Quote Originally Posted by Musket
Or you can do the English tactic that we used in the Hundred Years War, chevauchee I believe, I can't remember the exact spelling. Basically, it involved marching an army into a province, pillaging all you can, burn the whole lot to the ground and then retreat. When the enemy moves back in and rebuilds, repeat the tactic.

However, in Total War, a constant stalemate may promote a rebellion back home. I remember my Holy Roman - Almohad War, while the Navy succeeded at blockading Almohad ports and destroying their navy, on land it was a Stalemate. We exchanged the same three ex-French provinces over and over for about 25 years. My attempts at negotiating a peaceful settlement to the war had fallen on deaf ears, as the Almohads were not talking.

Eventually, the people were starting to get a bit pissed off with the prolonged war, the continual yearly recruitment and just sending them to the meat grinder and the re-appearing of Almohad ships and hunting single ship fleets down in the blockade. About eleven provinces on the continent, across France, the Empire's heartland and Hungary defected, as well as four provinces in the British Isles defected in an all-out civil war.

Coupled with the prolonged war against the Almohads, the re-emergence of the French, Hungarians and the English made it a Catholic on Catholic War. The Pope excommunicated me, and the Italians answered the call. This finally brought down the Empire. So be careful when fighting an extended war.
Interesting read...Thanks for the information...

Let me ask you though: What about a prolonged state of war? As in, you are "at war" with another faction however you are not actually engaging in combat...the status of "war" just exists.

How can one expect their populace to react to this sort of situation?