Tinto Talks #49 - 5th February 2025

[zeruosi]

I'd love to try a chinese version sometime though.

I don't know much about alcohol, but I still have some recommendations for you.
Zhejiang Shaoxing Huadiao Wine: one of the most famous rice wine, and the raw material of Buddha jumps over the wall, one of the most expensive food in China.
Xiangyang Huangjiu: It was included in the tax revenue provided by the Chu state to the Zhou emperor during the Zhou dynasty and has been consumed by the aristocratic class ever since. Their color appears milky white instead of the common yellow.
Hakka rice wine: Rice wine brewed by Hakka people, mainly made by women, with a richer taste and darker color.
As for spirits or Baijiu, you can find their information on Wikipedia, such as Maotai, Wuliangye, Fenjiu and other liquors.
If it's fermented rice, you should be able to find a way to make it yourself, but I don't recommend trying it because brewing is a job that requires a lot of skills

 

[Sebroar]

While I generally like this, I think there's a problem (not considering the absence of a few diseases, as you said you'd like to add a few more). The problem is:

Great Pestilence

This will spawn in the New World whenever someone from the Old World colonizes a location, and spreads from there. It represents the collection of diseases that the European colonizers brought to the Americas. It can and will spawn at multiple places. It doesn’t impact pops from the Old World as they are immune to most of these.

This has a gigantic mortality effect, killing between 75% to 90% of all pops.

Sure, the arrival of the Europeans in the New World decimated the natives. This, however, was not caused just by the diseases they carried.


By using percentages between 75%-90%, the devs are basically following the "Virgin Soil" theory, according to which the extremely high mortality rate was only caused by the lack of immunity due to the fact that they had never been exposed to those illnesses. What current research argues, however, is that this was indeed the case, but only early on, and after that there was an interplay of factors, among which we find "slavery, forced labor, wars, and large-scale resettlements", that "worked together to make indigenous communities more vulnerable to disease" (daily.jstor.org/how-aztecs-reacted-to-colonial-epidemics/). Also, note that, before being annexed by the Spaniards, the natives fought a war, and in a war there are victims, and we don't know how many people died due to this.


In Mexico, after the conquest, there were a series of epidemics, and this was after the 1520 smallpox one. These are known as the cocoliztli epidemics, from the Nahuatl word for pestilence. The Spanish initially called it tabardillo (typhus), but later on started using the Nahuatl word. We still don't have a definitive answer to what the pathogen was, but there are multiple theories. Typhus, yellow fever, measles etc. are one of them, but none of these cause the same symptoms. There are two other important possibilities, at the moment: salmonella, which would have been introduced by the Europeans, and some kind of illness that originated in the New World, probably a tropical hemorrhagic fever. The problem with salmonella, which has been found on some bodies, is that, again, the symptoms don't fully match. Also, the cocoliztli seems to be related to the climatic conditions (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/). But why am I talking about this? Well, that's because ot was extremely deadly, especially the one of 1545, and it caused even more casualties than the 1520 smallpox outbreak, despite the population being lower.

Again from pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/


In the Andes diseases were of European origin and included smallpox (obviously), typhus and measles. From the first epidemic (around 1524, likely due to smallpox) to 1591 these killed around 93% of the native population. Keep in mind, however, that in this period the Inca Empire had been in two major wars: the war with the colonists (like in Mexico) and the Inca Civil War. The latter was really deadly, but we don't know how many the casualties were. The first epidemic (before European contact) is estimated to have caused a population decline of about 30%-50%.


The similarity of these two examples is the fact that the sheer amount of death happened in the span of many decades and were caused by distinct outbreaks. As such, I don't think that representing this with a "Great Pestilence" disease is the right way of doing this, as it's just inaccurate, especially if we consider the fact that it would only be the first of the various outbreaks the Americas would experience in the game. I think it would be more accurate to portray all of this with severe outbreaks of smallpox, typhus and whatever, the introduction of cocoliztli as a separate disease (especially if droughts will be in the game) and maybe making all of these deadlier if the pops are enslaved or of a non-accepted culture. If done with the "Great Pestilence", after the few years of the outbreak there could be further epidemics of the "regular" diseases. Losing 30% of your pops after you have already lost 90% of them ain't fun, but annoying, more so if you use such low estimates for the population of pre-Columbian Americas.


I'm sorry for the very long post, apparently I end up writing essays every time this kind of topics pops out.

 

[Oglesby]

Should rice wine be split from grape-based wine for Asian countries? Not sure if wine demands in the west would see eastern rice wine, especially in the game timeframe as the perfect substitute and vice versa, especially in places like France, Italy, China, and Japan.

I would say that France/Italy would have more access to RGO wine and China Japan would have more access to Rice to make wine so I think that it will sort itself out. By having them as separate goods once France/Italy knows of this new good "rice wine" they will start wanting it.

 

[zeruosi]

I would say that France/Italy would have more access to RGO wine and China Japan would have more access to Rice to make wine so I think that it will sort itself out. By having them as separate goods once France/Italy knows of this new good "rice wine" they will start wanting it.

Does the meaning of wine include all fermented alcoholic beverages? Sorry, I don't understand this.

 

[AHumpierRogue]

While I generally like this, I think there's a problem (not considering the absence of a few diseases, as you said you'd like to add a few more). The problem is:

Sure, the arrival of the Europeans in the New World decimated the natives. This, however, was not caused just by the diseases they carried.


By using percentages between 75%-90%, the devs are basically following the "Virgin Soil" theory, according to which the extremely high mortality rate was only caused by the lack of immunity due to the fact that they had never been exposed to those illnesses. What current research argues, however, is that this was indeed the case, but only early on, and after that there was an interplay of factors, among which we find "slavery, forced labor, wars, and large-scale resettlements", that "worked together to make indigenous communities more vulnerable to disease" (daily.jstor.org/how-aztecs-reacted-to-colonial-epidemics/). Also, note that, before being annexed by the Spaniards, the natives fought a war, and in a war there are victims, and we don't know how many people died due to this.


In Mexico, after the conquest, there were a series of epidemics, and this was after the 1520 smallpox one. These are known as the cocoliztli epidemics, from the Nahuatl word for pestilence. The Spanish initially called it tabardillo (typhus), but later on started using the Nahuatl word. We still don't have a definitive answer to what the pathogen was, but there are multiple theories. Typhus, yellow fever, measles etc. are one of them, but none of these cause the same symptoms. There are two other important possibilities, at the moment: salmonella, which would have been introduced by the Europeans, and some kind of illness that originated in the New World, probably a tropical hemorrhagic fever. The problem with salmonella, which has been found on some bodies, is that, again, the symptoms don't fully match. Also, the cocoliztli seems to be related to the climatic conditions (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/). But why am I talking about this? Well, that's because ot was extremely deadly, especially the one of 1545, and it caused even more casualties than the 1520 smallpox outbreak, despite the population being lower.

View attachment 1251311
Again from pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/


In the Andes diseases were of European origin and included smallpox (obviously), typhus and measles. From the first epidemic (around 1524, likely due to smallpox) to 1591 these killed around 93% of the native population. Keep in mind, however, that in this period the Inca Empire had been in two major wars: the war with the colonists (like in Mexico) and the Inca Civil War. The latter was really deadly, but we don't know how many the casualties were. The first epidemic (before European contact) is estimated to have caused a population decline of about 30%-50%.


The similarity of these two examples is the fact that the sheer amount of death happened in the span of many decades and were caused by distinct outbreaks. As such, I don't think that representing this with a "Great Pestilence" disease is the right way of doing this, as it's just inaccurate, especially if we consider the fact that it would only be the first of the various outbreaks the Americas would experience in the game. I think it would be more accurate to portray all of this with severe outbreaks of smallpox, typhus and whatever, the introduction of cocoliztli as a separate disease (especially if droughts will be in the game) and maybe making all of these deadlier if the pops are enslaved or of a non-accepted culture. If done with the "Great Pestilence", after the few years of the outbreak there could be further epidemics of the "regular" diseases. Losing 30% of your pops after you have already lost 90% of them ain't fun, but annoying, more so if you use such low estimates for the population of pre-Columbian Americas.


I'm sorry for the very long post, apparently I end up writing essays every time this kind of topics pops out.

I'm pretty sure there'll still be plenty of violence to be had. So don't worry about that.

Also, I think the idea behind "Great pestillence" is it probably only happens once(per starting settlement, at least). It's not a repeated thing and afterwards "regular" diseases will occur. So the first pandemic in the americas will be very brutal but afterwards it'll be "standard" diseases though still likely with no resistance among the native pops. The Great pestillence will not be the only disease to face the Americas, just the first. Then they'll get your standard fare hereafter.

 

[Oglesby]

Does the meaning of wine include all fermented alcoholic beverages? Sorry, I don't understand this.

Not what I was stating, but according to when Johan and company has stated there is wine RGO and wine building. The wine building has production methods to make the WINE good from honey and rice.

What I was responding to was Metz's request to split it into multiple GOODS for fear that France/Italy would demand the WINE good being made from rice. Which with how trade with distances and costs works it would be unlikely for the rice produced WINE good would dominate over the local RGO produced WINE good. Additionally, if it were made into a separate good once the France/Italy knew about the new good their pops would start wanting it.

 

[Sebroar]

I'm pretty sure there'll still be plenty of violence to be had. So don't worry about that.

Also, I think the idea behind "Great pestillence" is it probably only happens once(per starting settlement, at least). It's not a repeated thing and afterwards "regular" diseases will occur. So the first pandemic in the americas will be very brutal but afterwards it'll be "standard" diseases though still likely with no resistance among the native pops. The Great pestillence will not be the only disease to face the Americas, just the first. Then they'll get your standard fare hereafter.

I think there's a misunderstanding, since this is exactly what I meant: the first would the the "Great Pestilence", and then there would be the "standard" ones, which I called "regular" (so smallpox, typhus..., NOT another "Great Pestilence"). I didn't mean that the "Great Pestilence" would happen twice, I didn't even consider it as a possibility, since it would just be atrocious. I don't think the devs would ever do anything like that.

I know that there will be LOTS of violence, which is yet another reason they should at the very least reconsider those mortality rates (although I've already stated what the ideal solution could be in my opinion).

Probably I've phrased my post wrong, I hope this time it's clearer.

 

[SytroStormlord]

You forgot the disease that is Acute Paradoxaddictis. It afflicted countless grand strategy rulers throughout the ages.

Also, what's with the beard-ism over here? Shame. Completely beard-less people can carry pestilence and fleas just as easily across oceans.

View attachment 1251051

It's a strait wink to old Incan prophecy, that "bearded man that will come across sea, will lead to destruction of the world"...
Native South Americans are beardless by genes...

 

[Znikii]

While I generally like this, I think there's a problem (not considering the absence of a few diseases, as you said you'd like to add a few more). The problem is:

Sure, the arrival of the Europeans in the New World decimated the natives. This, however, was not caused just by the diseases they carried.


By using percentages between 75%-90%, the devs are basically following the "Virgin Soil" theory, according to which the extremely high mortality rate was only caused by the lack of immunity due to the fact that they had never been exposed to those illnesses. What current research argues, however, is that this was indeed the case, but only early on, and after that there was an interplay of factors, among which we find "slavery, forced labor, wars, and large-scale resettlements", that "worked together to make indigenous communities more vulnerable to disease" (daily.jstor.org/how-aztecs-reacted-to-colonial-epidemics/). Also, note that, before being annexed by the Spaniards, the natives fought a war, and in a war there are victims, and we don't know how many people died due to this.


In Mexico, after the conquest, there were a series of epidemics, and this was after the 1520 smallpox one. These are known as the cocoliztli epidemics, from the Nahuatl word for pestilence. The Spanish initially called it tabardillo (typhus), but later on started using the Nahuatl word. We still don't have a definitive answer to what the pathogen was, but there are multiple theories. Typhus, yellow fever, measles etc. are one of them, but none of these cause the same symptoms. There are two other important possibilities, at the moment: salmonella, which would have been introduced by the Europeans, and some kind of illness that originated in the New World, probably a tropical hemorrhagic fever. The problem with salmonella, which has been found on some bodies, is that, again, the symptoms don't fully match. Also, the cocoliztli seems to be related to the climatic conditions (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/). But why am I talking about this? Well, that's because ot was extremely deadly, especially the one of 1545, and it caused even more casualties than the 1520 smallpox outbreak, despite the population being lower.

View attachment 1251311
Again from pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2730237/


In the Andes diseases were of European origin and included smallpox (obviously), typhus and measles. From the first epidemic (around 1524, likely due to smallpox) to 1591 these killed around 93% of the native population. Keep in mind, however, that in this period the Inca Empire had been in two major wars: the war with the colonists (like in Mexico) and the Inca Civil War. The latter was really deadly, but we don't know how many the casualties were. The first epidemic (before European contact) is estimated to have caused a population decline of about 30%-50%.


The similarity of these two examples is the fact that the sheer amount of death happened in the span of many decades and were caused by distinct outbreaks. As such, I don't think that representing this with a "Great Pestilence" disease is the right way of doing this, as it's just inaccurate, especially if we consider the fact that it would only be the first of the various outbreaks the Americas would experience in the game. I think it would be more accurate to portray all of this with severe outbreaks of smallpox, typhus and whatever, the introduction of cocoliztli as a separate disease (especially if droughts will be in the game) and maybe making all of these deadlier if the pops are enslaved or of a non-accepted culture. If done with the "Great Pestilence", after the few years of the outbreak there could be further epidemics of the "regular" diseases. Losing 30% of your pops after you have already lost 90% of them ain't fun, but annoying, more so if you use such low estimates for the population of pre-Columbian Americas.


I'm sorry for the very long post, apparently I end up writing essays every time this kind of topics pops out.

I disagree... just sheer fact that in a first few decades since the discovery of the New World the population fell this drastically is a testement of how deadly tue Great Pestalence raveged in this early period.
Furthermore, how far and quickly across whole of Americas it spread is in fact a very good evidance that population numbers and the activty of trade networks of precolumbian americas was much greater than usually belived. Thus 'virgin land' theory has a timeng problem.... the lands werent virgin when first europeans came.... lands becamw virgin 50-100 years after the fact.

And thirdly, even if you look at the Old World, hunger and desiseases were two top reason for mortality by far well into 19. Century, so idea that few thousands europeans in 16. Century could kill millions and millions is practically impossible

 

[zeruosi]

Not what I was stating, but according to when Johan and company has stated there is wine RGO and wine building. The wine building has production methods to make the WINE good from honey and rice.

What I was responding to was Metz's request to split it into multiple GOODS for fear that France/Italy would demand the WINE good being made from rice. Which with how trade with distances and costs works it would be unlikely for the rice produced WINE good would dominate over the local RGO produced WINE good. Additionally, if it were made into a separate good once the France/Italy knew about the new good their pops would start wanting it.

What I mean is whether this meaning is included in English. Because English is not my native language (as you know, there are significant differences between Chinese and any Western language)

 

[SAmaster]

The similarity of these two examples is the fact that the sheer amount of death happened in the span of many decades and were caused by distinct outbreaks. As such, I don't think that representing this with a "Great Pestilence" disease is the right way of doing this, as it's just inaccurate, especially if we consider the fact that it would only be the first of the various outbreaks the Americas would experience in the game. I think it would be more accurate to portray all of this with severe outbreaks of smallpox, typhus and whatever, the introduction of cocoliztli as a separate disease (especially if droughts will be in the game) and maybe making all of these deadlier if the pops are enslaved or of a non-accepted culture. If done with the "Great Pestilence", after the few years of the outbreak there could be further epidemics of the "regular" diseases. Losing 30% of your pops after you have already lost 90% of them ain't fun, but annoying, more so if you use such low estimates for the population of pre-Columbian Americas.


I'm sorry for the very long post, apparently I end up writing essays every time this kind of topics pops out.

Wasn't the idea that these diseases come in waves? Like in real life. So it'd make sense if the first wave of 'Great Pestilence' hits a very large chunk of the population, and comes back in waves that have the potential to be less or worse in terms of death-toll.

I do think that the death-rate should be lowered from 90% potential fatality, as you pointed out a lot of wars and conquests also lead to population decline, and subsequent waves of disease outbreaks were as important as the initial wave. Successive waves of a disease that has more like 50-75% lethality sounds more appropriate to me.

 

[Znikii]

Wasn't the idea that these diseases come in waves? Like in real life. So it'd make sense if the first wave of 'Great Pestilence' hits a very large chunk of the population, and comes back in waves that have the potential to be less or worse in terms of death-toll.

I do think that the death-rate should be lowered from 90% potential fatality, as you pointed out a lot of wars and conquests also lead to population decline, and subsequent waves of disease outbreaks were as important as the initial wave. Successive waves of a disease that has more like 50-75% lethality sounds more appropriate to me.

Great pesitilence imo represent several different diseses, each with its own wave, letahlity,... they are just grouped up together for first few times to represemt.first few waves that are apocaliptic, and later they just become each its own general outbreak.
Just by the fact that first wave should hit the hardest means tjat that much lower population desity anf trade activity will mean lower spread chance and faster conslusion thus absolute amd relative lower death toll.
there is alsp the question how fast the resistance for.each seperate desieses builds up....
And is there local immigration push in locations of active.diseseas?

 

[Sebroar]

I disagree... just sheer fact that in a first few decades since the discovery of the New World the population fell this drastically is a testement of how deadly tue Great Pestalence raveged in this early period.
Furthermore, how far and quickly across whole of Americas it spread is in fact a very good evidance that population numbers and the activty of trade networks of precolumbian americas. Thus 'virgin land' theory has a timeng problem.... the lands werent virgin when first europeans came.... lands becamw virgin 50-100 after the fact.

And thirdly, even if you look at the Old World, hunger and desiseases were two top reason for mortality by far well into 19. Century, so imagini g that few thousands europeans in 16. Century could kill millions and millions is practically impossible

I'm not saying that it didn't cause lots of deaths. I'm saying that some died due to war, and that the poor living conditions definitely made them more vulnerable to the diseases. Also, when you mention the fact that the Europeans weren't many, you forget to acknowledge that during the wars there were several thousands of native allies that helped the Spaniards, and those thousand of natives killed the other natives. And in the case of the Inca there was the civil war, in which an unknown number of people died, definitely thousands, some estimates say a million. But then again, I didn't downplay the role of diseases, they were definitely the biggest factor. I'm just saying that it wasn't just the lack of immunity, but also poor working conditions, especially under the encomienda system, which was abolished when the New Laws were passed in 1542, at least officially (in New Spain and Peru it continued to be applied illegally, sometimes for a few centuries). When living conditions are poor, you are more vulnerable to disease.

Wasn't the idea that these diseases come in waves? Like in real life. So it'd make sense if the first wave of 'Great Pestilence' hits a very large chunk of the population, and comes back in waves that have the potential to be less or worse in terms of death-toll.

I do think that the death-rate should be lowered from 90% potential fatality, as you pointed out a lot of wars and conquests also lead to population decline, and subsequent waves of disease outbreaks were as important as the initial wave. Successive waves of a disease that has more like 50-75% lethality sounds more appropriate to me.

Yes, but as I've explained the first wave wasn't necessarily the deadliest, the first smallpox epidemic in Mexico killed 5-8 million people, so something around 40% of the population, which is below the 50% minimum you proposed, while the 1545 cocoliztli killed 60-90% of inhabitants of Mexico (which is much more), and it might have been endemic.

Great pesitilence imo represent several different diseses, each with its own wave, letahlity,... they are just grouped up together for first few times to represemt.first few waves that are apocaliptic, and later they just become each its own general outbreak.
Just by the fact that first wave should hit the hardest means tjat that much lower population desity anf trade activity will mean lower spread chance and faster conslusion thus absolute amd relative lower death toll.
there is alsp the question how fast the resistance for.each seperate desieses builds up....
And is there local immigration push in locations of active.diseseas?

The problem is that those that survive the "Great Pestilence" build resistance to, well, the "Great Pestilence". So even after that, the local resistance to smallpox & co. would be 0%. Also, none of the outbreaks killed 90% of the population, that percentage is the total after multiple waves of different diseases.

Again, if the game can check various data about the pops to determine mortality, all of this would be better represented using the actual diseases, with the natives initially having some sort of modifier or whatever that increases mortality and that goes away after the first outbreak of that particular illness. And the various waves could in fact be represented, since there is the Columbian Exchange situation, and that system is so freaking versatile that I bet there's a way to trigger diseases through it.

If the "Great Pestilence" is meant to represent the first wave (which I think it does, since it would be just one outbreak), lethality should be around the same as the Bubonic Plague.

Another reason I don't like the "Great Pestilence" thing is that the cocoliztli was called by the Nahuas huey cocoliztli, which in Nahuatl means great pestilence, so even the name is confusing.

Again, I'm not arguing that diseases shouldn't kill lots and lots and lots of natives, I'm just saying that it makes no sense for there being one single malady that does in a couple of years what several subsequent diseases did in 80 years, only to for the survivors to be subject to other waves that would further depopulate those lands. Unless this "Great Pestilence" thing lasts for a long time (like several decades) and 75%-90% is the total amount of people who die in that time, in which case it would be almost fine ("almost" because the survivors would have no resistance to the regular ones, unless there's more to it). If this is the case, I think it should be explained better.

 

[donbg]

If you guys are going to add honey/beeswax as a good, I hope you add it to the whole world where there was production of honey not just areas where the European bee was domesticated. Various species of stingless bees in the Americas produced honey at a smaller rate than the European bee but had the advantage of being docile and harmless so they were valued for honey production even after European colonization by Europeans themselves, such as jesuits in Brazil, who kept jataís. And some indigenous peoples also made regular use of honey, like the Mayans and various other groups.

 

[Sooshi1]

Would it be possible to implement hoi4's resync system and an eu4/hoi4 style lobby?

Also, would it be too late to make a change to RGOs? Locations should each produce two RGOs, an organic and inorganic RGO. The organic RGO production amount would be based on arable land (which itself could be based on terrain, size, maybe dev, etc,).

 

[SilverMW]

Regarding the Great Pestilence, are we going to have some way to mitigate either as amerindian or colonizer?
I want some Balmis' Expedition (Spain vaccination program) mechanic or an accelerated medical knowledge (nahua healers treating smallpox reducing mortality)

 

[boilesen]

Do you have a map to show the provinces/locations that harbor endemic malaria? (Something like this?)

View attachment 1251052

And there are 4 type of malaria with great degree o mortality rate.

Quartan fever - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Znikii]

I'm not saying that it didn't cause lots of deaths. I'm saying that some died due to war, and that the poor living conditions definitely made them more vulnerable to the diseases. Also, when you mention the fact that the Europeans weren't many, you forget to acknowledge that during the wars there were several thousands of native allies that helped the Spaniards, and those thousand of natives killed the other natives. And in the case of the Inca there was the civil war, in which an unknown number of people died, definitely thousands, some estimates say a million. But then again, I didn't downplay the role of diseases, they were definitely the biggest factor. I'm just saying that it wasn't just the lack of immunity, but also poor working conditions, especially under the encomienda system, which was abolished when the New Laws were passed in 1542, at least officially (in New Spain and Peru it continued to be applied illegally, sometimes for a few centuries). When living conditions are poor, you are more vulnerable to disease.


Yes, but as I've explained the first wave wasn't necessarily the deadliest, the first smallpox epidemic in Mexico killed 5-8 million people, so something around 40% of the population, which is below the 50% minimum you proposed, while the 1545 cocoliztli killed 60-90% of inhabitants of Mexico (which is much more), and it might have been endemic.


The problem is that those that survive the "Great Pestilence" build resistance to, well, the "Great Pestilence". So even after that, the local resistance to smallpox & co. would be 0%. Also, none of the outbreaks killed 90% of the population, that percentage is the total after multiple waves of different diseases.

Again, if the game can check various data about the pops to determine mortality, all of this would be better represented using the actual diseases, with the natives initially having some sort of modifier or whatever that increases mortality and that goes away after the first outbreak of that particular illness. And the various waves could in fact be represented, since there is the Columbian Exchange situation, and that system is so freaking versatile that I bet there's a way to trigger diseases through it.

If the "Great Pestilence" is meant to represent the first wave (which I think it does, since it would be just one outbreak), lethality should be around the same as the Bubonic Plague.

Another reason I don't like the "Great Pestilence" thing is that the cocoliztli was called by the Nahuas huey cocoliztli, which in Nahuatl means great pestilence, so even the name is confusing.

Again, I'm not arguing that diseases shouldn't kill lots and lots and lots of natives, I'm just saying that it makes no sense for there being one single malady that does in a couple of years what several subsequent diseases did in 80 years, only to for the survivors to be subject to other waves that would further depopulate those lands. Unless this "Great Pestilence" thing lasts for a long time (like several decades) and 75%-90% is the total amount of people who die in that time, in which case it would be almost fine ("almost" because the survivors would have no resistance to the regular ones, unless there's more to it). If this is the case, I think it should be explained better.

You sure you are thinking and comparing absolute and relative values correctly?

Because let's asume for the argument sack and easier math.... Pre-Columbian Mexico had 1.000.000 population. First plague you are speaking of killed 'only' ~45% and the second one you are mentioning had ~85% kill rate.... you see huge difference in relative number, but same absolute numbers.....

Also, I think you don't account for secondary effects such a huge loss of life in short span has on Social, Political and Economical stability of any society.... and how inturn this internal conflict makes dealing with and future challange that much more difficult.

You are overvaluing how many people died in military active combat.... attrition from army desieses killed more soldiers till late 19 century when we finally discovered long barrel artillary and machine guns that alows for such mass murder in timly fashion

 

[Oglesby]

What I mean is whether this meaning is included in English. Because English is not my native language (as you know, there are significant differences between Chinese and any Western language)

Without qualifiers of what it is made of I would say that wine is "the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage"

With qualifiers of what is it made of it would open to "the alcoholic usually fermented juice of a plant product (such as a fruit) used as a beverage", such as rice wine, blackberry wine, or dandelion wine.

 

[KuBikvKuBe]

yes and yes.

the drawback is that your soldiders will die.

What if the war ends on the same day your militia army becomes infected and the player disbands it? Will the disease disappear along with the army?