It's clear that stability is one of the most important aspects of EU. When it hits -3, the Nation is essentially on the brink of disaster and when it reaches +3, life is peachy. I think this represents a major step forward in the realism of strategy games, after all… which Civilization player hasn't sent armies on a suicide mission in order to 'calm' civil disturbances in the home city?
Recently, I've been thinking about the relative stability of societies in real life. For example, I recently read an article about the differences in business opportunities in two huge developing markets: China and India. The theme of the article was: China appears orderly, but is chaotic underneath, but India appears chaotic yet is orderly underneath. The logic for this position was based upon the author's belief that India has an established legal tradition, one generally spoken business language (English), a generally functioning electoral system, and a higher degree of cultural tolerance. Clearly, India isn't any type of utopia, but these advantages would result in a better living environment in the long-run.
However, which of these countries would be modeled as having a higher stability rating if they were to be added to EU? I would suppose that it would be India, due to the Chinese Tianammen Square massacres. You'd guess that China has a lower stability, but keeps the cities well garrisoned, so that a riot is put down immediately.
Now another comparison would be 17th century France versus England. Some historians argue that the English parliament gained political power during this period, as religious minorities believed vesting this institution with greater authority would allow them to maintain their right to worship as they chose. Conversely, it's believed that France responded to changes in its society by centralizing power in the monarchy. Louis XIV created a powerful monarchy that gave him absolute power. He used the slogans 'One king, one law, one faith' and 'I am the state' to demonstrate his attitudes toward what a leader should be in the setting of seventeenth century France. I'd argue that these two different approaches towards governance left an indelible imprint on the fabric of these respective societies. Ultimately, the heavy-handedness of the French Kings eroded the 'stability' that by the end of the 18th century, the peasants rebelled and then marched all the aristocrats off to the guillotine. While England did have to shake-off the loss of its American colonies, its society was much more stable and well on its way to the golden Victorian era.
Now, we all know that in EU different leaders, random events and player actions all have a major impact on stability. I'd like to see it become a little more 'persistent' so that actions taken by one ruler will have an impact on society as a whole and can have a potential impact a century later. From the AAR's I've read, it seems like the game allows many players to wait until stability hits +2 or +3, and then they're off to war again. However, the player should be rewarded for avoiding war, and perhaps the benefits of a period of peace and high stability should compound over time. Yet in conclusion this type of issue is outside the scope of the current game, but I think it's something to think about for EU ][.
Recently, I've been thinking about the relative stability of societies in real life. For example, I recently read an article about the differences in business opportunities in two huge developing markets: China and India. The theme of the article was: China appears orderly, but is chaotic underneath, but India appears chaotic yet is orderly underneath. The logic for this position was based upon the author's belief that India has an established legal tradition, one generally spoken business language (English), a generally functioning electoral system, and a higher degree of cultural tolerance. Clearly, India isn't any type of utopia, but these advantages would result in a better living environment in the long-run.
However, which of these countries would be modeled as having a higher stability rating if they were to be added to EU? I would suppose that it would be India, due to the Chinese Tianammen Square massacres. You'd guess that China has a lower stability, but keeps the cities well garrisoned, so that a riot is put down immediately.
Now another comparison would be 17th century France versus England. Some historians argue that the English parliament gained political power during this period, as religious minorities believed vesting this institution with greater authority would allow them to maintain their right to worship as they chose. Conversely, it's believed that France responded to changes in its society by centralizing power in the monarchy. Louis XIV created a powerful monarchy that gave him absolute power. He used the slogans 'One king, one law, one faith' and 'I am the state' to demonstrate his attitudes toward what a leader should be in the setting of seventeenth century France. I'd argue that these two different approaches towards governance left an indelible imprint on the fabric of these respective societies. Ultimately, the heavy-handedness of the French Kings eroded the 'stability' that by the end of the 18th century, the peasants rebelled and then marched all the aristocrats off to the guillotine. While England did have to shake-off the loss of its American colonies, its society was much more stable and well on its way to the golden Victorian era.
Now, we all know that in EU different leaders, random events and player actions all have a major impact on stability. I'd like to see it become a little more 'persistent' so that actions taken by one ruler will have an impact on society as a whole and can have a potential impact a century later. From the AAR's I've read, it seems like the game allows many players to wait until stability hits +2 or +3, and then they're off to war again. However, the player should be rewarded for avoiding war, and perhaps the benefits of a period of peace and high stability should compound over time. Yet in conclusion this type of issue is outside the scope of the current game, but I think it's something to think about for EU ][.
)...
