind no matter how devastated their province is. Nothing available in this period can truly destroy the land for all eternity after all

 

[Orinsul]

dust-bowl was pretty close, but then that wasnt a weapon.

 

[Xz2]

im seeing how that'll backfire when alsace-lorraine ends up empty.

ofcourse it's tight balance to be done. maybe a % depending on size of armies, arty and tech. but atleast during the time it takes from you won the battle untill you have taken controll the pops would have to live on their savings.

 

[Orinsul]

i seem to remember it took 3-4 years of pretty much non-stop heavy fighting with implaubly high causulties and large you the most destructive weapons to exist before the bomb to take it back, and alot of people went to live with their aunts on the coast for the duration, a relatively small number fled to america.

 

[Eichenthal]

Some limited influence of fighting in a province to the pops living there/buildings would be highly appreciated from my side as well, since it would add quite some realism on how you choose to manage your warfare, even might make you to try to avoid it more than in V1.

Another thing I would like to see is the possibility to influence the population of non-owned territory you control due to war, e.g. if you treat them well, some might to come to think differently about their former ruler, or might wish to migrate to your country ( I am thinking of situations like playing as Prussia/Germany and controlling the Baltics in a war against Russia, you should be able to lay financial? incentives to the german population there to pack their things and move to p.ex. Königsberg).