Do you like minting?
- Thread starter marat271
- 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.
Yes, yes it does. Whether you pay with money or with investment you still have to pay your current stabcost. Sure, If you get a stabhit for say, DoW'ing a country without CB, and then pay off the stabcost before you get the infamy hit from annexing them you lose a bit of cost, but not nearly enough. In that case its probably worth it to just occupy that country for a year and wait for your stab to raise from investment.
But thats only if you are at 0 RR and not the typical (-10)-(-14) RR you can usually aquire. So usually you only get say, 4 RR at most in most core provinces.
We are talking about a -6 Stabhit here. That means the alternative is ~6 Inflation. But look at it: Even with those kinda inflated numbers you still wont even lose 50% of your income. Lets go by the (reasonable) logic that 40% of your Income is Trade, 30% is Taxes and 30% Production. Lets say that the merchant stuff costs you half your trade income (unlikely, but it defnitely wont cost more). You lose 20% income. Then you lose 75% of your Taxes, which means a reduction of 22.5% of your whole income. All in all that still leaves you with an reduced income of only 42.5%. That means that in addition to the lots of ducats minted you still lose. Even in the most extreme case of a -6 Stab hit. As long as the stabhit does not bring you to negative stab its a drastically changed story, do the math.
Paying the stabcost is not really a big deal. Having a large empire and a minus stability might mean lots of pesky rebels, and if you are -3 and someone decides to declear war then it will be even worse as nationalists will pop up everywhere and your forts will have terrible morale.
If someone declares war you will actually get a -5 RR modifier in your core provinces, while your morale should be entirely unaffected by stab. If you cant pay your military thats another thing.
There are btw very few ways to get to -3 Stab in one go. Among them: Changing Religion, Changing from theocracy to Absolute monarchy, changing Capital. All other Stabhits are much more reasonable.
And I still dont see you making any arguments against the fact that you lose 50% Efficiency while even at -3 Stab you dont lose 50% Income.
Edit: About those numbers mentioned above: Yes, they can be different, but not by that much, let me show you a game in which i focussed solely on getting as many cores in the richest areas in europe as fast as possible (i.e. before their production value realy picks up): http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=51565&d=1333537424
As you can see even here the ration is only 50% Taxes, 25% Trade, 25% Production and this is only the case because I own both the lowlands and Lombardia together with lots of rich areas in germany. Those Provinces are all cored and I have not yet centralized (higher production income) nor gotten my Trade up (higher Trade efficiency and thus income). If we look at the numbers at 100% TE and 100% PE you get the following:
84 Income from taxes (26%)
97 Income from Trade (30%)
132 Income from production. (42%)
Together: 313
As you can see stability would only affect 58% of that income at all, so in order for minting to be even time-efficient it would need to reduce that income by nearly 90%. This just does not happen.
Last edited:
Well nick, while i know you got your point remember that :
If you lose merchants during being at -3 stability, you will likely not be able to replace them, so you might lose even 100% of trade income. If you are small trading country, and you mint to get cash for getting back to +3 stability from -3, while you for example change religion, you will most possibly save a lot of income that you could lost otherwise, because of the severe stability lose(and possible lose of merchants).
Now as a country that rely on high taxes, but does not gain lot of production, and gain little more income from trade than production, and you for example westernize, this can also be helpfull(aspecialy if you have greatly reduced stability cost, with good enough income). Also, it is lot easier to reduce inflation, than increase stability when fighting big amount of rebels, and possibly if you have low stability, it might mean you will have to mint to keep yearly income positive, and so you a) need to reduce army size, b) gain inflation.
And as now it is hardest to increase stability from -3 to -2, then it just mean you will have like from one year to many more, of having -3 stability.
If you lose merchants during being at -3 stability, you will likely not be able to replace them, so you might lose even 100% of trade income. If you are small trading country, and you mint to get cash for getting back to +3 stability from -3, while you for example change religion, you will most possibly save a lot of income that you could lost otherwise, because of the severe stability lose(and possible lose of merchants).
Now as a country that rely on high taxes, but does not gain lot of production, and gain little more income from trade than production, and you for example westernize, this can also be helpfull(aspecialy if you have greatly reduced stability cost, with good enough income). Also, it is lot easier to reduce inflation, than increase stability when fighting big amount of rebels, and possibly if you have low stability, it might mean you will have to mint to keep yearly income positive, and so you a) need to reduce army size, b) gain inflation.
And as now it is hardest to increase stability from -3 to -2, then it just mean you will have like from one year to many more, of having -3 stability.