The other thread about stability got me thinking. What is stability supposed to represent? If it is supposed to be an abstraction for unrest, we already have unrest. If it is supposed to be an abstraction for the economy, we already have an economy. What's left? I guess ruler popularity.
So what if instead of Stability there was just a Popularity score tied to your current ruler? You could have popularity with 3 groups: military (MP), merchants and foreign nations (DP), and general population (AP). Score would range from -100 to 100. Having a high score with a particular group grants bonuses related to that group. For example, high military popularity = manpower boost, etc. When your leader dies, all scores get reset or at least move towards 0. You increase popularity by actually doing things. For example, building a fort += 1 military popularity. Getting pounded in a war -= 10 military popularity. You could buy popularity with straight points, but there would be other ways of increasing it that are actually useful to your game progress, not just a point dump. If constructing buildings gave you popularity buffs, it would provide actual incentive to build them because right now they are rather useless. Monarch stats could be a multiplier, so if your guy had a high DIP score you might get 1.5 DIP popularity for building a dock rather than just 1, or if you had a high MIL score you might get just -7 MIL popularity for losing a war instead of -10. Ideally it would take a long time to affect a major increase or decrease popularity, like a few decades.
Annoying "legitimacy" mechanic could just be replaced by popularity. Your heir could have his own popularity score determined by his stats, events, monarch points you want to invest into him, etc. Heir would also inherit part of the previous ruler's popularity when he comes "into office." It would also make elections more meaningful for republics, as the faction you choose in an election would correlate to boosted popularity for that faction.
I think this has a lot more potential than the uselessly abstract concept of "stability." Popularity with the various faction could provide all the buffs/debuffs currently provided by stability plus a whole lot more. It would require more long-term planning but would have greater rewards and easier for players to control intentionally. This would also solve one of the age-old questions: what to do during peace time? It would also make particular rulers more meaningful and interesting, as popularity is tied to them and their personalities and stats.
Some initial ideas:
ADM popularity:
+/- unrest
+/- coring cost/time
+/- conversion strength/time
+/- ADM tech cost
+- ADM idea cost
+/- war exhaustion reduction cost
+/- inflation reduction cost
+/- build cost
+/- national tax
DIP popularity:
+/- trade power
+/- trade income modifier
+/- better relations over time
+/- claim fabrication time
+/- colony growth
+/- diplo rep
+/- rebel support efficiency
+/- naval tradition
+/- naval morale
MIL popularity:
+/- manpower modifier
+/- manpower recovery
+/- military tradition
+/- land morale
+/- forcelimit modifier
+/- discipline
Really bad stuff would start happening if your popularity with a group tanks to extremely low (like -80).
ADM popularity:
-Rioters destroy buildings
-Provinces defect to foreign cores (rare)
-Provinces convert to heathen religions
DIP popularity:
-Merchants/colonists desert (-1 merchant/colonist for X months)
-Colonies/vassals/protectorates declare independence
-Captain resigns (-1 leader slot for x months and one of your captains/explorers disappears)
MIL popularity:
-Manpower drains
-Regiments desert
-General resigns (-1 leader slot for x months and one of your generals/conquistadors disappears)
You might hate some of the specifics that I mentioned, but rather than getting hung up on those, please critique the idea as a whole.
So what if instead of Stability there was just a Popularity score tied to your current ruler? You could have popularity with 3 groups: military (MP), merchants and foreign nations (DP), and general population (AP). Score would range from -100 to 100. Having a high score with a particular group grants bonuses related to that group. For example, high military popularity = manpower boost, etc. When your leader dies, all scores get reset or at least move towards 0. You increase popularity by actually doing things. For example, building a fort += 1 military popularity. Getting pounded in a war -= 10 military popularity. You could buy popularity with straight points, but there would be other ways of increasing it that are actually useful to your game progress, not just a point dump. If constructing buildings gave you popularity buffs, it would provide actual incentive to build them because right now they are rather useless. Monarch stats could be a multiplier, so if your guy had a high DIP score you might get 1.5 DIP popularity for building a dock rather than just 1, or if you had a high MIL score you might get just -7 MIL popularity for losing a war instead of -10. Ideally it would take a long time to affect a major increase or decrease popularity, like a few decades.
Annoying "legitimacy" mechanic could just be replaced by popularity. Your heir could have his own popularity score determined by his stats, events, monarch points you want to invest into him, etc. Heir would also inherit part of the previous ruler's popularity when he comes "into office." It would also make elections more meaningful for republics, as the faction you choose in an election would correlate to boosted popularity for that faction.
I think this has a lot more potential than the uselessly abstract concept of "stability." Popularity with the various faction could provide all the buffs/debuffs currently provided by stability plus a whole lot more. It would require more long-term planning but would have greater rewards and easier for players to control intentionally. This would also solve one of the age-old questions: what to do during peace time? It would also make particular rulers more meaningful and interesting, as popularity is tied to them and their personalities and stats.
Some initial ideas:
ADM popularity:
+/- unrest
+/- coring cost/time
+/- conversion strength/time
+/- ADM tech cost
+- ADM idea cost
+/- war exhaustion reduction cost
+/- inflation reduction cost
+/- build cost
+/- national tax
DIP popularity:
+/- trade power
+/- trade income modifier
+/- better relations over time
+/- claim fabrication time
+/- colony growth
+/- diplo rep
+/- rebel support efficiency
+/- naval tradition
+/- naval morale
MIL popularity:
+/- manpower modifier
+/- manpower recovery
+/- military tradition
+/- land morale
+/- forcelimit modifier
+/- discipline
Really bad stuff would start happening if your popularity with a group tanks to extremely low (like -80).
ADM popularity:
-Rioters destroy buildings
-Provinces defect to foreign cores (rare)
-Provinces convert to heathen religions
DIP popularity:
-Merchants/colonists desert (-1 merchant/colonist for X months)
-Colonies/vassals/protectorates declare independence
-Captain resigns (-1 leader slot for x months and one of your captains/explorers disappears)
MIL popularity:
-Manpower drains
-Regiments desert
-General resigns (-1 leader slot for x months and one of your generals/conquistadors disappears)
You might hate some of the specifics that I mentioned, but rather than getting hung up on those, please critique the idea as a whole.