Help me understand stability?

[Tullius]

Hi,

I decided to try and keep the Greek Empire going well past its historical prime. I managed to conquer the entire area of the Byzantine Empire (see map). However, in spite of all my efforts, my empire invariably descended into civil war. I even managed to defeat the Turks first (I kept a large army outside the area where they spawn).



My question is: is it impossible to maintain the Greek Empire past ca. AD 1500?

I've played this game three times; each time, I collapse around that time. The main cause is almost always the expansion category. It shoves me down into collapsing and then my whole empire is gone in a puff of civil war.

Thanks so much for any help.

 

[Maaximillus]

Greece has bad stability in RFC and getting more than 4 cities usually "dooms" you to fall into civil war because of stability. And you control alot cities that are out of your greek region. I even wonder how it was possible to create so big empire with greece. Now we need AP to get domination victory with greece

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Yes, Greece is unstable, but I was able to do a conquest in the last patch with it. It looks like you don't have enough religions spread around (even though you're in free religion) and happiness is crucial for good city stability.

Building all the available wonders, courthouses, jails and security bureaus will help. Use some of your great people for golden ages rather than bulbing techs.

 

[Tullius]

Thanks both of you.

In one of my games, I used a lot of your advice, Pacifist, and I made it to around AD 1550. But in the end, I still collapsed. In this game, I've built just four cities, haven't invaded anybody, and am playing it as safely as possible (also, building just inside what I hope is my cultural area). So far I am in AD 770 and am 'stable'.

I guess we'll see how this game winds up.

It's too bad Greece has so bad stability. It's kind of depressing that after three tries, I still wasn't able to last until past AD 1500. (It feels kind of deterministic!)

If you are all interested I can post some screen shots from my other games.

 

[kravixon]

With the last patch (which if anything featured stricter stability), I lasted until ~1912 and had conquered all of Germany in addition to Epidamnos and Byzantium.

Choose your cities carefully.

Also, the point of farming great people and using some for Golden Ages (especially after switching civics) is a new point that I just learned. It really, really helps you out.

 

[Tullius]

kravixon, how'd you manage that? I think if you keep expanding it helps your expansion stability. But it's like a Ponzi scheme. The moment you stop expanding you collapse, since conquering cities and wiping out foreign units adds to your expansion stability, but the more cities you add, the lower your base stability score will go.

I kept my empire small and lasted until around AD 1720 this time around. Then when America switched around, I saved my game and switched. When I'm done playing America, I'll go back to Greece and pick it up again. The AI immediately began collapsing the moment that I switched to the USA, which I found to be amusing (but sad), so I'm watching what happens to my lovely empire after my guiding hand leaves it.

 

[blizzrd]

kravixon, how'd you manage that? I think if you keep expanding it helps your expansion stability.

That's not how I understand the expansion category works. If you expand to historical locations it helps your expansion stability. If you expand to non-historical locations it crushes your expansion stability. Occupying the sites of foreign capitals is particularly bad for your expansion stability.

 

[Tullius]

blizzrd, ahhh, that's really interesting.

So I got to around AD 1730 and suddenly my economic stability was down at 1 star. All my other categories were tops and I was stable, on the whole. Any idea why this happened? Is it because my economy was basically stagnating for a few hundred years? You have to keep growing your GNP, right? But sometimes that's almost impossible without getting additional cities, which kills your expansion stability.

 

[Walliard]

Adopt the Commonwealth civic if you don't plan on growing. It prevents your economy stability from getting worse, though it won't remove penalties already in place.

 

[Tullius]

For any interested, here's my current game:



Athens - Great person farm, tons of wonders, plus the Tower. Now that I've lost my 'power of philosophy' it mostly sits there and cranks out bazillions of military units using all of the specialists I've settled there for production, plus the natural hills and mines in the surrounding area.

Sparta - Build to take advantage of the two seafood resources nearby and generate a lot of maritime commerce. I selected Sparta instead of Cyrene (N. Africa coast, which has dye) out of fear of stability.

Epidamnos - Mixed city; some commerce, some production.

Byzantium - Yet another commerce city. I added cottages whereever possible to try and keep my economic rating from tanking down to one star, but it was all to no avail.

Knossos - Naval commerce, plus production with Moai Statues.

About Italy: I culture-flipped Pompeii and disbanded it, and then did the same for Rome, again due to stability issues. So, Italy is empty.

 

[Tullius]

Re: Commonwealth civic. I have three vassal states (Mali, Incas, Maya) and am running Viceroyalty. Would Commonwealth be better?

 

[blizzrd]

I would think not.

 

[thadian]

Greece, my biggest challenge. i can usually keep it alive to about 1500 AD, but usually around 1530-60 i fall. my cities are usually: Athens, Knossos, Epadammos, and instead of Byzantium, settle one space SW. Sparta is also nice but you have to choose between Sparta and Knossos to be honest. never capture cities either, if a city flips to you, just raze it. otherwise you go unstable until you release it, which makes you even more unstable. you need representation and beaurocracy BUT you need your cities to be size 5-6 or else... Sail that first boat to Japan, and keep it there to make friends with Khmer. This gives you some trading options. India and Khmer hate China. China and Khmer hate India. Japan seems friendly to all 3, and once you hit astrology, you can trade with China and Japan quite efficiently.

Lastly, if you MUST have byzantium, settle it as your capital so it won't ever flip. this may set you back a turn, but its worth it. Good luck! Greece can make an interesting game. I have settled in Korea, Eire, Spice Islands, Aussie, New Zealand (all these cities are bad stability but is well worth it) and America. I am often the first to befriend the Aztecs and Incans, and i give them all my techs. Greece really is fun.

 

[Tullius]

Thadian, nice to see I'm not the only one fascinating with this position.

How come you went to settle all of those far-off cities? Wouldn't that doom you? Or would you just use the 'Resettlement' civic to turn that apparently disadvantage into a bonus?

 

[thadian]

i use resettlement when i get it, yes. Normally i take my boat-settler/archer over to it. When i settled Korea i was able to use it as a production city for some military which kept china/japan from taking it from me. The city gave me so much resources that it wasn't a real factor in my subsequent loss, i wasn't even unstable until about 1200 AD because of my city sizes/civic combo's.

otherwise, i settle Ireland and when i get astronomy i settle somewhere like South Africa, Spice Islands, or somewhere that won't flip but has good resources. One such city is good enough. More will be tempting, but i wouldn't. I have learned by settling SW byzantium, i build a "wall" of sorts that protects me with 2 good places to keep troops. I usually try to avoid wars because believe it or not, stability also requires your neighbors to be doing "well" (unless it was changed). so when your neighbors collapse, it gives you a penalty. you can learn more here but im not sure how up to date it is.

http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/stability

 

[Tullius]

Which civic combos are the best? I usually run slavery well into the 1700s.

Hereditary Rule - Vassalage - Slavery - Mercantilism - Viceroyalty

Any thoughts? The Wiki isn't all that clear on which combinations are best and when.

 

[thadian]

see, thats what i call the "greece-killer" because their is no winning option. if your runing Hereditary Rule, you get a penalty for primitive civic's after a certain time, Vassalage doesn't get along with Representation (which you can't use anyway because then you have to have tiny cities), Slavery usually gets ousted for caste system to avoid the penalties for having it too long. Mercantilism is pretty good until you need trade routes - its better when you have commonwealth but then you get a penalty for primitive civic's. i am still trying to get it right, and if someone knows the answer, now is a good time to speak up

 

[Tullius]

I have three vassals, so that helps with foreign trade routes. They're turning out a ton of cash!

 

[Walliard]

Slavery gives a stability boost until you hit Constitution, and has no penalty until you learn Democracy, so it's probably a good choice. Vassalage, on the other hand, causes stability problems in the Renaissance and later eras, so you'll want to switch to Bureaucracy unless you have a lot of cities.

 

[thadian]

another greek problem is the GNP - you actually have to keep it growing, which is hard to do when your compacted. other things i have yet to do so well are:

Combat results. every battle you lose, gives a penalty, every battle you win, gives you a bonus.

Open Borders/Defensive Pacts. The more the merrier! seriously, this is a decent way to get some cheap stability points, but watch out! if you trade with someone who has the plague or really bad stability, it can affect you in a bad way.

Neighbors. If at least one is unstable/collapsing while you are doing good, you get a penalty. wiki says that it doesn't care how many neighbors, so if their all doing bad, its no worse than one doing bad. Babylon, Rome and Egypt tend to be the "weakest link".

Vassals. Their stability will affect your stability. if your doing well and they are unstable/collapsing, you will take a penalty.

Civ Contacts. When you have gained a high number of contacts, with other civs you start to incur a penalty. This penalty increases as the number of contacts increase. Therefore its actually better to only know your neighbors unless you have a good trade plan.

GNP: You need to keep it growing or you start getting penalties over time that gets worse over time. if you build a city to keep your GNP up, you get a bonus for GNP, but you get a penalty for a city outside your "Zone". since Rome always becomes empty when playing greek survival, you might settle one city in a position to have a cultural connection for your roads. then build forts over their resources and "steal them". this helps some.

GNP, Civics and Neighbors are the greek killa's. you will always have at least one neighbor doing bad. lets say your at war and win most of the battles. war weariness gives you both a penalty, and since they get a penalty for losing so many battles, they go unstable, which brings you down. Pacifism is the way. Civics, you have to have in pairs. after re-reading the guide, it seems you need heriditary rule/vassalage together until you can go representation/beauracracy. Liberalism is a key thing here.

Cities: Representation doesn't like big city empires and neither does beauracracy. this helps a little because you should have 5 cities, 6 at most. but watch those city sizes! if they get too big, these civic's will burn you. you will see a poll with another thread that further elaborates this.