war exhaustation

[unmerged(3859)]

Please fix 'passive' war exhaustation.

People only cared if the war was fought right in there backyard.

I think everyone has had a war that never ended (and was miles away) and gave +8 war exhaustation.

 

[unmerged(3859)]

you can have it based on enemy unit's close bye... that add's up and if you recruit a lot of people

 

[draco]

How about making time only a multiplier of the number of cities of yours that have been looted and the number of troops recruited. Also I would like to get rid of the amnesia were you peasant forget the war as soon as it's over and it causes no problems if you go to war the next day.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by draco
How about making time only a multiplier of the number of cities of yours that have been looted and the number of troops recruited. Also I would like to get rid of the amnesia were you peasant forget the war as soon as it's over and it causes no problems if you go to war the next day.

War Exaustion should be a factor of:

Burned provinces, troops recuited in relation to overall manpower, War Taxes levied and battles lost (people tired of losers even then). This would mean that you'd not pull WE for a stupid war with the Knights you just can't get out of. I mean, it isn't like the local populace would even know you are at war if you are not raising trops and extracting more cash from them. More importantly I'm less sure there should be open rebllion against long wars (none broke out in relations to the 30 years war) but rather more severe economic and stability penalties (and the stability can be what wrecks the economy if you've ever played the chaos maims income levels on the IGC).

I REALLY agree with your second point. WE should slowly fade and not vanish. One way that world destroyers can get away with what they do is by fighting 20 5 year wars in a row which doesn't hurt their state while 1 100 year war would.

 

[Besuchov]

I seem to remember that Sweden made peace with San Marino a couple of years back. San Marino had simply been forgoten at the Wetstphalian peace after the 30 years war. What happend in Gothenburg must be the result of war exhautsion

 

[unmerged(5126)]

Not that unusual - the town of Berwick upon Tweed in northern England, having historically been bounced between Scotland & England and therefore having a rather ambiguos status, declared war on Nazi Germany separately from the rest of the UK. They only got around to declaring peace a few years back!

 

[Spruce]

Indeed it's not realistic that you can make peace, start a new war and again the exhaustion starts from zero again.

Good points in this thread. Raising armies, looted provinces, etc. should give you some black points. These points should act as a bb value and have an effect on war exhaustion.

One time, I managed to keep war going on even at +10 exhaustion. I got high stability, few religious minorities + a good suppression army. This should not be possible, the +10 should eventually increase to higher values.

But it should not increase, simply as time goes by. A victorious country will not get so quickly exhausted as the loosing country.

 

[unmerged(59)]

I must agree war exhaustion is very annoying. Especially when you try to strike peace with somebody, and then bam someone else declares war on you. Then after 10 minutes you strike a deal with them, the nation that you have struck a deal prior to that declares war again, along with 10 other nations.

War, war, war, war... the people should be used to it

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Besuchov
I seem to remember that Sweden made peace with San Marino a couple of years back. San Marino had simply been forgoten at the Wetstphalian peace after the 30 years war. What happend in Gothenburg must be the result of war exhautsion

We should make a list of these things .... Holland reaching a peace agreement with the Scilly Isles after being at war for almost 330 years .... and Andorra having to fight two world wars simultaneously, for being forgotten at the Treaty of Versailles

 

[TheDS]

Tell us, oh great Johan (or Huszics), have you fixed this minor glitch in EU2, or are we doomed to conquer the world over and over? Actually, I can see why, in the name of keeping things simple, they did what they did.

This is a partial potential solution though: WE in a province will increase when-

- Enemy soldiers are near or within the province.
- The province has been captured.
- The province has been looted.
- Enemy territory is nearby.
- Stability is lower than 0.
- A religious minority controls the province (say your national religion is Catholic, but the province's religion is Protestant).
- Port is blockaded, or coast has been bombarded (bambardment feature not available in EU1).

Actually, some of these things are counted into the revolt risk, and others would not necessarily be considered WE. Some of these things would increase or decrease over the course of time, depending on what triggered it. (Having enemy troops around for a year would cause revolt risk to rise; when they leave, it goes down, but not as quickly.)

 

[Steph]

Originally posted by Heyesey


We should make a list of these things .... Holland reaching a peace agreement with the Scilly Isles after being at war for almost 330 years .... and Andorra having to fight two world wars simultaneously, for being forgotten at the Treaty of Versailles

Have the US finally signed a peace treaty with the Seminoles?

 

[Kedryn]

This is a partial potential solution though: WE in a province will increase when-

- Enemy soldiers are near or within the province.
- The province has been captured.
- The province has been looted.
- Enemy territory is nearby.
- Stability is lower than 0.
- A religious minority controls the province (say your national religion is Catholic, but the province's religion is Protestant).
- Port is blockaded, or coast has been bombarded (bambardment feature not available in EU1).

WE should also increase when soldiers are recruited and if you have your maintenance at maximum. All of these things should affect WE whether or not you are officially at war.

 

[Alexandre]

Originally posted by Kedryn


WE should also increase when soldiers are recruited and if you have your maintenance at maximum. All of these things should affect WE whether or not you are officially at war.

I disagree with your first point. Until WWI, war was seen as glorious. Many people wanted to be soldiers. I even more strongly disagree with your second point. People may object that taxes are too high but they aren't going to object that the army is well maintained especially since it reduces the chances that the army will requisition food or goods from the civilian population.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(4868)]

Originally posted by AZOV
I must agree war exhaustion is very annoying. Especially when you try to strike peace with somebody, and then bam someone else declares war on you.

What's wrong with this? This is a perfectly good strategy.

This is what I do to my enemy (usually France) when she has been at war with someone else (e.g. England) for many years. Before they can conclude peace, I will actively declare war on France when she already has exhaustion level +8 or above.

In doing so, I am forcing France into a a renewed period of warfare. Which means that the French nation has not seen total peace in many many many years. So I only have to fight France for a few more years until she starts breaking apart due to rebellions.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Suleyman


In doing so, I am forcing France into a a renewed period of warfare. Which means that the French nation has not seen total peace in many many many years. So I only have to fight France for a few more years until she starts breaking apart due to rebellions.

This is the way it should work but does it? My impression was that once the first war was ended the WE sets back to zero and then starts climibing thanks to your war? I know this works if you are 1 day after the peace but if you DoW while they are sstill at war does the WE level remain where it was?

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Alexandre

I disagree with your first point. Until WWI, war was seen as glorious. Many people wanted to be soldiers. I even more strongly disagree with your second point. People may object that taxes are too high but they aren't going to object that the army is well maintained especially since it reduces the chances that the army will requisition food or goods from the civilian population.
Alexandre

War as glorious is a product of a wave of nationalism in the 19thc. War in the EM period was conducted by soliders who were viewed as pretty far down the totem pole of civil society. It was not a job very many folks aspired to. It was a job that ne'er do wells fell into or that displaced peasants went to as a last resort. You would occasionally get someone looking for adventure or to see the world who was an "eager" recruit. You can see this lack of enthusiams in things like Voltaire's Candide where Candide is press ganged into the army. The pay was poor, the risks high and the lifestyle not at all appealing.

You latter point doesn't hold up since soliders were rarlt paid well enough and many saw looting as a "right" of being in the army. Furhtermore, you aren't dealing with societies with a lot of disposalble income where it become a somewhat academic discussion of higher taxes or less gov't services. These were, by and large, subsistance farmers and taking away grain or money represented a very serious hardship.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Alexandre


I disagree with your first point. Until WWI, war was seen as glorious. Many people wanted to be soldiers. I even more strongly disagree with your second point. People may object that taxes are too high but they aren't going to object that the army is well maintained especially since it reduces the chances that the army will requisition food or goods from the civilian population.

Alexandre

I have to disagree with you. Soldiering was quite unpopular throughout the EU2 era. Perhaps the nobles viewed it as glorious, but they tended to be the generals & admirals who tended generally not to be exposed to the harshest aspects of war. For the common man, it was hell. Conditions were wretched, they often were "enlisted" for years and years and years, and they spent the bulk of their "productive" years in the army or navy. For example, the only way Britain could find "recruits" for its navy was through the use of press gangs, as virtually no one in his right mind would have volunteered to spent five years on a rotting, disease-filled, wretched floating tomb that passed for a 16th or 17th century warship.

 

[Besuchov]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck



I have to disagree with you. Soldiering was quite unpopular throughout the EU2 era. Perhaps the nobles viewed it as glorious, but they tended to be the generals & admirals who tended generally not to be exposed to the harshest aspects of war. For the common man, it was hell. Conditions were wretched, they often were "enlisted" for years and years and years, and they spent the bulk of their "productive" years in the army or navy. For example, the only way Britain could find "recruits" for its navy was through the use of press gangs, as virtually no one in his right mind would have volunteered to spent five years on a rotting, disease-filled, wretched floating tomb that passed for a 16th or 17th century warship.

A very large part of the armies were made up of volonteers(read mercenaries) from what I read.