Requisitions regional decision

[Die Zieten]

It seems this works only on your own territory, needs loyalty of 50% in the region.

Why is this? Taking contributions was something mostly done to the enemy.

Also i noticed some new towns in the Silesian War scenarios, could it be possible to get those in the main campaign?

The possibility to take contributions and more towns would mean the petty war is going trough the game.

But i have to say, this game has potential to be really great!

[Erik Springelkamp]

I think what you mean is more like plunder.

This represents extra taxes, through the established government.

I think plunder was considered uncivilized, and a kind of war that the Age of Enlightenment pretended to have risen above. (unless it would be a matter of life and death for the army).

[Die Zieten]

I think what you mean is more like plunder.

This represents extra taxes, through the established government.

I think plunder was considered uncivilized, and a kind of war that the Age of Enlightenment pretended to have risen above. (unless it would be a matter of life and death for the army).

In May 1757, while the main army was invading Bohemia, colonel Mayr, was ordered to seize any Austrian magazines there were, especially one big magazine at Pilsen. His force consisted of 200 hussars, 5 guns, his own unit and another one. On May 2, Mayr seized the magazine at Pilsen. He then went westward into Upper Palatinante where he scattered the drill-sergeants of the Reichsarmee, disturbed preparations and the deliberative county meetings and ransomed cities, Nuremberg for one city. On June 1 at Furth in Anspach, a gratuity for the Prussian troops was demanded and given. The troops then took quarter at Schwabach, farther up the Regnitz River where no exemption were made: clergy and laity alike getting soldiers billeted. Meat and drink had to be given them: as also 100 carolines (guineas and better), and twenty new uniforms.

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Frei-Infanterie_von_Mayr

I dont really care what you call it but it would be fun.

And it would have an effect of keeping you troops more evenly distributed and not massed in to big armies like they are now all the time.

[Erik Springelkamp]

From the story I get the feeling that it was more an exception than the rule. (and they were hussars, what do you expect :neener

The requisition of military magazines is a different matter, and is more or less represented by the capture of supply.

But in the game, I think such an option would be overused, unless it had a serious price in EP, VP, or NM. Or maybe limit the number of these options, or require the presence of hussars, or a leader with some trait

[Die Zieten]

From the story I get the feeling that it was more an exception than the rule. (and they were hussars, what do you expect :neener

The requisition of military magazines is a different matter, and is more or less represented by the capture of supply.

But in the game, I think such an option would be overused, unless it had a serious price in EP, VP, or NM. Or maybe limit the number of these options, or require the presence of hussars, or a leader with some trait

It was a freibattalion with some hussars, and they ransomed towns. They did this when ever possible, i don think it is an exception.

But yes, it was mostly limited to these light troops so that would be a good rule to have.

What is overuse, the money gained from this is not much from small towns. There is already option to ransom Berlin for big money..

People just dont want to keep any troops outside of their army stacks to protect their rear areas, that is a bigger problem IMO.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

I think plunder was considered uncivilized, and a kind of war that the Age of Enlightenment pretended to have risen above. (unless it would be a matter of life and death for the army).

You seem to have a very idyllic idea of warfare in the age of "enlightenment". Plundering and worse was by no means exceptional, though it is true that it was primarily the task of light troops. Grenzers and some free corps (e.g. freecorps Mayr) alike, especially in the erz-mountains, were often compared with the devil, acting in neutral, enemy or even friendly territory more like bandits than regular troops, resorting to robbery and even worse, sometimes pressing the local population into military service. The actions of the freecorps Fischer during the invasion of Frisia in 1761 even led to the outbreak of a peasant rebellion. And light troops were also looked down upon by generals and officers. Fredericks personal order to pillage Schloss Hubertusburg (not a very enlightened act itself) in 1761 had to be carried out by light troops (free battalion Guichard) because other regular officers refused to do it as such an action was not consistent with their honour. Frederick especially had no scrupels at all when it came to squeezing Saxony.

That being said, I'd love to see some better representation of the petit guerre in this game, as I think that the role of smallwar is often underestimated.
And I need to work on some nicer unit graphics for the austrian border infantry for the new scenarios. In contrast to the seven years war, those were a spectacle of colour and extravaganza, more looking like some wild osmans than regular infantry. For one of the most feared and spectacular representative, see Franz von der Trenck.

[spoiler]
grenadier and pandour (probably war of the austrian succession....)

More interesting images: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/OHM_-_Bayrischer_Krieg_5.jpg (search google for OHM_-_Bayrischer_Krieg_1 to OHM_-_Bayrischer_Krieg_7 for more extracts of this giant painting)
Pandour painted by David Morier: http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/403392/bannalist-and-pandour-freikorps-trenck
[/spoiler]

[Erik Springelkamp]

You seem to have a very idyllic idea of warfare in the age of "enlightenment".

Well, I didn't use pretended by accident.

And maybe the game wants to pretend a little as well.

But I am a bit weary about decisions that would be taken very often: looking at the way the AI takes them in large numbers, it is not something I would like to add to my workload for this game.

I thing decisions should remain special, something you do once and a while, not 10 times every turn.

[Die Zieten]

You seem to have a very idyllic idea of warfare in the age of "enlightenment". Plundering and worse was by no means exceptional, though it is true that it was primarily the task of light troops. Grenzers and some free corps (e.g. freecorps Mayr) alike, especially in the erz-mountains, were often compared with the devil, acting in neutral, enemy or even friendly territory more like bandits than regular troops, resorting to robbery and even worse, sometimes pressing the local population into military service. The actions of the freecorps Fischer during the invasion of Frisia in 1761 even led to the outbreak of a peasant rebellion. And light troops were also looked down upon by generals and officers. Fredericks personal order to pillage Schloss Hubertusburg (not a very enlightened act itself) in 1761 had to be carried out by light troops (free battalion Guichard) because other regular officers refused to do it as such an action was not consistent with their honour. Frederick especially had no scrupels at all when it came to squeezing Saxony.

That being said, I'd love to see some better representation of the petit guerre in this game, as I think that the role of smallwar is often underestimated.

Thank you for the support.

The game really misses the petty war, I think all factions have the troops for it in their rosters but they end up hanging in the army stacks.

There really where not many big battles in a year but these troops moved around the year.
Destroying supply, infrastructure and making the enemy commit troops against them, there should be an incentive to use them and hunt them.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

And lets not forget that light troops were the eyes and ears of an army (whether it is enough to give them just a slightly higher detection value is open to debate...). They're the ones who are always ahead of the army, often in constant contact with the light troops of the opposing army. Some prime examples of petty war can be studied during the retreat of the Prussians after their defeat at Kolin. The retreating prussian columns have been severely harrassed by habsburg light troops. If you can read german, here is a small account: http://www.kuk-wehrmacht.de/gefechte/17570620.html. Of course one could also mention Hadiks short-term capture of Berlin, but that was perhaps of a bigger scope than than just petty war.

I think we should start a new threat to discuss petite guerre in ROP. I don't want to derail this thread any further.

[Die Zieten]

And lets not forget that light troops were the eyes and ears of an army (whether it is enough to give them just a slightly higher detection value is open to debate...). They're the ones who are always ahead of the army, often in constant contact with the light troops of the opposing army. Some prime examples of petty war can be studied during the retreat of the Prussians after their defeat at Kolin. The retreating prussian columns have been severely harrassed by habsburg light troops. If you can read german, here is a small account: http://www.kuk-wehrmacht.de/gefechte/17570620.html. Of course one could also mention Hadiks short-term capture of Berlin, but that was perhaps of a bigger scope than than just petty war.

I think we should start a new threat to discuss petit guerre in ROP. I don't want to derail this thread any further.

This thread is about petit guerre.

There is also the problem of cutting supply in the game with light troops needing house rules to keep in control.
What was the reason cossacks or grenzers did not take control of whole Prussia in real life? Are they too difficult to catch in the clear ground in the game?

When that is solved it would help to balance the game.

[mariandavid]

It is certainly far to say that in the Prussian case plundering was ONLY carried out by hussars and freikorps - if only because the regular infantry could not be trusted to stay with the colours if allowed to wander and the cavalry dare not risk excessive use of their horses (dragoons being pure battle cavalry in the Prussian Army). As far as I am aware the only plundering done by the Russians was by Cossacks - the stories of wholesale atrocities being later inventions. In the western theatre the British/Hanoverians and the French both had dedicated light regiments and battalions - so on balance it would be legitimate to make this a light troop only function.

Die Zeiten:

Cossacks were incapable of standing up to any formed troops - even militia - unless they surprised them which was why Prussia was not conquered by them. Austrian grenzer were precious creatures and Austrian generals ensured that they were largely assigned to armies and columns, so they would only 'over-run Prussia' as part of a formed force.

Jacques:

I fear I disagree with you on the impact of the Enlightenment on 'ravaging'. In fact this was one of the most civilized (if wars can ever be civilized) military events in Europe - far more so that the 30 Years War before or the Napoleonic Wars after in terms of their impact on civilians. The evidence is found in the continued prosperity of almost the entire region - very few cases of despoiled cities and even fewer of ruined counties. In fact the most damaged territory was that of Prussia itself and that because of Frederick not ravaging armies - as he was unique, once his mercenaries had been killed off - in taking an extreme proportion of the male population from all of his rural areas. To illustrate - the portion of the Kingdom of Prussia that prospered most was East Prussia, the only one that was not under his control from 1758 on!

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Continued prosperity of almost the entire region? Have you taken a look at Saxony? Not only had Dresden and Wittemberg been destroyed by Prussian and Imperial guns (the population of Dresden was halfed during the war), but the saxon economy laid in ruins , mainly due to the systematic squeezing by Prussia (there are calculations that Frederick drew about 1/3 of all his war-costs from Saxony) and Prussias economic war against Saxony and Poland (decoinage-policy/exploit). Saxony, which had lost about 90 000-100 000 of its pre-war-population of ca. 2 000 000, became a mere second rank state as the result of the war. However, if Saxony recovered relatively fast, it's not because the Seven Years' War was somehow less catastrophical in its consequences, but because of the so called "Rétablissement", special measurements taken to boost Saxonys economy, which are often tagged a wonder in german economic history.

Anyway, I think it's also safe to say that the 30 years war(s) and the Napoleonic wars were quite unique catastrophies in the history of Europe and might not be the best comparison.

Moreover, I don't think that economical long-term-effects are the best indicator for the question whether armies plundered and looted. Any premodern army did that, some more, some less, depending on the circumstances. For me this is pretty much out of question.