• 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.

Falstaff

Field Marshal
34 Badges
Sep 7, 2003
3.083
1
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Magicka
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria 2
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron III
Would it not be better to simulate unrest through factors in each province somehow? I do think stability is a good way of showing how difficult (and expensive) it is to keep large empires together, but at the same time it's tedious to always fear stability drops.

The idea of investing all your income for years to regain 1 stability, when a random event could take it back down by a couple, is not enjoyable gameplay to me. I would rather hunt religious troublemakers or other such scum in specific areas than spend all my money on abstract stability. Maybe a stability value for each province, which would be affected by various things like religion, income ao.

How do you feel on this subject?
 
It takes a class of people, relgious group, or culture and causes that specific group to become more rebellious. I can be applied across a state, or the entire country. While I doubt the pop system will be nearly as detailed, if there's any thing in terms of % of cultures/religions in a province it could work.
 
I'd be in for an adapted style of HoI2's national dissent. I don't like how stability is changed so much by investing full in it, and how you have to wait for it to level before you get any effects from it. At lest with dissent it is a constant change based on modifiers (in that case amount of consumer goods, minister traits etc) as well as one-time changes due to wars or other events.

It could also be a precursor to allow for some more random stability changes when changing dps, religions etc.
 
I think the stab concept works, but of course it could use tweaking. I'd prefer a wider range, with maintaining 100% being nearly impossible. I'd also like to directly change the stab investment through events.

But I don't see anything inherently unsound about it. The militance of various groups is mirrored here, in RR, of which stab is only one factor.
 
Centralization

It would be nice if stability was somehow related to centralization, too.

There should be extra benefits for increased centralization, but with a more centralized state, any increased instability would be nationwide. With a very decentralized state, it would make more sense for provinces to be modelled in terms of individual or regional stability.

I know this is already the case somewhat -- I just think it should be more obvious. Also the degree to which your state is centralized should determine how widespread your stab hits are.

Maybe I'm just babbling...
 
In EU2 I guess stability is a general feeling in the population about the country's state of affairs. If the rulers does something immoral, like breaking a truce, the population doesn't like it.
 
Stability is great for gameplay and it's a principal historical concept.

Don't drop it.
 
It wouldn't be EU without stability.
 
In concept, stability was a wonderful system. It indicated the strength of the government to rule (considering the ability to get tax monies and such), and abstracted the political strength of government between total chaos and abosolute control - but, in game terms it turned out to be just something that could be gamed.

EU1 research (by us) revealed that stability was something that players could manipulate but the ai could not. EU2 de-emphasized stability a bit, but gameplayers could exploit the concept...

Personally, I avoid exploitave gameplay (in SP), but many do not, and many rail about this. I think that good game concepts should mostly work regardless of exploitive game play.
 
Bocaj said:
I'd be in for an adapted style of HoI2's national dissent. I don't like how stability is changed so much by investing full in it, and how you have to wait for it to level before you get any effects from it.

I like this idea, as well... makes more sense.
 
The Disent model in HoI and HoI2 would be better for this.
 
Sir Humphrey said:
The Disent model in HoI and HoI2 would be better for this.

I am not so sure about this. What should dissent represent? Unhappiness among the people or among the nobels? Both? Neither?

While a ruler might care about the nobels they normally would not care about the peasents.
 
Trinitrotoluen said:
I am not so sure about this. What should dissent represent? Unhappiness among the people or among the nobels? Both? Neither?

While a ruler might care about the nobels they normally would not care about the peasents.
Well it depends on which system EU III incorporates. Both CK and and Victoria model this difference in their own way.
 
Falstaff said:
The idea of investing all your income for years to regain 1 stability, when a random event could take it back down by a couple, is not enjoyable gameplay to me.
How do you feel on this subject?

I never run a nation where I invest in stab for years to regain 1 stab.

Either I keep my stab costs low (say a 2-6 months of full investment, I play similarly in MP) or I for some reason have very high stab costs a short time period and then I do not invest in stab at all.
 
Jayavarman said:
Well it depends on which system EU III incorporates. Both CK and and Victoria model this difference in their own way.

True. Personally I would favour a system that focusses on the nobility during this timeframe. After all, they were potentially a lot more dangerous to a ruler than any peasent rebellion.