Since favor gets more interaction, does that also mean we will get triggers and effects to check for/add/remove favors for modding?
- 1
- 1
^^^A penalty to trust with the requesting nation and to diprep seems to make more sense than a stabhit indeed.
Agreed. I think the best way to go about this would be probably to give -50 relations with the ally, have the ally lose 10 trust, lose 25 prestige, and lose 0.5 or 1 diplo rep. That would make refusing to honor favors essentially a slightly less harsh consequence compared to favoring a call to arms.A penalty to trust with the requesting nation and to diprep seems to make more sense than a stabhit indeed.
Well, you say yourself that stability makes no sense, and since you say the point is to make the player pay a hefty price, we could make refusing favors drop your army professionalism, missionary strength and up your technology cost. You see how your argument doesn't actually make sense?I think there's a bit of dishonesty in the debate on stability being the price for declining favour related requests. The AI usually accepts these requests, while the player can refuse - with that premise, the only way to balance the whole mechanic is to have the player pay a hefty price for refusing. Sure, stability makes no sense at all - but it hits where it hurts, admin points. If the price is going to be something else, it needs to be equally important. So far the suggestions have been, relations, trust, favours, dip rep, legitimacy and prestige - those are way too inconsequential ! If you had an event where you had to choose between one of these and a stab hit, how often would you pick the stab hit ?
Losing trust with other allies (and maybe even a little with all other countries) can actually matter a lot. Trust is an important factor to drag allies into wars. Low trust can even make alliances end. From dishonoring call to arms, I've noticed how the trust hits are usually worse than the dip rep hits.Second how big of a dip rep penalty for how long would you implement? I know the -3 from integrating doesn't appear to stop me from alliances (or cause me to lose my current ones) and eventually (dip/inf ideas) it doesn't stop my integration.
The dev post didn't specifically talk about "taking away" the money and manpower. The way it was written, it just says "spend X to get Y". There isn't really anything hinting it is a transfer, no "from them"/... Though a transfer would be most logical. Still, what happens when you don't have the stuff? What would happen if you have 5K manpower, suddenly an ally demands those 5K, but before accepting, you quickly make 5 regiments, setting your manpower to 0. The fact that these what-ifs were totally unaddressed made me wonder if there is really a transfer.Will be fun (=extremely tedious and frustrating) to sneakily increase opinions and curry favors with other players in MP games to spring several demands on them like siphoning of their money or requesting their manpower when they are in a war.
I believe that because Admin mana is much more important than diplo mana. A very good player can WC without spending not even one bird mana. Try to do that without spending admin points.In fact, stability are admin points. So if you said that players don't care about mana, indirectly, they don't care about stability. To be honnest, when playing a huge catholic game, I always sit on +3stab with 150 curia point so every stab hit is compensated by curia point.
On the contrary, having a huge dip rep penalty can have high consequences: no more possible to have allies, integration of vassals/PU stops, etc...
Yes, because stab hit from changing colonization policy is not "moon logic of gameyness", right? All mechanics in the game are grounded on logic and realism, not on gameplay, right? A stab hit from saying no to favors is a tep away from the perfect simulation EU4 is...It doesn't matter. It's getting into moon logic levels of gameyness to say that you would somehow lose internal stability because you didn't essentially press gang and deport a bunch of your population to another country just because you're buds.
Why would you ever say no if it wasn't a transfer?The dev post didn't specifically talk about "taking away" the money and manpower. The way it was written, it just says "spend X to get Y". There isn't really anything hinting it is a transfer, no "from them"/... Though a transfer would be most logical. Still, what happens when you don't have the stuff? What would happen if you have 5K manpower, suddenly an ally demands those 5K, but before accepting, you quickly make 5 regiments, setting your manpower to 0. The fact that these what-ifs were totally unaddressed made me wonder if there is really a transfer.
I don't contest that. It is something different than saying Stab Hit is the only thing players careI believe that because Admin mana is much more important than diplo mana. A very good player can WC without spending not even one bird mana. Try to do that without spending admin points.
And of course not all tags are catholics, so I dont think your example is ok.
The fact is stab hit for saying no to favors is unrealistic. But for most players it is a lot more damage than loss of diplo reputation.