Originally posted by DSc
As no idea yet, I'll try form my standard method of building customized country.
Plutocracy - Aristocracy
I tend to lean to the side of Plutocracy as a better trade oportunity. You have better trade efficiency what means more money to country treasury and mainly to country budget. With more money you can pay even expensive cavalry and the ships are less costy.
But Aristocracy gives you a diplomatic bonus, and you are probably going to be building rather more cavalry than warships during the game, though there are exceptions. (E.g. trading nations like England and Holland can do very well by going Plutocracy....As can the Incas and the Aztecs - anything that increases the percentage of non-gold income is good
)
Decentralisation - Centralisation
Here is my strategy simple as before. Centralised as much as it gets. You have cheaper technologies, much efficient production. If you runs stable country (as I do), you don't have to worry about higher revolt possibility.
Well, with the centralisation bug of 1.05 you actually hurt your production this way, but that will be fixed. The RR effect of centralisation (WE max adjustment) not bothering you has nothing to do with your having a stable country, but everything to do with you (sensibly) fighting short victorious wars.
Narrowmindedness - Innovativeness
Definitevely innovateveness. Only when you are not 'Free trade' or 'Naval' oriented, you can have little problem with colonists. But when you have such preferences and if you are protestant or reformed, you don't have to worry about insufficent no. of colonists. Another side of high innovativeness is cheap technologies, but on other hand more expensive stability.
Don't convert much, do you?
Free trade - Mercantillism
Free trade is my suggestion. Your traders will be more successful and come with higher profits. You will also get more traders and colonists. Thats goog base for establishing pretty prosperous trade and colonial empire. Higher costs for trader placement is nothing you have to worry.
On balance, I agree with you, although I will note that if you aren't going to colonise much, mercantilist is the better approach. Additionally, the higher cost can be very significant in the early portions of the game - enough to make placing traders in some CoTs economically unfeasible - so unless you desperately need the colonists, free trade can wait till you are well established.
Attack - Defense
I leave this in the balanced position or somewhere near it. For better morale you should lean little more to the attack side.
For quickly taking fortresses by siege and for cheap artillery, you should defensive. The extra morale for offensive is nice in the beginning as is the shock bonus, but it doesn't usually justify the expense of moving it that way first, and then going defensive around 1600 when artillery comes into its own.
Naval - Land
I usually choose balanced possition, with little advance of naval. Then you get little more colonists.
Either full land for cheaper men and slightly higher land morale, or full naval for cheaper ships, many more colonists, a significant trade bonus, and a 0.5 naval bonus. On balance, I prefer naval.
Quantity - Quality
Choosing quality with philosophy that I'm not so rich to spend my money to have large amount of weak army. Better to have less men with better
morale.
Quality=1, i.e. one step from max quantity. Better to field a large cheap supportable army, and have a large manpower pool, than an expensive small army and a small manpower pool.
Remember that quantity not only increases your manpower (and thus your supportable limit), but also reduces both the recruiting and upkeep cost of infantry and cavalry. And casualties in combat depend on the number of troops, not morale. Hence,
Quality allows your armies to fight longer battles due to higher morale. This is very useful in the early game when morale is low.
Quantity allows your armies to kill more enemies due to more men. This is useful throughout the game.
Free Subjects - Serdom
My choice is Free Subjects. Higher productivity, better morale. Stability costs more but with higher morale you have better stability so you don't have to improve it. With higher productivity you can pay more expensive army and what is really important, you gives more money to inventions.
Higher morale does not give better stability. Stability is independent of morale.
With lower stability rasing costs, you won't spend so much time investing in stability, meaning that over time you invest much more in research.
That said, free subjects are
very attractive to small to medium sized religiously homogenous nation.
This is my common procedures. Sure, it's suitable more for large countries like France, England and so on, but it's only one point of view (my, exactly) and it's limited.
It is useful for small to medium sized European religiously homogenous societies.
Large multi-religious empires are much better off being narrowminded enserfers. Your preferred options makes stability recovery seven times as expensive as the alternative, and you won't be capable of doing any conversions. Thus non-state cultured provinces will drive your stability raising cost sky-high, making it hard to keep stability recovery within the comfortable 4-8 month period where it belongs once you begin expanding.
The morale effects of the dp-sliders is fairly irrelevant once you get your land-tech into the teens.
As you can see, I don't quite agree with your reasoning
