My concern is that radically reworking all these religions will have pretty big gameplay concerns and could very well lead to something that is much inferior to vanilla.doktarr said:The question is a little simpler for the other seven religions, since (a couple stray events excepted) players can't voluntarily jump from one to another. In those cases we can change the religions in ways that may make them stronger or weaker if we think this will improve historicity.Well, see my comments above. Broadly speaking, if the four convertable religions are comparable in multiplayer, then they will probably be fairly even in single player too, so the overall simulation level will stay fairly good (or at least not get worse).Well honestly, we're making so many changes at this point that the best approach may be to throw in everything we think is a good change that MIGHT be playable, and then balance things from there.
The increased manpower is already in 1.08, so that onedoesn't count . As to the rest of it, I think it is important to distinguish between things which we've more or less agreed to do, and ideas on which there is still a degree of disagreement. In my opinion, the things which will clearly be different from vanilla are:This is especially true in the far east. Consider how completely things are being changed there, from the new states in formerly uncolonized India and Indonesia, to the new larger China incorporating the Manchu and Dai Viet, to the introduction of the Mongols, to the re-worked Chinese revolts and Japanese warring states period, to the event-based European intrusions in India and southeast Asia, to the re-worked strategic decision sequence for China, to the increased manpower, and so on. Whatever balance the vanilla GC has in that area is totally fried by the changes we're already implementing.
- the new states in formerly uncolonized India and Indonesia,
-new larger China incorporating the Manchu and Dai Viet,
-re-worked Chinese revolts and Japanese warring states period,
-re-worked strategic decision sequence for China
Things that I think are unclear are:
-the event-based European intrusions in India and southeast Asia
-the introduction of the Mongols
Of the first the Indonesian and Indian set up has been in use for a long time in both EEP and AGC. We'll have to see how much the strategic decision changes things, but in the historical path it shouldn't change too much. The larger China and the revolts clearly have pretty big implications.
Realism that makes the game play out in unrealistic ways is a horrible thing to do. If the religions are going to be reworked I would like to get the answers to what I think are too critical questionsWe may as well re-work the eastern religions while we're at it, if we think that's a realistic thing to do.
-How will these changes make the religious effects more like real life?
-How will the changes make the game play out better?
And without good answers to both of these questions I would oppose doing anything.
Changing religions will have very big effects on gameplay. For instance MKJ is basically suggesting that all Christians have one less diplomat per year, and that CRC will be much better than it currently is. These will profoundly affect game choices. These things ought to be considered very carefully, and I fully support doing this in a incremental way, to be sure that the game still plays out in a sensible way.
Not as far as I know. It's fixed regardless of size.Isn't the stability bonus on a per-province basis? So large sunni empires will get a big boost from this.