Think of stability as representing maintenance of law enforcement, the judiciary system etc.
New Player here coming from CK2; this is my biggest problem with this game
- Thread starter WolfWaffle
- Start date
-
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.
Think of stability as representing maintenance of law enforcement, the judiciary system etc.
Coring costs don't increase with number of provinces, only coring time.
Very true, but CK2's system of internal politics tends to make big realms fall apart on their own. Of course, players often use many gimmicks and exploits to get around this. "North Korea mode" being one of the most
I think I prefer this explanation. Stability doesn't equal potential revolt risk after all. Just how much effort you're putting into keeping your country in order.
Last edited:
North Korea mode only works because Paradox, for some wierd reason, removed the penalties for going above your demesne limit. I actually like CK2's system better because it allows for empires to rapidly grow, then disintergrate, wheras in EU4 all the anti-blobbing mechanisms are external so the metagame ends up being a slow blobbing, but once you actually build your blob you are super stable and will never fall apart.
Lol, I guess you've never had dozens of nations trying to sabotage your internal stability. Sow Discontent after a devastating war SUCKS if you're on the receiving end. Support rebels can be a real danger too if you're overextended just a bit. Unless you're play cautiously and expand in tiny chips you're guaranteed to have a bad time at some point. Maybe I play too many challenging starts haha but you start to see all sorts of crazy stuff after playing around the world a few times.
Sow Discontent? Thats only +1 Revolt Risk, you get hurt worse by the stability cost increase than you do by the actual revolt risk. I dont think I ever seen an AI use support rebels, and the only major rebellions I see in the game come from either overextension, war exhaustion, or events. Overextension's rebels are the most common but they are scattered and generally as long as you have a few rebel hunting stacks, easy to deal with. War Exhaustion is only an early game concern, researching Optimism (Innovative Ideas) completely eliminates war exhaustion as a major concern and if you happen to get war exhaustion in spite of that, then you can use diplo (im usually swimming in dip) to reduce it. The last is events, but events are completely random and do not react to your internal situation at all.
Yes, you assume the player knows all this and has taken precautions already. Of course, you only get to pick some of those options if you play from the earliest starts before you get to pick NI's. Later historical starts can be rough; default idea group choices can be... silly. Don't forget about the rebel death spiral; it may have been nerfed but it's still possible if you're in a really bad spot, have no manpower, and have no army or monies left.
So CK2 is bad because it's easy if you know how to exploit it, and EU4 is good because it's hard if you don't know how to play it?
I never said CK2 was bad, it's a completely different game though. People trying to compare the 2 are trying to compare two different species of apples.
EUIV can be hard even if you know how to play it. I never said anything about if it's good or bad either, just harder to exploit to the same level you can in CK2.
Actually, losing resources at random when their mere availability is also random and they're the most precious resources in the game doesn't work well at all.
And then when people find workaround to reduce the sheer dependency on these random factors with skill and choice, the history-as-selective-argument-only babies come out in force and denounce it as "gamey", regardless of their own ability to execute the same tactics (some of which aren't exactly easy and require consistent split-second decisions, a precarious position for say ironman). However, these same players are perfectly happy to get huge tracts of land by dumb luck, and for some reason the devs and game has no problem awarding 400-500% war score by luck but refusing to allow players to accomplish the same.
People put up with it because the gameplay has a lot of good and fun elements, but to claim that is a system that works well is questionable. That a terrible adm leader can be hit by 5 -stab events in the first 60 years of gameplay is a travesty; literally any amount of in-game choices you can make as any but a huge nation would be frowned upon here.
The "better system" would be to weight these events very significantly based on player choices, and to allow some semblance of control over ruler stats based on player choices.
Regarding stability cost and big/small countries.
I think creating cores should be more expensive and take much, much longer time. And to balance that, the effects of overextension should be much lower overall and increase more slowly - and mainly cause increased stability costs and nationalism/revoltrisk.
Zero overextension should not be the norm for an expanding country and always coring newly conquered territory should not be a no-brainer.
I think creating cores should be more expensive and take much, much longer time. And to balance that, the effects of overextension should be much lower overall and increase more slowly - and mainly cause increased stability costs and nationalism/revoltrisk.
Zero overextension should not be the norm for an expanding country and always coring newly conquered territory should not be a no-brainer.
Stability system is dumb, no doubt about that.
It should be a process, not Click raise Stab button: "Trololo me hire artist to paint some breasts, + 1 stab!" KK thx bye oh hai treasurer!"
It´s obvious it would require a rework of all those bloody random events, including the idiotic Comet.
It should be a process, not Click raise Stab button: "Trololo me hire artist to paint some breasts, + 1 stab!" KK thx bye oh hai treasurer!"
It´s obvious it would require a rework of all those bloody random events, including the idiotic Comet.
It is kind of odd that they got rid of the -10% tech cost advisers because people would hire them for a month and replace them, but kept the artist.
But the -stability cost bonuses are really, really weak, probably the most useless buff in the game, especially now that westernization doesn't proceed based on stability.
But the -stability cost bonuses are really, really weak, probably the most useless buff in the game, especially now that westernization doesn't proceed based on stability.
Yes this, if CK2 can step up it's game with religion, then this game can do the same with stability and revolts.(I'm not asking for much here.)
And common revolts are supposed to be a big deal, this is a nation building simulator right?
I mean CK2 was a feudal simulator and it does a better job with dealing with revolts than this, and revolts are a bigger portion of the game in EU4, with the introduction of protestantism and democracy preferences. It's just so lazily done, thats my problem with it, I feel so disconnected with my country by just clicking a button to make people happy.
Yeah, so why don't you take your awful attitude and go back to your The Sims Medieval if you like it so much better. Go castrate some prisoners or have a child with your sister, I know that's what you freaks like to fantasize about. 'nuff said.
I feel like some things in EU4 have become so abstract that it's hard to tell what they even mean. For instance, you can have a zero Legitimacy/Republican Tradition, high War Exhaustion, Overextension, low Diplomatic Reputation, and be suffering from numerous attempts be foreign countries to support rebels. Yet still, maintaining +3 stability just requires having the points and pushing a button. What does that even mean? It feels like spin or propaganda. It has no relation to the ACTUAL "stability" of your country.
In my mind, Stability should be a bonus/malus based on the measurement of other factors, kind of like Diplomatic Reputation. For instance, if you have high Legitimacy, low Revolt Risk, War Exhaustion, and Overextension, you should, by definition, have a higher stability, and get the bonus for it. If you have a comet, or some other random event that changes stability, it should be a triggered modifier that artificially modifies it for a period of time, like the events that trade power or morale.
In my mind, Stability should be a bonus/malus based on the measurement of other factors, kind of like Diplomatic Reputation. For instance, if you have high Legitimacy, low Revolt Risk, War Exhaustion, and Overextension, you should, by definition, have a higher stability, and get the bonus for it. If you have a comet, or some other random event that changes stability, it should be a triggered modifier that artificially modifies it for a period of time, like the events that trade power or morale.
Last edited:
He may be right on some points but it's still becoming old that those "people coming from CK2" only post here to say how better CK2 is and how EU4 really has a long road ahead before even being as good. Criticism is fine, for sure, but no one cares about which of CK2 or EU4 is better.
Well in relation to the stability in that situation it means that the government is expending a lot of time and energy to keep the peace and stop the populace from spiralling into anarchy. So despite the other effects causing big problems the central government is attempting to regain control of the populace, but facing huge hurdles due to other issues.
My problems is with the AI getting a buff to revolt risk, I think that should be removed and I feel that peasant revolts should be able to easily cross borders as they seek to liberate the common man, as opposed to the localised nationalist revolts.
Also the reformation needs a buff to get more provinces to flip.
My problems is with the AI getting a buff to revolt risk, I think that should be removed and I feel that peasant revolts should be able to easily cross borders as they seek to liberate the common man, as opposed to the localised nationalist revolts.
Also the reformation needs a buff to get more provinces to flip.
This all the time. What puzzles me is that CK2 covers a period of time even greater than EUIV. Yet it does provide a much more realistic and concrete experience. (I do not say better)
Now, you can say that during the EUIV timeperiod many new things happened like discovery of America, Protestant Reformation, Enlightenment and so on. That's true.
Yet, two things are also true about 1444-1821. First of all that everything outside Europe stayed very much the same for the entire period. China, India, Muslim states, they all had practically the same political and social structure in 1821 as they had in 1444. That structure was different from the European one and from location to location, and indeed can't be portrayed accurately by the main game, but that should be matter for expansions (this is the first weakness of the game, the amplitude of geographical scope).
Secondly, looking at Europe one can easily identify common structures which, though varied, still stayed true from 1444 to 1821. I am talking about the class division of aristocracy, clergy, burghers and peasants, for example. The novelties of the early modern period are indeed important but are often 'superficial' influences which only indirectly and slowly eroded the fundamental social structure.
Once the fundamentals are laid, it is easier to implement the actual revolutions or reformations of the game upon those elements.
The problem of the game is that there are no such fundamental structures. Therefore, the game feels odd, abstracted, lifeless with events like the reformation or the enlightment or simply the very DHEs being forcibly imposed upon a game without relations to what's going on.
Last edited: