Other stabilization

[moscal]

Long long time ago, after "Res Publica" DLC, a devs to say something considered stabilization system.
Much water has passed under the brigde - stabilization system is what this was.

So this is time... time to remind devs about stability.

Current stabilization system is bad. Click in magic button and immediately anarchy becomes peace, reign chieftains becomes state supremation and bloody mob becomes hippies. This is very bad, especially since many mechanic is based on stability system (eg. disasters).

Something must be done!

I have a two ideas for change.

1. Stabilization cooldown
IMO this should be simple. You can use "stability magic" once in a while (eg. 1 once in 2 years). This should make a series of unfortunate accidents more dangerous for the state. Disposable, large reductions stability, will be more severe. But the most common effect "-1 stability" will often not felt.

2. Stabilization like an old Westernization
IMO it will be more difficult. We click in button "start of stabilization", by X months we invest ADM-points (based on eg. size country, peace/war, WE) in container "stabilization". If the container "stabilization" is full - we get +1 stability. Size container is based on eg. current cost stability. This will be (probably) more hard road, but solves problems method 1.

So Paradox - I have hope, that this post will be inspiration for you-all to changes in stabilization.

 

[Dooma]

Adm power is not "stability magic" its a concentrated effort made by the government to address concerns nationwide and assure the population that everything will be alright. Whereas the suppress rebels button is "military magic" in the form of police and the government cracking down on unrest in the country, the "stability magic" is the government's propaganda, sending of government emissaries to local leaders, and general assurance through speeches and proclamations that the country will be alright. Just because it happens immediately does not mean it is not symbolic of something more complex.

By the same argument you could say that the "Reduce Inflation" button is inflation magic, or even that the technologies and ideas buttons are magic. Example:
"Current technology system is bad. Click a magic button and immediately idiocy becomes brilliance, incompetent builders becomes masterworkers of temples and courthouses, and unproductive peasents become efficient workers. This is very bad, especially since many mechanic is based on technology system (eg. corruption, buildings, production, etc.)."

 

[Dooma]

Also, I think its easy to say that negative stability is an easily solved problem as a rational, multi hundred to thousand, hour player of the game in a single player campaign. When you play multi-player and are getting stab-hit in a war, or if you are a computer who does not prioritize properly and runs out of adm points before getting a negative pop-up, stability becomes a much more difficult thing to manage.

 

[moscal]

You focus on the name "stability magic", completely ignoring other issues...

Look at the EU1, 2 and 3. Next look at EU4. EU4 have MANY very good mechanics, but have one big problem - part mechanics is dead because stability is too easily controlled. Others things, like a inflation or WE, don't have effect on other mechanics or events like a stability. Impact of non-stability parametrs is relatively low. Old idea, according to which the monarch points were issued to all, fell after removal of price construction in monarch-points. Goal of monarch-points was a reduction snow-ball-effect. But look at now - player have very easy way to control these points. How many times choice "technology or idea or something else" was a "tragic conflict"? Too little... In addition, the choice between A and B is not the choice of the unknown, a choice between death and life etc. Often, every choice is good. Effect? Snow-ballism live very well.

Now the hope is cooldown or change the "instant spells" to processes. But the belief that "everything is OK" is bad. Why? Because, summa summarum, everything is for the player supremacy and continual blobbingu. EU4 suffers from the "inflation of powers" - still and still players get new still and still players get new ways to supremacy. I have great experience EU1, 2 and 3. I played in the EU1 and 2 from the moment of release and have spent on these games a lot of time. Necessity of waiting for the growth of stability to the 0 position was a factor that could ruin empires player and AI. In EU1, 2 or 3 I have more experience, that I create a new history ("what if?"), rather than that it is a "modernized paint."

 

[arcyzuzel]

+1

 

[Dooma]

To make sure I am understanding your suggestion for the "westernization" style of stability you want it to be like so:

To raise stability from 0 to 1 you must pay a adm point cost. The cost is determined by provinces and overall development, cost = (# of prov * 3) + (total dev *.2) so to stabilize a 5 province nation, with each province having 10 development the cost would be:

(5*3) + (50*0.2) = 15+10 = 25

While a 100 province nation with 500 development would cost:

(100*3) + (500*0.2) = 300 = 100 = 400

Obviously the numbers are rough, but this would penalize blobbing nations, and represent how much more difficult it would be to stabilize a massive nation over a tiny one.

Then, instead of having a single, one-time cost, players would have a slider that allows them to invest points per month. You can pay 0-10 points per month to grow your nations stability if you like.

Therefore the small nation could invest 5 adm points per month and get to 1 stability in 5 months, but it would take the large nation 80 months to increase stability at 5 points per month.

The same multipliers that apply to the current stability could affect the cost of going from 1 --> 2, which currently is a 150% increase over the base cost. Therefore the small nation would have to pay 38 to get to stability 2, and the large nation would have to pay 600. (Again, rough numbers, all theoretical)

Is this accurate to your idea of how you would want stability to be implemented? Small/Tall nations could more easily sit at 3 stability, whereas large nations would have to invest massively or stack stability cost modifiers to stay above 0. It would not be an instant effect but would be a monthly investment, which is more historically accurate.

You could even change the formula to cost less for provinces with accepted culture, and cost more for provinces with non-accepted culture and religion. Feel free to critique this formula or suggestion with your own thoughts.

 

[moscal]

@Dooma - It would be very good, but I'm afraid that the mechanics monarch-points are too rigid. Any devs would have to say whatever about this. That's why I want to try to persuade Paradox try to forces, first on one element - stabilization. If it succeeds, then Paradox maybe change the whole system monarch-point chances, similar to yours.

 

[GR0s]

+1

 

[SpARtaNer 43]

omg this suggestion is gold @Dooma you are genius and i <3 you for this
it should be implimented right away

 

[Mortheim]

Idea is great, but it would force developers to look into a lot of stuff.

But idea is great.

 

[moscal]

Other concept

Stability should approaches to 0 (like a prestige now) - this would be "normalization". It is natural that the good social order or chaos cannot be permanent status (without frequent interventions). Exceptions should be wars, big revolts and disasters - in this time negative stability cannot spontaneously increase. Player should can give X ADM-points to immediate +1 stab (with cooldown).

 

[moscal]

Next concept.

Regionalization of stability. Every states get new parameter "stability" and give only local modifiers. In place static "local unrest" give "monthly change of local unrest. Stabilization can be ever "magical" (unlimited, immediate and mainly by paper-mana). Global parameters (and decisions, events etc.) current based on "stability" (ike a fervor), in this system, would be based on "average stability of the country". One of the results would be bigger problems for big countries (small Saxony need only 30 ADM-points to stabilization, but great PLC need 400 ADM-points) and higher immersion to management.