A lot of things have changed with EU4 over the past 9+ (closing in on 10) years. I think its safe to say that game is in a much more enjoyable and understandable state than its earliest versions, with many of QoL features and fun additions having been added.
Stability - The Weird Old Relic of EU4's Past
That all said, a system which has basically persisted in its original state since the beginning that I think is long overdue for a change is the Stability system. In comparison to a lot of the newer systems in the game, the -3 to +3 tiers of Stability that have empire-wide effects feels from a different age of design.
It's main issue is that it really doesn't indicate how "Stable" a nation/state really is. You can be completely overwhelmed by rebels or an invader, have no armies in the field, all your lands devastated, have no money in your coffers, and have an inept ruler on the throne. But yet, the Stability value will say +3 and say your empire is actually "Stable" and fine, when we all know its not. Vice versa, you can be at peace for a hundred years, have invested massively into your own lands, reached the money cap, and havepurged assimilated all peoples in your land to your culture, but because of -3, your nation is considered "unstable" and you'll need to deal with a lot of bad modifiers because of it (and those modifiers are double those at the positive end for whatever reason).
I actually like the idea of there being a Stability mechanic in the game. The idea of needing to actually take care of your nation/state/empire in order to not only improve your yields but also to hold it together makes sense. However, the current system just doesn't really do that. It's just a general admin-mana/event sink, and while stability being related to administration makes sense, it being just this 1 (usually sizable) flat cost to make an enormous adjustment doesn't make a whole lot of sense and isn't fun or engaging to work with (other than making it totally trivial by combining modifiers).
So, what would be some better ways to represent how "Stable" a realm is?
Suggestion 1 - Localize Stability
My first suggestion is that instead of having stability be empire-wide like it currently is, it would instead be localized to an area or region and only directly impacts that location (and maybe indirectly impacts neighboring ones). So for example, as England, my Normandy lands can be very unstable, unproductive and rebellious, but my lands in England itself can be totally fine.
With this, you would also need to change how stability in increased/decreased. I feel this should namely come down to 3 factors:
1. How well integrated are the people of that land into your empire?
2. How well have you protected those lands?
3. How well have you invested into those lands?
1 is something the game already takes into account to a large extent, with religious tolerance and culture acceptance, so there probably wouldn't need to be a whole lost adjusted here. Just have these impact the local stability of the area/region via some + or - tick.
2 is something that would tie into how well you war in a way I don't think is really done so well atm. Currently, the main penalty for war is financial cost and war weariness, but distinct from both is this idea of "protecting" your nation. Yes, having your lands be occupied does contribute to both of those increasing, but its not directly tied to lands that get ravaged by war. If the same area is continuously being invaded and overwhelmed by enemies every single war, wouldn't the people there being to think that their current overlord is able to protect them? Wouldn't they to rebel, either to form their own nation, or to secede to a nearby nation that can protect them? So for this factor, I would have local stability be influenced by the devastation that area/region experiences; if you do a good job in protecting your lands, then the people there should generally feel safe under your rule and be less likely to rebel.
3 ties into actually developing your nation/state. If you put a lot of time and energy (aka develop, build buildings) into a province as a ruler, those people probably will think more positively on your government regarding its rule over that land. I think this would probably need some sort of decrease-over-time consideration, where creating a building provides a spike in a + tick, but then it slowly goes down as time goes on (and vice versa being true, where removing a building would add a - tick that would slowly return to 0).
Suggestion 2 - Granularize Stability
My second suggestion is more straight forward. Instead of having stability be on a scale of -3 to +3, have it be a wider range to allow for more gradual steps. Part of the many restart jokes that get passed around is from just the size of cost a stab can be, and with a number of these being from random events that just randomly push the player, it makes many people want to just reach for Task Manager and "have the game crash". A more granular system that is generally more within a player's control may have people doing that far less often and make dealing with tough situations more seemingly like a fair challenge rather than just a bad roll of the dice.
I would also combine this with making each side of the scale equal regarding what impact they have, instead of the current where negative is just double as bad, but that's potentially another debate.
Conclusion
Generally, I would just like to see stability be represented in the game in a way that makes more sense than just a button you press to make things better at a cost. And if this isn't possible/feasible within EU4 (especially considering the age of the game), then having this be taken into account for EU5 would be cool to see.
Stability - The Weird Old Relic of EU4's Past
That all said, a system which has basically persisted in its original state since the beginning that I think is long overdue for a change is the Stability system. In comparison to a lot of the newer systems in the game, the -3 to +3 tiers of Stability that have empire-wide effects feels from a different age of design.
It's main issue is that it really doesn't indicate how "Stable" a nation/state really is. You can be completely overwhelmed by rebels or an invader, have no armies in the field, all your lands devastated, have no money in your coffers, and have an inept ruler on the throne. But yet, the Stability value will say +3 and say your empire is actually "Stable" and fine, when we all know its not. Vice versa, you can be at peace for a hundred years, have invested massively into your own lands, reached the money cap, and have
I actually like the idea of there being a Stability mechanic in the game. The idea of needing to actually take care of your nation/state/empire in order to not only improve your yields but also to hold it together makes sense. However, the current system just doesn't really do that. It's just a general admin-mana/event sink, and while stability being related to administration makes sense, it being just this 1 (usually sizable) flat cost to make an enormous adjustment doesn't make a whole lot of sense and isn't fun or engaging to work with (other than making it totally trivial by combining modifiers).
So, what would be some better ways to represent how "Stable" a realm is?
Suggestion 1 - Localize Stability
My first suggestion is that instead of having stability be empire-wide like it currently is, it would instead be localized to an area or region and only directly impacts that location (and maybe indirectly impacts neighboring ones). So for example, as England, my Normandy lands can be very unstable, unproductive and rebellious, but my lands in England itself can be totally fine.
With this, you would also need to change how stability in increased/decreased. I feel this should namely come down to 3 factors:
1. How well integrated are the people of that land into your empire?
2. How well have you protected those lands?
3. How well have you invested into those lands?
1 is something the game already takes into account to a large extent, with religious tolerance and culture acceptance, so there probably wouldn't need to be a whole lost adjusted here. Just have these impact the local stability of the area/region via some + or - tick.
2 is something that would tie into how well you war in a way I don't think is really done so well atm. Currently, the main penalty for war is financial cost and war weariness, but distinct from both is this idea of "protecting" your nation. Yes, having your lands be occupied does contribute to both of those increasing, but its not directly tied to lands that get ravaged by war. If the same area is continuously being invaded and overwhelmed by enemies every single war, wouldn't the people there being to think that their current overlord is able to protect them? Wouldn't they to rebel, either to form their own nation, or to secede to a nearby nation that can protect them? So for this factor, I would have local stability be influenced by the devastation that area/region experiences; if you do a good job in protecting your lands, then the people there should generally feel safe under your rule and be less likely to rebel.
3 ties into actually developing your nation/state. If you put a lot of time and energy (aka develop, build buildings) into a province as a ruler, those people probably will think more positively on your government regarding its rule over that land. I think this would probably need some sort of decrease-over-time consideration, where creating a building provides a spike in a + tick, but then it slowly goes down as time goes on (and vice versa being true, where removing a building would add a - tick that would slowly return to 0).
Suggestion 2 - Granularize Stability
My second suggestion is more straight forward. Instead of having stability be on a scale of -3 to +3, have it be a wider range to allow for more gradual steps. Part of the many restart jokes that get passed around is from just the size of cost a stab can be, and with a number of these being from random events that just randomly push the player, it makes many people want to just reach for Task Manager and "have the game crash". A more granular system that is generally more within a player's control may have people doing that far less often and make dealing with tough situations more seemingly like a fair challenge rather than just a bad roll of the dice.
I would also combine this with making each side of the scale equal regarding what impact they have, instead of the current where negative is just double as bad, but that's potentially another debate.
Conclusion
Generally, I would just like to see stability be represented in the game in a way that makes more sense than just a button you press to make things better at a cost. And if this isn't possible/feasible within EU4 (especially considering the age of the game), then having this be taken into account for EU5 would be cool to see.
Last edited:
- 1
