Stability driving me nuts
- Thread starter Pilotis
- Start date
rodrigo_braz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 45
I have seen this argument before (someone said to me "what empire ever lasted forever?") and while I can see the point, I also respectfully disagree. Not all realism in the game is fun. There are many examples of completely unrealistic things in Civ that are there because otherwise the game would not be fun. For example, a ship can take decades or even centuries to go from one continent to another. Great persons can live for centuries if we don't use them. Europe is larger in the RFC map than in reality.
While I agree that secession can make the game more fun, I think that, also for the purposes of fun, it should be easier to avoid in the game than it is in reality. Or at least more controllable, or predictable. It's just too frustrating to conquer a city, invest on it, make it a jewel of a place, and then lose it just like that, without any kind of warning, along with two or three like it.
Also, while huge empires may not last all that much in reality, it's just so much fun to build them, it should be at least possible to do it in the game. Maybe it should be hard, but possible. Actually, it seems like it is possible, but only if you know how stability works well enough, and many people seem not to.
Just as a last note, I am not complaining here. I am deeply grateful for the mod. I wish I had the time right now to help working on it. This is just in the spirit of constructive feedback.
Cheers,
Rodrigo
biggamer132
King
Isn't there that thing with the curved line and the ball next to each civ on the scoreboard that tells you how stable it is?
It's not an argument. That's the reason Rhye added it.
Jeez, you'd think Stability was the Plague the way this thread is going.
a few advices:
-> There IS a warning before secessions and resurrection of civs: if you're shaky or worse, expect them. If you are stable, you're safe.
-> Economy rating, regardless of the type of economy you create, is heavily influenced by growth. The more GNP and production grow, the more stability improves. When you stop or shrink, it decreases.
-> Gaining and losing cities alter stability in a permanent way
-> Wonders improve stability as well as jails and courthouses
-> Unhappiness is counted per city. More cities you have, more total instability you get from unhappiness
-> There IS a warning before secessions and resurrection of civs: if you're shaky or worse, expect them. If you are stable, you're safe.
-> Economy rating, regardless of the type of economy you create, is heavily influenced by growth. The more GNP and production grow, the more stability improves. When you stop or shrink, it decreases.
-> Gaining and losing cities alter stability in a permanent way
-> Wonders improve stability as well as jails and courthouses
-> Unhappiness is counted per city. More cities you have, more total instability you get from unhappiness
sdLeo
Cosmopolitan
well, as this is a work in progress, questions get answered as they come... your questions and the snippets you've collected and quoted are a way to compile data that can be useful for others. in other words, your whining is helping you and the community answer those questions...
rodrigo_braz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 45
Huh? Not sure what you mean. "Reason" can be a synonym for "argument."
My point is that I heard the argument, or reason, of realism supporting secession in the game, and that I think we don't have to be realistic beyond what keeps the game fun.
I do think secession can be fun, but under more controllable circumstances.
Rodrigo
rodrigo_braz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 45
Is a straight line "Stable" or "Shaky"? I got a secession with a straight line.
Thanks,
Rodrigo
wolfigor
Emperor
Hi Rhye, I could look at the code but it's easier to ask in this case.
I uderstand that losing a town gives a permanent stability penalty.
Is it true for possible way of losing a town?
i.e.
a. losing town due to war
b. losing town due to congress
c. losing town due to culture
d. losing town due to exchange (e.g. I gift the town to an other CIV)
e. losing town due to give back to previous owner (*)
(*) when CIV-A conquers a town from CIV-B. You conquer the town and answer yes to the pop-up about give it back to the previous owner (CIV2)
wolfigor -> mostly the same. It has bigger effects on smaller empires
rodrigo -> straight line is stable or shaky.
single city independence/secession:
must be unstable
resurrection of a civ:
calculated for each city.
if you are unstable, any city in the area that's not your capital and not love the kings day
if you are shaky, any city enough distant from your capital that has got any unhappiness
plus, the dead civ's capital (where the revolt is more strong) is added to the count if you are not solid or very solid
rodrigo -> straight line is stable or shaky.
single city independence/secession:
must be unstable
resurrection of a civ:
calculated for each city.
if you are unstable, any city in the area that's not your capital and not love the kings day
if you are shaky, any city enough distant from your capital that has got any unhappiness
plus, the dead civ's capital (where the revolt is more strong) is added to the count if you are not solid or very solid
wolfigor
Emperor
Even e?!
So unfair... I help an ally/vassal to regain his/her lost empire and pay for it.
When the anglo-american troops in WW2 reconquered half of Europe from Germany and then gave back the towns to their rightful owners, USA and UK didn't pay stability penalties.
I admit it's not the most common case in the game, but still...
It's impossible to tell the reason why you conquer or give away a city
Thanks Rhye. But
1. I was 'stable' as Chinese Empire having conqured Japan. Then all my Japanese cities broke away. In this case being 'stable' wasn't enough. (?)
2. I say again. Is there nowhere that you can deposit your collected wisdom, as above , rather than have it come out through protracted Q & A....????
3. I really do LOVE the mod and all the fantastic work you've put into it.
Whitefire. Please. You're being cynical.
I'm asking that when I'm 'shaky' and I try to do something about it, am I making things worse or better ?? Being advised many turns later that I'm 'collapsing' is not much help !!!
romelus
NUCULAR!
after reading all this, i suggest that a visual cue be used to differentiate shaky and stable. right now they are both represented by a straight line, and unless one checks F2 every turn it's hard to know which one is in effect. it is the boundary between "safe" and "possible rebellions", so i think it's worthwhile to clearly separate the two.
1. read my answer to rodrigo for the full description. You probably were shaky. Otherwise it was a bug
2. i'm still hoping someone collects all the hints into the wiki page
http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/stability
But it is possible to tell how the city was gifted.
I'm still new to the mod and I love the stability mechanic. I do wish it were documented better though. For example, on the indicators:
Cities: Seems to be sensible enough. It seems to go up when I build stability-promoting buildings.
Civics: Makes sense to me. At least I know what causes that to be low or high. I haven't figured out what all the combinations are, but at least I understand how it changes.
Economy: I think I get this now from reading Rhye's explanation. It's fueled largely by economic growth. In my last game I ran with a deficit most of the post-industrial era and maintained positive cash flow through conquest. To my surprise this indicator remained at 4 stars.
Expansion: I have no idea what changes this. My last game as the Germans spent most of the post-industrial era with this at 1 star.
Foreign: I also have no idea what changes this one. It was at 3-4 stars the whole game last game.
Also, I kind of think the stability system is too unforgiving. If you make a mistake (with civics, for example) that trashes your stability there's almost no way to recover. The anarchy penalty first lowers your stability and then if you made a bad civic choice it will hurt you for the next 10 turns until you can change it again, by that time your empire is so unstable changing again will probably collapse you.
Finally, I'm not sure the AI understands the stability system any more than I do. Watching the civs around me and watching the replays it seems very random that certain civs collapse. Certainly I like that civs rise and fall, but it seems to happen just a little too frequently.
Overall, though, this is a great mod! Thanks so much for your hard work on it.
Cities: Seems to be sensible enough. It seems to go up when I build stability-promoting buildings.
Civics: Makes sense to me. At least I know what causes that to be low or high. I haven't figured out what all the combinations are, but at least I understand how it changes.
Economy: I think I get this now from reading Rhye's explanation. It's fueled largely by economic growth. In my last game I ran with a deficit most of the post-industrial era and maintained positive cash flow through conquest. To my surprise this indicator remained at 4 stars.
Expansion: I have no idea what changes this. My last game as the Germans spent most of the post-industrial era with this at 1 star.
Foreign: I also have no idea what changes this one. It was at 3-4 stars the whole game last game.
Also, I kind of think the stability system is too unforgiving. If you make a mistake (with civics, for example) that trashes your stability there's almost no way to recover. The anarchy penalty first lowers your stability and then if you made a bad civic choice it will hurt you for the next 10 turns until you can change it again, by that time your empire is so unstable changing again will probably collapse you.
Finally, I'm not sure the AI understands the stability system any more than I do. Watching the civs around me and watching the replays it seems very random that certain civs collapse. Certainly I like that civs rise and fall, but it seems to happen just a little too frequently.
Overall, though, this is a great mod! Thanks so much for your hard work on it.
romelus
NUCULAR!
i also don't know what influences the expasion rating. it usually falls to 1 at one point for me.
the foreign rating is probably based on the number of deals you have with other civs (open border, defense pact, etc.)
also, large AI civs seem to collapse often, especially china in my games. it seems to collapse then respawn multiple times in each game
the foreign rating is probably based on the number of deals you have with other civs (open border, defense pact, etc.)
also, large AI civs seem to collapse often, especially china in my games. it seems to collapse then respawn multiple times in each game
the expansion is pretty simple: it's composed by 2 parts - the first one lowers your stability if you're under or overextended; the 2nd (usually positive instead) is a permanent modifier that changes each time a city is founded, taken or loss.
Similar threads
