Thanks to Common Sense, the confusing and unrepresentative abstraction of base tax was replaced with development score. Now, there still remains the strange value of stability.
While the mechanic as it stands, seems sound at first, consider the following cases:
1. A state having a stability of +3 with massive amounts of inflation, loans, unrest with rebels popping up like gophers, and high autonomy across most of the provinces. Would such a state still be considered stable?
2. A state having a stability of -3 with controlled inflation(less than 4%), no loans, avg less than 0 unrest across provinces with no rebels and occupations, and low autonomy (avg less than 25%) across all provinces. Would such a state be considered unstable?
According to current mechanics, +3 stability suggests a state is experience a high amount of "internal peace" and -3 would be the opposite. Now out of those two cases above, it's rather hard to say that the first one is experiencing a great deal of "internal peace" and that the second is full of turmoil.
Now the way the stability mechanic works so far is to essentially enforce those expectations by giving large bonuses for positive stability and large maluses for negative stability. Now logically, this is completely unsound and puts the cart before the horse.
Being "stable" should not cause more "internal peace" but rather "internal peace" should be reflected in stability.
Like development which reflects the value of a province, stability should be a score for the overall internal peace of a state. What remains in question is then by what metrics should be reflected in that score.
In the above cases, there are a few important conditions to consider such as inflation, real avg unrest of provinces, number of rebellions and rebels, and avg overall autonomy, plus perhaps something for ruler/adviser skills.
Now what about balance? Since players tend to be immortal god-emperors with hundreds of years of hindsight and a full wiki at their disposal the current system should work against them right? From the many LPs and AARs I've read the value of stability is often considered negligible, a mild annoyance at worst and a "meh" plus at best. Sometimes, it is completely ignored due to stability being an abstraction with a few modifiers attached, it holds no real game-changing decision-making influence despite the few decisions and missions that arbitrarily require the value, unlike provincial development and ruler skills which are much more real. Also, if anything, the current system is very much in favor of the player since with a few years ADM points and a click of a button, they can get access to the bonus modifiers to enforce that sense of "internal peace", even when in reality the entire state is in turmoil. The option to boost stability then gives the player much too much power and the many current ways to balance against that, increasing the arbitrary cost of increasing stability and making ADM points much more scarce by raising other ADM point related costs, especially coring, are not the answer.
There is far greater realism and difficulty for the players where they must contend with a variety of factors, reflected in an overall score, as opposed to being able to suddenly end troubles with a click of a button.
While the mechanic as it stands, seems sound at first, consider the following cases:
1. A state having a stability of +3 with massive amounts of inflation, loans, unrest with rebels popping up like gophers, and high autonomy across most of the provinces. Would such a state still be considered stable?
2. A state having a stability of -3 with controlled inflation(less than 4%), no loans, avg less than 0 unrest across provinces with no rebels and occupations, and low autonomy (avg less than 25%) across all provinces. Would such a state be considered unstable?
According to current mechanics, +3 stability suggests a state is experience a high amount of "internal peace" and -3 would be the opposite. Now out of those two cases above, it's rather hard to say that the first one is experiencing a great deal of "internal peace" and that the second is full of turmoil.
Now the way the stability mechanic works so far is to essentially enforce those expectations by giving large bonuses for positive stability and large maluses for negative stability. Now logically, this is completely unsound and puts the cart before the horse.
Being "stable" should not cause more "internal peace" but rather "internal peace" should be reflected in stability.
Like development which reflects the value of a province, stability should be a score for the overall internal peace of a state. What remains in question is then by what metrics should be reflected in that score.
In the above cases, there are a few important conditions to consider such as inflation, real avg unrest of provinces, number of rebellions and rebels, and avg overall autonomy, plus perhaps something for ruler/adviser skills.
Now what about balance? Since players tend to be immortal god-emperors with hundreds of years of hindsight and a full wiki at their disposal the current system should work against them right? From the many LPs and AARs I've read the value of stability is often considered negligible, a mild annoyance at worst and a "meh" plus at best. Sometimes, it is completely ignored due to stability being an abstraction with a few modifiers attached, it holds no real game-changing decision-making influence despite the few decisions and missions that arbitrarily require the value, unlike provincial development and ruler skills which are much more real. Also, if anything, the current system is very much in favor of the player since with a few years ADM points and a click of a button, they can get access to the bonus modifiers to enforce that sense of "internal peace", even when in reality the entire state is in turmoil. The option to boost stability then gives the player much too much power and the many current ways to balance against that, increasing the arbitrary cost of increasing stability and making ADM points much more scarce by raising other ADM point related costs, especially coring, are not the answer.
There is far greater realism and difficulty for the players where they must contend with a variety of factors, reflected in an overall score, as opposed to being able to suddenly end troubles with a click of a button.
- 4
Upvote
0
