Stability does not equal perfect harmony. If you have maxed out stability, you will still get revolts from overextension, legitimacy, and religious turmoil, but comparatively less so. To put it into historical context, if a state is running an effective administration on all levels, a heretic won't be as anxious to catalyze a revolt.
How does a comet affect administration? How can a single minstrel?
I don't think they can, but they sure do affect the stability modifier, which indicates that it has literally nothing to do with administration.
But he didnt say it completely eliminates all trace of discontent. He said it shows how stable your country is, by way of the amount of resources you are putting into it. I see no contradiction.
I think its perfectly simple what it represents, if it is implemented well in terms of events, balance, points is up for discussion, but lets not make a song and dance about what it supposed to do or represent.
Well you sure seem to be sketchy on the details of what it actually is, I'd even welcome it in song and dance format. The closest thing I can divine from your nebulous wording is that the stability modifier represents.... stability. While such tautological arguments are worthless, they do perhaps demonstrate your inability to grasp my criticism. In other words, you can't put my criticism in your own words, because you don't understand it.
Very well, you claim it is "perfectly simple what it represents", so please - with or without singing and dancing - do tell.
1. All the types of countries are present. Lithuania is relatively poor, ottomans wealthy. Both large. Venice - small, but wealthy.
2. the amount of monarch effort to increase stability is the same for all countries. Makes sense. You issue a new codex, you institute a new reform. You crush noble privileges, etc.
However, please note that if your country is large, i.e. likelier to be less homogenic, it becomes more difficult to do so. If you have a large homogeneous country, there should be no difficulty to institute a certain reform countrywide.
3. Countries more stable than average likelier to lose stability. A design decision. Having a stable realm remain stable forever makes no sense too. I mean with changing times the countries must also change and adapt. A certain instability - disruption forcing to adapt - is therefore necessary and it is forced in by the game using events. It makes sense from gameplay perspective, but could be realised otherwise. For example, you could hav stagnation creeping in after a certain period of too stable a country (losing cash, increase revolt desire, etc). You could have the same amount of negative events for all countries, however, those with "stagnation" would be hit twice as hard ("Our society has long not seen this level of change. -3 stability")
4. Monarch points= effort x ability of a monarch (and state aparatus) to translate its will through the world
1. Small or large is irrelevant, the only thing that affects possible MPs is money, by enabling the country to get an adviser bringing up to 3 extra MPs. The size of the country is also irrelevant when it comes to the cost of "stability", it's always the same price, no matter the size of the country.
2. That sentence made no sense, that you made there: that "the amount of monarch effort to increase stability is the same for all countries" is something that makes sense. Despite you claiming the contrary. Why would it be just as easy to "boost" "stability" in a large country as a small one? At least in EUIV all large countries are extremely diverse, can span continents, not to mention languages, cultures and religions. Note that none of the aforementioned attributes affects the stability cost one iota. What large countries are you thinking of that are homogenous? Just out of curiosity, because I can't think of a single one. That's academic either way, since the "stability" system in EUIV makes no distinction between a homogenous country and a very diverse country.
3. Yes, a design decision, I know - but what it represents, nobody knows. Nothing, I suspect, it's just there because it fits the game in a general sense. It could be called "bonus points" and it wouldn't gain or lose anything. It would just be an arbitrary game mechanic, that makes no sense, it's just there. Like it or not. I don't.
I'd prefer to play a strategic game that doesn't arbitrarily make me waste resources to maintain a bonus score. That's stupid.
4. Indeed, but why is it bound to the person of the particular monarch? The monarch himself (or herself) doesn't go around personally doing everything in person. There is an entire state involving the monarch, a bureaucracy, tradition, infrastructure, that controls everything in how a monarch can translate his or her will through the world and that does not change monarch to monarch.
And how exactly does it affect the monarchs ability to induce a culture shift in a province that people have discovered a new type of ship or a more effective way of trading? Not a lick of sense. But hey, the MP system is a whole other can of worms. But a slightly more defensible one than the "stability" nonsense.
**
Note to whomever was whining about it, I forget who: the MPs were not a part of the board game. No more than the trade system and pretty much everything. Almost nothing excepting for the name of this computer game and perhaps some very general features are common with the very simple board game and this hugely complex computer game. To defend the existence of "stability points" in the computer game Europe Universalis IV (four!) because something similar-ish existed in a long forgotten board game is too much.
