RFCEurope 1.4

[Force44]

When linking bonustability to a market under trade economy, why not give bonusstability for the trade economy based on trade?

Lets say +1 for every five traderoutes. That would act as a rubber band for rampaging stability because of overexpansion (lots of cities give lots of traderoutes, in this example every 5 cities without markets give 2 bonusstability and every 5 cities with markets give 3 bonusstability)

 

[Force44]

Another idea for bonustability under trade economy is to double the stability/instability for economic growth (that is still in there right?). Conquests will increase your economy rapidly so because of total stability you will be able to to hold on to your newly acquired territory a bit longer.

 

[Force44]

Finally you could intorduce the ability to raise taxes.

Every X squares (for convenience sake lets say every 80 squares) inside your cultural borders gives +1 to stability to your empire and also a minor income bonus (1 goldpiece or 1 additional traderoute) to your capitol.

(tiles that are being worked count double to account for both willfull citizens and a large population to tax)

This could be linked to trade economy, the Arabs (who were known to collect less taxes than the byzantines they conquered the taxeable lands and people from), or a bonus in general (for every civ) that helps large civs a little.

 

[gilgames]

Plague were a worldwide problem, i mean a human problem, not a govrrning one. But recent updates tie unheltiness to stability and so on plagues you experience a destabilization too. I dont think its right even if intentional.

Arabs stability is beeing coutened in a wrong way, that has to be fixed. But boosting trade eco is always welcome.

 

[AbsintheRed]

As you might guess, I tried the Arab start today and did the same thing in a couple turns too. But normally, you have to flip or conquer 5 Orthodox cities, some with other religions. Inevitably, one city would be lost to secession. It was, like, -16 stability from cities.

Well I continued my testgame, and stability was never a problem.
Got to +24 by ~960, only expanded in the already owned provinces and developed the cities.
So I was safe to continue the expansion.

I'm not sure why was stability that bad for you, the only difference is that I didn't have to deal with Edessa.
In the very beginning it should contribute -4-5 stability, but certainly not more.
What was you stability when secession hit you?

No, that would be very ahistorical. "Indigenous" Christians formed a majority in Egypt, much of the Levant, and Iraq for centuries after the Arab conquest, and remained significant minorities into the modern era. Christians were mostly tolerated by the Arabs.

Yep, I only meant a small chance. Maybe 20-25%, so christianity will stay in most conquered cities.
But I see your point, probably even that won't be a good idea.

The Muslim civs are lacking the super stable civic combo of Vassalage, Manorialism, Feudalism and so on. These are so significant that for example my stability level with Germany peaked at +70. Giving the Muslims a similar strong civic combo would help them with stability issues. I don't know if that would require an overhaul of civics, though.

As a temporary solution, I might increase the bonus from the Theocracy + Religious Law civic combo.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think a better option would be for foreign religions to cause less instability for the Arabs once a church / temple is built. That would encourage historical tolerance, with the Arabs allowing Christians free worship. Would need to balance it to see if the reduction should be 1 or 2 points, but I think that should address some of the issues.

I'm reluctant to give religion-tied stability boost for another UP.
Poland and now the Ottomans already have it, and it's very important for both.

Maybe this won't be a bad thing as a general idea, for everyone?
Building a temple for a non-state religion in your city will decrease instability from it to 1.
Not sure if it's a good idea, didn't really think through the gameplay consequences.
Neither the historic ones, maybe it's ahistoric for some other civs.

Another possibility would be for the bazaar to add +1 stability under Trade Economy. Again, that would reflect the stability the Arabs got from trade and would give them a stable civic combo to balance the lack of feudal monarchy and law in the early period.

Might be a better direction to tie it to trade.
Depends on what we do with the previous question, as it's not even sure anything is needed if we implement something like that.

Plague were a worldwide problem, i mean a human problem, not a govrrning one. But recent updates tie unheltiness to stability and so on plagues you experience a destabilization too. I dont think its right even if intentional.

Good point, no need to double (triple?) punish the players there.

 

[AbsintheRed]

When linking bonustability to a market under trade economy, why not give bonusstability for the trade economy based on trade?

Lets say +1 for every five traderoutes. That would act as a rubber band for rampaging stability because of overexpansion (lots of cities give lots of traderoutes, in this example every 5 cities without markets give 2 bonusstability and every 5 cities with markets give 3 bonusstability)

Another idea for bonustability under trade economy is to double the stability/instability for economic growth (that is still in there right?). Conquests will increase your economy rapidly so because of total stability you will be able to to hold on to your newly acquired territory a bit longer.

Not opposed to improving it at all. Let's continue that in the civics thread, as there are much interaction between them, obviously.

Finally you could intorduce the ability to raise taxes.

Every X squares (for convenience sake lets say every 80 squares) inside your cultural borders gives +1 to stability to your empire and also a minor income bonus (1 goldpiece or 1 additional traderoute) to your capitol.

(tiles that are being worked count double to account for both willfull citizens and a large population to tax)

This could be linked to trade economy, the Arabs (who were known to collect less taxes than the byzantines they conquered the taxeable lands and people from), or a bonus in general (for every civ) that helps large civs a little.

Sry, no plans for more complex tax mechanics ATM.
I'm not sure if it's needed at all.
Isn't it just a stability and commerce boost for bigger empires?
I would rather find an elegant way to boost Trade Economy itself, if anything.

 

[gilgames]

Arabs were cool for long, then I found an exploit to conquer whole europe
If i am not mistaken, then you made something, and since then are they unplayable.
I support to do something with their trade/bazar etc.
but originally they were good and stable. Even nowdays AI arabs collapse too often (ie. every game at least twice)
Even if human can it handle, that something should be redo and they will be fine, while sill preventing them to burn the world.

 

[gilgames]

I am happy to share you, Ottomans are playable again. The bad news, its goddamn boring. You rush with military actions till 2. uhv then 50+ years of build up the empire from scratches and then win without a real opponent. I had a lucky start though. Weak but coherent Byzy and hundred times reborned arabs, vassal of the weak morocco....you barely can wish better. first uhv were done by 1420, 2. by 1500. 1580 third. true from 1520 i had 24 turns of golden age
Big orange bubble of glory
So irst part hard second part easy.

also finished that french game with top score.

 

[Swarbs]

Plague were a worldwide problem, i mean a human problem, not a govrrning one. But recent updates tie unheltiness to stability and so on plagues you experience a destabilization too. I dont think its right even if intentional.

I disagree here - plagues often saw a breakdown in the political order. The Plague of Justinian caused tax rates to rise, trade to fall and legal issues around inheritance and property rights. So some instability from a plague should result - that is half the problem.

Imo the impact of plague on units should be limited so it doesn't outright kill units, but the stability impact should remain to simulate how difficult it was to govern when people were dying in their thousands and the government could do nothing.

 

[gilgames]

I my last game with france i was really big and very solid too, 20+
Took 2 austrian cities and went down ti +5, olague hit in and 2 tuens later i collapsed. So u say that an empires collapsed due to plague?? ...under 10 years? Strange

 

[AbsintheRed]

I disagree here - plagues often saw a breakdown in the political order. The Plague of Justinian caused tax rates to rise, trade to fall and legal issues around inheritance and property rights. So some instability from a plague should result - that is half the problem.

Imo the impact of plague on units should be limited so it doesn't outright kill units, but the stability impact should remain to simulate how difficult it was to govern when people were dying in their thousands and the government could do nothing.

While I agree historically, in the game it results in city secession in many cases (collapses are more rare, but also a possibility).
I don't think that's particularly realistic that a city declares independence from you because the plague just hit it.

 

[Swarbs]

While I agree historically, in the game it results in city secession in many cases (collapses are more rare, but also a possibility).
I don't think that's particularly realistic that a city declares independence from you because the plague just hit it.

It's quite realistic, particularly for large empires:

https://themedievalera.wikispaces.com/The+Black+Death+-+Political+Effects#cite_note-7

"Many lords and vassals died which allowed kings to claim power and set up strong nation-states that controlled Europe during the Renaissance"

http://classroom.synonym.com/political-effect-did-black-death-middle-ages-5440.html

"When the government fell apart, foreign sovereigns stepped in and claimed power by setting up nation states that, in part, led to the powerful parties that controlled Europe during the Renaissance"

Certainly for a large civ, the plague could cause a loss of control over outlying areas of territory, causing these cities and regions to secede. An empire which is already overstretched and lacking in stability could collapse completely if people lose faith in the ability of the government to protect them.

 

[gilgames]

I read ur link and if i translate into ganplay what i've learned: it means cottages can be abandoned with 20-25% chance, hamlets and villages can be reduced one grade, towns have not shrinked into village though. Cities suffered one turn disorder, as they do by prosecution and also suffer halved proxuctio for a few turns. They could loose population max. 50%. The plague cazse many setbacks to represent its horror, i think we shouldn't push it further adding a direct instability penalty, it has enough secondary side effects that weaken stability anyway. Make cities ignore unhealthiness by plague seems a good solution.

 

[Panopticon]

Well I continued my testgame, and stability was never a problem.
Got to +24 by ~960, only expanded in the already owned provinces and developed the cities.
So I was safe to continue the expansion.

I'm not sure why was stability that bad for you, the only difference is that I didn't have to deal with Edessa.
In the very beginning it should contribute -4-5 stability, but certainly not more.
What was you stability when secession hit you?

OK, that's really weird. I think stability was around -8 to -12 in the games I played.

 

[AbsintheRed]

OK, that's really weird. I think stability was around -8 to -12 in the games I played.

Strange.
Here is my save from the end of the 10th century. +23 stability
Will try it again tonight.
Do you have some saves from that game?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Well, in my second game I reached around +30 stability in 960-970.
This time Edessa was still there, and in the very beginning when I had all 5 previously Byz cities with Orthodoxy stability did went down to -6 -8.
But it quickly stabilized after I signed peace, and started to build up my cities and connect all resources.
IIRC it was around +10 after 20-25 turns.

So I don't really see a problem there.
Apart from the fact that it cannot be achieved what the Arabs historically did, but I don't think that's possible with the limitations we have for the game.
If you stick to the 6 UHV provinces, with settling more cities after the initial conquests, building up your basic territory, and maybe expand to Cyreneica after you are stable enough, you will become more than stable enough.

 

[gilgames]

The main problem here is the AI, it cannot handle this and collapse if successful in combat. Also player cannot take Tarsus or Cyrene before stabilizing himself.

 

[DC123456789]

Is something up with the barbarian razing tendency? I'm seeing literally all of Russia up to Smolensk and Minsk being razed.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Is something up with the barbarian razing tendency? I'm seeing literally all of Russia up to Smolensk and Minsk being razed.

No, didn't touch anything directly connected to that.
Maybe one of my recent changes still had an effect on that?
I doubt that too, nothing was related at all IIRC.
Is it a tendency in all of your games, or it was a single example?

Anyway, I tend to document the changes in the mod very thoroughly.
Both for the players sake, and for myself when I need to look back for a previous change.