Shouldn't attacking a country w/ Military Access hurt Diplomatic Rep, not cost 5 stability?

[Sinkillr]

If you attack a country whom granted you military access, then it makes sense for there to be such a huge diplomatic rep penalty as no country would ever trust you again. It doesn't make sense for there to be a ridiculous -5 stability drop, as I imagine most citizens and nobles of a country aren't too well aware of their country's military access treaties.

 

[MWSampson]

Well, sure. You're right from a historic perspective. But from a gameplay perspective it's more of a "don't do it" - without placing an actual barrier to it.

 

[Sinkillr]

I understand your point. But wouldn't a huge and lengthy drop in Dip Rep accomplish essentially the same "don't do it" objective, just in a different way?

 

[MWSampson]

Not really? Dip Rep punishment would mean it'd be harder to make new allies and get military access and royal marriages and vassals. Given you can't get allies while in offensive war it makes little difference. How long would you keep your penalty? 300 to 550 admin points of loss in stability is a substantial sum, that makes coring more difficult and takes 5 years + of time at the upper extreme. Dip Rep is worth less, so to delay expansion by 5 years you'd have to have the penalty for some time...
But say it costs AE instead. Well that won't make a difference most of the game and only makes a difference when you're tiny.

I mean there's an argument for pumping up War Exhaustion instead (your army generals and soldiers will know that you're not scrupulous more than your burghers) because that costs dip rep to decrease instead. But dip rep isn't valuable enough to penalise all countries - but stability loss effects them all.