Well, okay, but then they also need to address the spending issue. Nowadays, when you reach stab 3, that slider just turns off. And when you lose some stability again, it does not turn back on automatically! Meaning pointless micromanaging.
Beta of 5.1 - 17th May 2011 - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well, okay, but then they also need to address the spending issue. Nowadays, when you reach stab 3, that slider just turns off. And when you lose some stability again, it does not turn back on automatically! Meaning pointless micromanaging.
Hordes are still wrecking balls to the Pol-Lit commonwealth and the Russian states...
In all my test games I haven't seen Muscovy survive and Novgorod usually barely.
In all my test games I haven't seen Muscovy survive and Novgorod usually barely.
Depends, sometimes I have a stab +1 but I don't want to spend anything on stability because of possible advisors - this is especially true in the beginning of the game I might add.
I totally agree that +3 stab should be almost impossible to achieve, but the better solution in my opinon is to increase the stab cost needed to reach +2 and +3, to the level that it's an economical bad affair to invest in stability to reach +3.
Personally, I agree. If I want stab hits to prevent me from getting to +3, then I'd play MM
(Note, I have absolutely no information on the dev process, and no say whatsoever on the patch, Paradox, and anything. This is my humble, personal opinion and in no way reflects what Paradox does, will do, have done, or even think)
I would like a 'u-shaped' stability scale, so getting from 0 to 1 was easy enough but 2 to 3 was a lot harder.
You probably mean convex cost function. U-shaped would also make going from -3 to -2 incredibly expensive.
As an economist, I always support motions to add either convex cost functions, or concave benefit functions.
Hmm.... obviously you have more technical knowledge of this sort of thing but I would have thought getting from -3 to -2 would have been very easy as on the graph it would be sharply downhill. In any case, yeah it would be cool. I think MM had it?
Without getting too technical, U-shaped means it's expensive on the extremes, and cheap in the middle (hence, shaped like a "U"). Convex means it starts out cheap, and gets more expensive the further right you go -- fast. Convex functions are basically the right half of a U-shaped function.
I don't much like this. Iirc this was how it was earlier (maybe vanilla, NA or perhaps EU2), but it would be more frustrating to get a random stab hit, when you had just reached +3, instead of stab hits at +1 or below. Similarly in the negative end of the scale, where I think you are already punished enough by the bad effects of -3. This would create some kind of "mini-game", where you would have to juggle about the stability levels and shift sliders and government changes around to make them fit with the cheapest stab costs possible. Not needed complexity imho.
In EU2, costs doubled for every positive level of stability IIRC. I think EU3 has this cost doubling once for level >1 only. In EU2, I invested stability up to +2, then waited for a random event to either increase (lucky!) or decrease (damn, foiled again!). If your design goal is to prevent people from having +3 stab (tell that to the AI, they have +3 all the time!), then a convex stab cost function like in EU2 is a good idea.
The concept of stability is a funny one. I recently played a game, where my country was in the middle of a total war with several of my provinces controlled by enemy or under siege/looted and my warexhaustion was through the roof, yet my stability was soundly seated at +3
EDIT: Of course a stability hit in this position would have been catastrophic for my revolt risk, income and general (st)ability to run the country.
EDIT: Of course a stability hit in this position would have been catastrophic for my revolt risk, income and general (st)ability to run the country.
Not having +3 stabs means that techs go up much slower, too. Hopefully this will not impact the game too much.
Hey, just giving feedback, not criticizing at present
.Besides, I do not think the new 'stab situation' is inherently bad, it's just rather different from before,so it calls for a different gameplay.
The concept of stability is a funny one. I recently played a game, where my country was in the middle of a total war with several of my provinces controlled by enemy or under siege/looted and my warexhaustion was through the roof, yet my stability was soundly seated at +3
EDIT: Of course a stability hit in this position would have been catastrophic for my revolt risk, income and general (st)ability to run the country.
First, harhar on the pun
There are a number of events that give you stabhits when a war goes badly (specifically, negative WS and high WE, I think). Perhaps you were just lucky?
Yes, perhaps. I don't think my WS was negative due to won battles, and I'm not as much complaining about stability in it's current form, as I'm trying to get a grasp of what it represents (to be better able to propose fitting ideas).
It's not the current situation your country is in. It's more of a "general feeling of the country" thing. So, I see investments in stability as advertisement my king spends to indoctrinate his subjects what a nice ruler he is
Played Muscowy with the new patch (hard, agressive ai) and here are some observations:
- As everyone seems to post, GH is quite difficult to start with. Numbers advantage is there, but also horde troops appear to be significantly stronger than Poland/Lit/Sweden/TO etc. I.e. they seem to win battles when evenly matched and cause massive losses and manpower drain. That seems to hold even if The only saving grace here is that they will often agree to stop the war if you concede defeat right away - a bit gamey but necessary to keep them off your back.
- When you force a tribute on the Horde (GH, Nogai, Sibir) - it doesn't seem to work. They agree to it but it doesn't show up in your income statement. Is this broken?
- Horder vassalization seems broken still - Lithuania ended being GH vassal somehow but was not allied to them (because they couldn't I presume due to the vassalization bugs)
- Occasionally horde armies would wipe my large army ENTIRELY and quickly in battle, even with full morale, general, etc. Happens rarely - not sure why.
- Something about the settlement/province taking mechanism gets tedious - kind of reminds old EU when you occupied and sat on it forever. I occupied the ENTIRE GH and had to basically keep it occupied for 50 years or so in order to settle my numerous core colonies (and others too). I got a ton of territory without any infamy, but had to put up with annoying rebellions in occupied territories. No auto-WP since they kept spawning troops out of Kurgan. Meanwhile other hordes start wars every 5 years, lose, agree to tribute which they don't pay, and start again. I am not sure what the solution is for this, but it seems like a) you shouldn't take entire horde territory infamy free and b) having lands occupied for 50 years in order to take them seemed a little pointless, but perhaps that's fine (maybe bigger colonist bonus if next to horde?).
Basically the first 100 years is horde micromanagement.
- Forming Russia by mid 1450s is very easy. Don't remember it being that easy before.
- Westernization is very easy as well - westernized by 1500s.
- As everyone seems to post, GH is quite difficult to start with. Numbers advantage is there, but also horde troops appear to be significantly stronger than Poland/Lit/Sweden/TO etc. I.e. they seem to win battles when evenly matched and cause massive losses and manpower drain. That seems to hold even if The only saving grace here is that they will often agree to stop the war if you concede defeat right away - a bit gamey but necessary to keep them off your back.
- When you force a tribute on the Horde (GH, Nogai, Sibir) - it doesn't seem to work. They agree to it but it doesn't show up in your income statement. Is this broken?
- Horder vassalization seems broken still - Lithuania ended being GH vassal somehow but was not allied to them (because they couldn't I presume due to the vassalization bugs)
- Occasionally horde armies would wipe my large army ENTIRELY and quickly in battle, even with full morale, general, etc. Happens rarely - not sure why.
- Something about the settlement/province taking mechanism gets tedious - kind of reminds old EU when you occupied and sat on it forever. I occupied the ENTIRE GH and had to basically keep it occupied for 50 years or so in order to settle my numerous core colonies (and others too). I got a ton of territory without any infamy, but had to put up with annoying rebellions in occupied territories. No auto-WP since they kept spawning troops out of Kurgan. Meanwhile other hordes start wars every 5 years, lose, agree to tribute which they don't pay, and start again. I am not sure what the solution is for this, but it seems like a) you shouldn't take entire horde territory infamy free and b) having lands occupied for 50 years in order to take them seemed a little pointless, but perhaps that's fine (maybe bigger colonist bonus if next to horde?).
Basically the first 100 years is horde micromanagement.
- Forming Russia by mid 1450s is very easy. Don't remember it being that easy before.
- Westernization is very easy as well - westernized by 1500s.
Your last point is strange, as Westernisation was nerfed. In my byz game, I couldn't Westernise until my neighbours had reached tech level 20.
- Status