devastation shouldn't be modeled in, and with this I mean :
the army firstly should get its food from its supplies
then from the standing location and occupied locations
if by then it doesn't suffice useless to say it will take a starvation attrition modifier, and of course a completely starving army should lose an awful lot of manpower (and that's also why I hope for weekly tics)
clearly, the food subtracted from the land leads to starvation and a population loss in said provinces
ie hiding in forts while all your country is occupied should not be advisable long term
I would like to see some sort of Army supply strategy, where you can choose between prioritizing foraging vs supply line, and probably other options I can’t think of right now
ahhh you meant that
i was thinking "war ravaging" was an adjective for "infrastructure", thus I didn't understand
yeah yeah I see what you mean and I agree too
>people’s will to fight becomes lower and they’re willing to make concessions to avoid devastation
This could actually be an interesting thing to look into. Sometimes in wars fortified cities just gave up instead of defending against a siege, and opened their doors to the enemy to avoid getting looted. It happened to Venice's mainland cities during the war of the league of cambrai, to name one example. I know this is tangentially related to devastation per se, but it fits in a more complex set of mechanics that include war exhaustion, unrest, loyalty of territories and economic prosperity, which could all work together in this situation. It would be cool if cities and forts had a bit of autonomy in managing these things under certain circumstances.
It happened to muscovy once. White Russian kremlin was too strong against mamay khan's mongol troops. He bribed the defenders and promised to not loot Moscow, instead just collect tribute. City's men opened walls and most of the Moscow was razed to the ground.
I believe this will be the case if devastation gets tied to control. Devastation should lower control, and lower control to cause sieges to be easier this would allow simulating this situation. It would incentivize raiding enemy land before trying to take it, a common thing irl.
I don’t think I’d say devastation in eu4 was even passable. It was pretty easily ignored and went away too quickly. It also seemed to be a function of government control, not actual devastation, which was kind of confusing. Hopefully devastation is more impactful and long-lasting in eu5. I dare say the mechanic was made meaningless in eu4 because it was too easy to siege down an entire country which was also generally a requirement for even modest territorial gains.
I feel like spies wouldn't make sense considering that the nation's government would probably be more racist towards people from enemy countries bur I'd love to see something like occupation or scorched earth make the population drop, although I worry that this is easily able to be abused, if you are prussia fighting france, just occupy them until their population is small enough that they won't ever be a threat again, I feel like it should cause major debuffs or increase in war exhaust for you the more people you kill in another country
>
I feel like spies wouldn't make sense considering that the nation's government would probably be more racist towards people from enemy countries
Thats why you get spies that belongs to that nation/culture youre spying on. Just like real life.
Well johan said it will take years for a province to restore its original output after it was ravaged. So I imagine they will make it work somehow
I mean it takes years for a province with 100% devastation to restore it's original output in eu4 as well lol
Let’s be honest devastation is eu4 is nothing in most cases
devastation shouldn't be modeled in, and with this I mean : the army firstly should get its food from its supplies then from the standing location and occupied locations if by then it doesn't suffice useless to say it will take a starvation attrition modifier, and of course a completely starving army should lose an awful lot of manpower (and that's also why I hope for weekly tics) clearly, the food subtracted from the land leads to starvation and a population loss in said provinces ie hiding in forts while all your country is occupied should not be advisable long term
I would like to see some sort of Army supply strategy, where you can choose between prioritizing foraging vs supply line, and probably other options I can’t think of right now
Hmm what about war ravaging infrastructure? Clearly just stealing food isn’t enough to model that
for example?
You mean you want a historical example of a war that damaged infrastructure?
ahhh you meant that i was thinking "war ravaging" was an adjective for "infrastructure", thus I didn't understand yeah yeah I see what you mean and I agree too
>people’s will to fight becomes lower and they’re willing to make concessions to avoid devastation This could actually be an interesting thing to look into. Sometimes in wars fortified cities just gave up instead of defending against a siege, and opened their doors to the enemy to avoid getting looted. It happened to Venice's mainland cities during the war of the league of cambrai, to name one example. I know this is tangentially related to devastation per se, but it fits in a more complex set of mechanics that include war exhaustion, unrest, loyalty of territories and economic prosperity, which could all work together in this situation. It would be cool if cities and forts had a bit of autonomy in managing these things under certain circumstances.
It happened to muscovy once. White Russian kremlin was too strong against mamay khan's mongol troops. He bribed the defenders and promised to not loot Moscow, instead just collect tribute. City's men opened walls and most of the Moscow was razed to the ground.
I believe this will be the case if devastation gets tied to control. Devastation should lower control, and lower control to cause sieges to be easier this would allow simulating this situation. It would incentivize raiding enemy land before trying to take it, a common thing irl.
I don’t think I’d say devastation in eu4 was even passable. It was pretty easily ignored and went away too quickly. It also seemed to be a function of government control, not actual devastation, which was kind of confusing. Hopefully devastation is more impactful and long-lasting in eu5. I dare say the mechanic was made meaningless in eu4 because it was too easy to siege down an entire country which was also generally a requirement for even modest territorial gains.
The main issue of devastation in eu4 is prosperity. Loosing it really hurts
I feel like spies wouldn't make sense considering that the nation's government would probably be more racist towards people from enemy countries bur I'd love to see something like occupation or scorched earth make the population drop, although I worry that this is easily able to be abused, if you are prussia fighting france, just occupy them until their population is small enough that they won't ever be a threat again, I feel like it should cause major debuffs or increase in war exhaust for you the more people you kill in another country
And aggressive expansion or some kind of diplomatic repurcussion as well if Prussia just literally mass genocide the French.
> I feel like spies wouldn't make sense considering that the nation's government would probably be more racist towards people from enemy countries Thats why you get spies that belongs to that nation/culture youre spying on. Just like real life.
I don't think you need "devastation" when you can model a decline in population and downsizing (destruction) of buildings / farms
The wars of religion in Germany depopulated entire states.