Occupation Civic and Expansion issues.

[Gyprsn]

In the civics screen, the Occupation civic says I get +2 stability points from the cities I've conquered. Well since adopting Occupation (as the Turks), I've conquered 8 cities, which would amount to 16 stability points (the equivalent of having 4 vassals if I had adopted viceroyalty (I think that's what it is?)), which is quite a lot. And while conquering new cities I've been "expanding" or, as the civilopedia puts it, growing beyond my "area."

I've certainly expanded far, and I should have a lot of stability from the Occupation civic, but why is my Expansion rating 2 stars? Which in combination with my Civic rating (also 2 stars) is threatening to collapse my empire. All my other areas have been doing well, with Foreign moving between 3 and 4 stars every few turns, and the others are 3's. I can't change my civics to increase my civic rating because the negative stability would collapse me. So there is nothing I really can do because my expansion civic and my expanding are bringing my empire down, when they should be helping my stability.

If I wasn't collapsing at the moment, I would continue to conquer at least 2 more cities, which is +4 more stability points, and there is a likelihood I would get even more than that from occupation (assuming my enemy continues refusing capitulation, so my conquering continues). So is Occupation not worth it? The Stability doesn't seem to be helping me at all.

 

[meril]

Taking cities is a plus, but your expansion rating also takes into account the number of cities you hold (more cities means less stable) as well as any combat losses you might have suffered in the process of taking them.

 

[Gyprsn]

Do you happen to know at what rate stability declines when taking cities?

 

[Jet]

I assume meril was referring to this, copied from Harrier's guide to Stability (which has more detail):

Examples of the stability effect that the number of cities have are:

* 7 cities = no impact.
* 10 cities = - small impact.
* 15 cities = - the total effect is equivalent to half a stability level drop.
* 20 cities = - - the total effect is equivalent to one stability level drop.
* 25 cities = - - the total effect is equivalent to two stability level drops.
* 30 cities = - - the total effect is equivalent to three stability level drops.
* 35 cities = - - the total effect is equivalent to four stability level drops.
* 40 cities = - - the total effect is equivalent to six stability level drops.

The above example just shows the total effect of a lot of cities. It is calculated on the actual number of cities you have.

If I'm not mistaken those numbers after 20 cities are -2 points per city, canceling out the baseline +2 for acquiring the city.

The "historical area of expansion" stuff is also significant.

 

[Gyprsn]

In the game, I have 23 cities at this point. Would that be enough to collapse?

If I assume correctly, "1 stability level drop" is the equivalent of losing a star. So if I liberate 3-5 cities that would stabilize the expansion category. Or am I just at a point of no return? What I'm thinking is that even if I liberate cities, it will logically not have an instant impact, and when it does start affecting my stability, I will have already lost :/

EDIT: I continued to read the wiki, and it says liberation also causes negative stability, so stopping collapse is essentially hopeless?

 

[say1988]

Actually, I believe that the "one stability level" is one actual level (i.e. stable to shaky).

[/QUOTE]I continued to read the wiki, and it says liberation also causes negative stability, so stopping collapse is essentially hopeless?[/QUOTE]
That depends, although you would lose stability for losing cities, the gain from shrinking your empire size and removing non-historic areas should at least be equal, if not greater.

 

[Gyprsn]

Actually, I believe that the "one stability level" is one actual level (i.e. stable to shaky).

...That's even worse.

 

[Ryry]

I never really have a problem with stability, even if you drop to shaky a little, it usually comes back. Just build courthouses in every city, and get a summer palace and don't go crazy out of your historical area. And remember, RFC is more about winning the UHV or such than building up a world empire. If you start founding Turkish cities in Alaska, you'll have issues!

Ryry

 

[Gyprsn]

I've had Courthouses, Banks, the Summer Palace, and the Forbidden Palace since early game My economy (in this particular game) can handle the stresses of expansion without a problem. My technology (bigger empire = slower tech rate) and stability, however, are suffering.

 

[Ryry]

Well you cannot expect perfect stability in a big empire outside of historical areas with rapid expansion.

I sometimes come close to collapse, but it rarely if never actually happens.

Sounds like you are a pretty good player though to have all those buildings so fast and a good econ, so I think you will be fine.

Ryry

 

[Gyprsn]

Hopefully I will do fine, when I continue it, I think I'll liberate most of my conquered Mongol cities, but keep one so I can keep pushing into Mongolia to meet the 3 vassals requirement (everyone else collapsed before I could vassalize them :/). That's the only reason I'm desperate not to lose those cities whether through liberation or civil war, because I'm approaching 1780 (I think?), which is when I'm supposed to have three, and I only have 2/3.