WE in v 1.06b, ahistorical?

[unmerged(4730)]

thoughs on war ex

maybe we should have war exaust rise 1 pt every 3 years
u are in a war where u actually fight. would actually give historical wars 10+15 years would be normal as was and u would have to break after that time.

tc's should be +2 rr instead of *3* and mayors should
also give -1 rr when built ergo if ur infrastructure is that high
the people ban together during war and are more used to paying into their system of government.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by tpc
this is just not so. from the mediterranean and the mediterranean world in the age of philip ii by fernand braudel, vol. i, trans. by siân reynolds, harper & rowe, ny, 2nd revised ed., 1966, orig. pub. 1949, pp. 47-8:

I was actually talking about the peasants who lived on the land being campaigned over.

i believe that plundering was very profitable business & it was especially profitable if your enemy wasn't a co-religionist so you cld really extract as much as you damned well liked and do pretty much as you damned well pleased.

But where is the evidence for this. Where is the plunder from Spanish Succession, L Of Augsberg, 7 Years, Great Northern, Austrian Succession Wars? What happened to the treasuries of Henry VIII of England, or Louis XIV and XV of France?

Show me the money

While English ships were plundering Spanish galleons during the protracted 17th century conflict with Spain, England's war debts doubled. Does that mean that all wars are financially crippling, no, but how can a single rule, designed to cover at least 1/2 the game's period be made with so many contradictory examples of the financial and social problems (or non-problems) caused through war?

 

[unmerged(3420)]

Originally posted by tpc

i believe that plundering was very profitable business & it was especially profitable if your enemy wasn't a co-religionist so you cld really extract as much as you damned well liked and do pretty much as you damned well pleased.

Plundering was very profitable. For the plunderers. It didn't usually get much cash for their employer, unless an organized system of "contributions" was instituted, or a large public treasury came into the hands of the army when it was still under good discipline.

So plundering should yield a limited amount for the conquerer, except in exceptional circumstances (the conquest of the Aztecs and Incas might be one, and that would be best handled by event).

 

[unmerged(12740)]

Originally posted by crooktooth
Plundering was very profitable. For the plunderers. It didn't usually get much cash for their employer, unless an organized system of "contributions" was instituted, or a large public treasury came into the hands of the army when it was still under good discipline.

i haven't done a systematic study of this, but it is my understanding that there was always an organized system of "donations":

in feudal times, usually the king was out there too -- & he got the pick of the litter.

even if the king wasn't there, the nobles were expected to "make presents" to the throne, just as the king often "made presents" in order to retain loyalty etc.

later w/ standing armies raised by the king, the king got the lion's share, even if he wasn't there

&, then, of course, although nobles were excluded from many taxes, other soldiers were not.

mercenaries, otoh iiuc, were not so reliable when it came to handing over plunder.

there must be a study on the economics of this out there somewhere ...

Originally posted by Dinsdale
But where is the evidence for this. Where is the plunder from Spanish Succession, L Of Augsberg, 7 Years, Great Northern, Austrian Succession Wars? What happened to the treasuries of Henry VIII of England, or Louis XIV and XV of France?

there are plenty of examples of unsuccessful wars. there are also plently of examples of unsuccessful restaurants. doesn't mean that they were not conceived of as speculative activities. i believe that for the majority of wars that come to unambiguous conclusions to the victor came the spoils & that they were quite lucrative &, in fact, one major source of income for the state. however, i'm not an expert on this, it is merely my overall sense -- comes mostly from reading about the "nature" of medieval states/empires in poli sci.

i'm looking into it some, when i have something more useful to report, i will post.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

But where is the evidence for this. Where is the plunder from Spanish Succession, L Of Augsberg, 7 Years, Great Northern, Austrian Succession Wars? What happened to the treasuries of Henry VIII of England, or Louis XIV and XV of France?

There was lots of plundering occuring on both sides of the wars

Wars only made massive amounts of money when the war was a smashing success. Most of the wars you mentioned probably had most of the countries get plundered enough to keep any single country from being insanely rich afterwards.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by tpc
there are plenty of examples of unsuccessful wars. there are also plently of examples of unsuccessful restaurants. doesn't mean that they were not conceived of as speculative activities. i believe that for the majority of wars that come to unambiguous conclusions to the victor came the spoils & that they were quite lucrative &, in fact, one major source of income for the state. however, i'm not an expert on this, it is merely my overall sense --

Didn't the wars I mention actually have a winner? Henry VIII won wars against the Scots and French. Ended up bankrupting the kingdom. Elizabeth I's war against Spain double the national debt, despite the perception of privateers looting Spanish galleons for the exchequer.

Where are the wars which increased a national treasury and were the dominant reason for war?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I am questioning that this should be considered so widespread that it is a general rule which medieval to early modern wars should conform to.

 

[unmerged(12740)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Didn't the wars I mention actually have a winner? Henry VIII won wars against the Scots and French. Ended up bankrupting the kingdom. Elizabeth I's war against Spain double the national debt, despite the perception of privateers looting Spanish galleons for the exchequer.

Where are the wars which increased a national treasury and were the dominant reason for war?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I am questioning that this should be considered so widespread that it is a general rule which medieval to early modern wars should conform to.

dinsdale, i respectfully submit that you're not paying very close attention to what we're saying. yes, henry viii won his war vs. the french, but it was not an unambiguous win -- after all, the french remained the central power in europe for some time to come. the wars that you mention are not wars where it was easy to say who was the winner & who was the loser, instead they are wars where the complications of the context got in the way. all i'm saying is that war was often very profitable, and if you go back in this thread, there are a number which are mentioned. war makes little sense, actually, if it doesn't represent some gain, &, i'm afraid. that gain was more often represented by some sort of monetary gain than by some abstract strategical gain almost all of the time. but, of course, at least 50% were losers in this gamble.

 

[unmerged(7620)]

Well, I don't really mind that much that the RR goes up due to ordinary wars, albeit ahistorical I think they balance the game.

What irks me however is the fact that they are unrelated to what kind of war is going on. I mean, when I played as Russia a while ago, I had a long war against the Ottomans. As I tried to get out of it, I got dow'ed by Brandenburg, with whom I didn't even have a border. I got rid of the war with the turks, but the Brandenburgers wouldn't give in, which caused the RR to soar. I never fought a battle against them, but they still persisted in being at war. When the time for automatic white peace approached, I had revolts all over Russia - and not surprisingly, got dowed by just about every neighbour I had.

This can be abused quite extensively I think. A russia with high WE could get dow'ed with a few years intervals by nations she cannot get at, causing the gov't to go down in flames. I mean, most of the people wouldn't even know that war was "going on".

Anyway, I guess this has been said before.

 

[unmerged(7313)]

I never liked WE in EU2, thinking that it is rather ahistorical. However, I belived that it is neccesary evil, keeping in chech warmongers (or at least trying to achieve it).

But after I read this discussion, I have to say that I strongly support the idea of tying WE with diminishing incomes, not with revolts. That way it will be pretty historical, while still discouraging from very long wars.

It will also make sense to linger a little after the war. Current system, with revolts from WE 1 year after the war is quite strange:
"Hey fellows, year ago our country scored a great victory against enemies. Let's revolt to celebrate!".

 

[unmerged(10802)]

I think WE sucks.
You have a army abroad kicking foreign arse and news of victories reaching home every day I doubt your people would revolt...
When your loosing a pointless war terribly then MAYBE if they are very clued up peasents but otherwise...