Muslims taking loans?

[grommile]

It is not about nerfing but uniqueness and accuracy. Naturally, if some religion or culture loses something, they get something brand new in return.

The proposal as framed is, for all practical purposes, a strict reduction in the power of Muslim states relative to non-Muslim states. Revolt Risk and stability hits are clearly a worse consequence for loan-taking than inflation is. Given that the game is (for the most part) already strongly skewed in favour of European Christians, it's not clear that this is in any way a good idea.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

The proposal as framed is, for all practical purposes, a strict reduction in the power of Muslim states relative to non-Muslim states. Revolt Risk and stability hits are clearly a worse consequence for loan-taking than inflation is. Given that the game is (for the most part) already strongly skewed in favour of European Christians, it's not clear that this is in any way a good idea.

Of course it might be sweetened somewhat - for example muslim "loans" would mean stability or piety hit but they would be larger, than your typical loan. You just need to balance it out. Also when you make them as special taxes, you don't have to pay them back...

 

[eugene171]

Piety hits make sense to me.

In a war, the state takes out loans. the troops are somewhat demoralized, the missionaries lose credibility, and taxes go up. This is pretty credible to me, and it doesn't cripple the nation.

 

[Kraxis]

Of course it might be sweetened somewhat - for example muslim "loans" would mean stability or piety hit but they would be larger, than your typical loan. You just need to balance it out. Also when you make them as special taxes, you don't have to pay them back...

Or making it different so that Muslim loans don't carry interest and cause no inflation. But if they are not paid back within the first period you lose piety. The loan is then extended. If you can't pay then, another series of piety losses and on top of that a negative stability modifier that can stack. From there on it should be downright losses of whatever.

 

[Hakairyu]

Or making it different so that Muslim loans don't carry interest and cause no inflation. But if they are not paid back within the first period you lose piety. The loan is then extended. If you can't pay then, another series of piety losses and on top of that a negative stability modifier that can stack. From there on it should be downright losses of whatever.

Except low piety is not a negative, I would in fact say it's better than high piety. If this really needs to be a game mechanic (as numerous people already stated, just because the state religion forbids something doesn't mean it didn't happen; applying to Christians and Muslims alike. To further examplify with the Ottomans, Murad the 4th banned alcohol&smoking and introduced a curfew due to the disorder in the empire at the time and later he happened to die... of cyrrhosis), I guess interest and inflation may show up when you hit low piety. But really though, muslim states aren't supposed to go to war with each other either (and that TOTALLY didn't happen). That one does cause low piety, but low piety -> more inflation and interest -> more loans -> lower piety does not really seem like a particularly entertaining or simulation/roleplay-worthy spiral.

 

[Kraxis]

Well, personally I don't think it is entirely needed, however it is a way to make it more interesting.

I know that low Piety isn't a bad thing on it's own. But it would be fairly bad if you try to convert other religions, and it is when you expand into other religions that you are most likely to need the money (warring). But the Piety loss would mainly be there for RP reasons, it is the increasing stability costs that would be the problem. And if you default again you can run into perhaps stability loss itself (I specifically didn't specify what the direct losses could be in order to not set people's thoughts on any specific path, but with a forced hand I prefer stability), in which case you are now saddled with loss of stability and the increased stability costs. It would be more costly to not pay the loans, but it would also be less problematic to take loans (no interest or inflation). I think those things balances out nicely. And so what if that would make Muslim states a bit stronger overall, it isn't as if they don't need it, even the Ottomans seems to get their teeth kicked in regularly.

The main problem I can see is if the AI can't handle loans properly, which would result in much weaker Muslims. But it doesn't look like that happens at the moment.