Underpaying advisers

[blasteg]

So I'm in a middle of Switzerlake run, getting tired of my BROT adviser being a +3.

So after looking at the maintenance cost, an idea came to mind.

You still pay the same (or different?) upfront cost for an adviser.

But for a +2 adviser, you can pay half his wage, this will result in he only giving +1 a month.

For a +3 adviser, you can pay half, resulting in a +2, or pay a fourth, results in a +1.

Note that the numbers are up for debate. But it should be more expensive than a regular +1 or +2, or those become meaningless.

And no, you can overpay an adviser to make him do better, human doesn't work that way.

The main idea is that makes you less screwed by RNG adviser wise.

 

[Durnilhas]

There is a loooot of thing based on luck in eu4. Advisor is another one ^^

 

[Mattius]

Same with early game Commandants. Every time, I swear...

 

[blasteg]

There is a loooot of thing based on luck in eu4. Advisor is another one ^^

Well, the point is to give player some agency even if RNG is not in their favor, like the retire adviser function.

 

[lolada]

Agree, nice idea. You would still need to pay full hiring cost, which is quite a sum for +3 advisors. They could also include low yearly chance that advisor will leave the post and country for beiny underpaid.