improving stability or building improvements

[unmerged(38057)]

I've been at +2 stabilty(as Rome) for most of the game and the cost to improve to +3 would take almost 400+ gold. I've added 17 provences to Romes territory. This seems like a lot to pay for stability increase. Since my tech level is 5 in all areas I'm also building improvements in most places. Is it best to save up and increase that stability or to keep buiding improvements first?

Kevin

 

[TheLand]

I've been at +2 stabilty(as Rome) for most of the game and the cost to improve to +3 would take almost 400+ gold. I've added 17 provences to Romes territory. This seems like a lot to pay for stability increase. Since my tech level is 5 in all areas I'm also building improvements in most places. Is it best to save up and increase that stability or to keep buiding improvements first?

Kevin

There is little point going from 2 to 3 stability.

 

[Kasimal]

Little calculation:
A forum will give about 0.02 to 0.16 more money income per month, depending if you can trade with other countries or not.
An irrigation will give 50% more tax income in one province, so if the province has about 6 slavepop (average number for a province with 18 pop) it will increase the tax income by 0.125 per month
Stability will increase tax income by 10% for each of your provinces, so if you empire has about 70 slavepop money income will be increased by 0.3 each month.

So the solution is:
First build irrigations in the provinces with more than 7 slavepop, then build forums in provinces where you can trade the tradegood to other nations. Then build irrigation anywhere else, where it's possible.

Stability should be increased before you get a huge amount of provinces in a short time (especially in a conquering war) Because it will get much more expansive afterwards. Stability should never be increased before an event that will lower it, a dow without cb for example.

 

[Eber]

I personally find stability to be a relatively weak point in Rome compared to EU3. In EU3, if you are at 0 stability, it will hurt, but in Rome you barely notice it. Yes, your RR will be higher but in my opinion improvements (especially roads and irrigation/mines) should be the top priority over stability increases. Plus you never know when you might get a random event that will increase stability. Anything lower then +1 stability, then you should focus on stability increases.

 

[Azugal]

Once your empire does get large(ish) from conquering, it is helpful to keep down revolts too. I usually look at my total tax income and see what's going to make me more money. Not to mention when you start getting "advances" like small scale corruption that add to the revolt risk via higher corruption. Yeah, revolts are easy to put down, but they do take troops away from other tasks.

Also agree that low Stability should cause more negative effects though.

 

[TheLand]

If anyone wants more interesting effects from stability they should try SPQR