Does the same apply to Jails and Security Bureaus?
Seems faster, tho' I've only played a couple of autoruns so far so can't be sure.
Stability feedback thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Does the same apply to Jails and Security Bureaus?
Seems faster, tho' I've only played a couple of autoruns so far so can't be sure.
No, I didn't want to offer too many bonuses to circumvent expansion penalties.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Within context, it's like this:
-v1.11 and below: Independents bore the brunt of the AI's aggression as valid targets.
-current revision: AIs now "see" others as valid targets with the reduction in Independent saturation.
See here (I'm Brazil):
France has nowhere left to expand, save for collapsed Britain but the whole amphibious invasion deal is still the same as before,
so it vents its aggression in a blitzkrieg against Arabia...whose capital is in Moscow.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I'm not seeing the new system as a "fun" improvement on the old ways currently. The system is all about penalties, which was entirely what made the old plague mechanic un-fun. I haven't been able to find an upside that turns stability into a challenge, not in the way that the old system was an interesting challenge to handle and manage.
That you can randomly lose cities to secession that aren't in your core area at Stable, is not my idea of a fun game. And games that aren't fun don't get played so much.
Without options to potentially overcome the penalties, they just appear to be an overall drag on "fun".
That you can randomly lose cities to secession that aren't in your core area at Stable, is not my idea of a fun game. And games that aren't fun don't get played so much.
Without options to potentially overcome the penalties, they just appear to be an overall drag on "fun".
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
I do agree actually.
There is too much emphasis on penalty currently, as evidenced by what we've got set out right now.
Any benefits that can be derived from being stable amount to "not drowning" which means the whole game is spent trying to keep your head above water while pushing everyone else down.
Although I enjoy many things in the current version.
The increased AI aggressiveness makes for some adrenaline inducing moments.
I can't tell you how pants-crapping it was to stare down a 40+ stack of German Riflemen & Cannons with my defense in Rome being reduced to 0%
and just waiting with no more than 14 mixed defenders comprising of Machine Guns and freshly drafted Infantries.
And if the razing penalty has truly been eliminated, I think that's a very good thing based on the snapshot-style
take on stability in the current version, and a significant improvement over Rhye's implementation.
There is too much emphasis on penalty currently, as evidenced by what we've got set out right now.
Any benefits that can be derived from being stable amount to "not drowning" which means the whole game is spent trying to keep your head above water while pushing everyone else down.
Although I enjoy many things in the current version.
The increased AI aggressiveness makes for some adrenaline inducing moments.
I can't tell you how pants-crapping it was to stare down a 40+ stack of German Riflemen & Cannons with my defense in Rome being reduced to 0%
and just waiting with no more than 14 mixed defenders comprising of Machine Guns and freshly drafted Infantries.
And if the razing penalty has truly been eliminated, I think that's a very good thing based on the snapshot-style
take on stability in the current version, and a significant improvement over Rhye's implementation.
I'll move the consequences of territorial crises around so that you're safe from losing cities on stable.
Otherwise, could you be more specific on what the main problem is? Do minor crises happen to often / are there consequences too rough to really feel like playing with a "stable" civilization? Aren't there enough means by which to combat negative stability effects?
Otherwise, could you be more specific on what the main problem is? Do minor crises happen to often / are there consequences too rough to really feel like playing with a "stable" civilization? Aren't there enough means by which to combat negative stability effects?
Manco Capac
Friday,13 June,I Collapse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 8,051
If you play just for UHV, it's easy to maintain solid stability, but if someone wants to play for domination victory, losing randomly cities at stable is either pretty fun-killing or a huge drag.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
As China, it was definitely crippling to experience Anarchy hits every 10 turns or so just because of Religious Disunity, which I could do nothing about in the early game.
As Brazil, I went into one turn of anarchy after losing 1 Rifleman to an Independent one.
My Kill-Death ratio had roughly been about 2:1 and it was difficult still considering tech parity makes combat rather vicious.
Some of these things are very context specific to some civs.
Also, this should probably go in Bug Reports, but the reason why I didn't complete my Brazil game was because after that turn of anarchy (some pop-up about civil war),
when my capital went out of revolt, I received a huge stack of units, as if I had just freshly spawned.
I don't know if it's related but, when I went into "civil war", my capitulated vassal, Argentina broke free as well.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Dawn put it well, the new stability battle is all about drowning. Whether you drown slowly, moderately quickly or really really fast. With some new and more spectacular ways to fall apart at the seams.
I don't like the amount of random mechanics in the penalties either. When I lose, I want it to be because of my screw ups, not because of the RNG.
Also, this:
100% on the money.
I haven't enough example games to give meaningful comment yet. Early signs are consequences are too harsh. I mentioned this earlier in the thread.
Could you please provide a summary of the available options? I haven't been able to find one yet. All I could see was this, which I have annotated with where I think the +/- might exist:
Spoiler :
Are there others? Did I have +/- incorrect in there?
Wait, did you get religious disunity from a Confucianism/Taoism combo? Or did you have other religions too?
And what were the numbers involved?
Did losing a battle directly trigger the crisis? That's definitely not supposed to happen. The only way battles can influence your stability is from warscore, but that's only counted against proper civs. Your combat results against independents shouldn't matter at all.
Do you have the save for that?
Speaking for domination attempts, or regular games?
What might be part of the problem here is a fact I've recently realized. I've made it so that it's easier to lose stability levels when you're already on a higher level, and easier to gain them when you're at a lower level. But since the thresholds for all events are equally spaced, this means that currently it's easier to trigger a crisis when your stable than at unstable and that doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll do something about that.
The crises are completely deterministic. Either you have a 100% chance to experience a crisis, or 0%. Only some of the effects are random, like which cities secede or go into unrest. But that could be refined too, based on tile stability value for example.
You're right in most cases. Stable vassals can also help your stability, and Fanaticism gives a slight penalty when being at war with civs of the same state religion.
Something I also haven't mentioned is that Totalitarianism is very helpful when expanding because it negates many of the expansion penalties from conquered cities and foreign culture.
For me it's partly the randomness, partly the relatively arbitrary, and sometimes non sequitur, nature of the crises.
I was playing a German game where I had the usual three cities in my core and had conquered Rome, all ticking along nicely. Then off I go to get Jerusalem, conquer Damascus and decide to raze it cos it's a crap city. All of a sudden go from being perfectly stable to losing all my gold and research and end up with a turn of anarchy, all with no warning. Ten turns later, I haven't had another stability check, so I have no idea how stable I am, and whether I can be flung back into anarchy at a moment's notice.
It just seems like there's no way of predicting when you'll end up in a crisis, and how severe it will be, particularly given you can get 'minor' crises, which are often quite severe, when you are quite stable. Also, the cause and effect seems a bit strange - why would razing Damascus, a Muslim city a thousand miles away, cause the HRE any instability at all?
Personally, I think the crisis mechanism should be changed so that when the stability check indicates you are at risk of a crisis you get a few turns to try and change it around before the crisis hits. Otherwise you just can't tell when you are at risk of falling apart or not, without spending ages counting commerce and loading saves to compare etc.
That's a very good idea, but opens a lot of questions about how to implement it.
Let me think about that for a bit.
Okay, here's a list of changes I've just implemented and am currently testing for bugs before committing:
I will also modify the interface to include a prediction whether you're in danger of a crisis should your stability score stay the same as during the last check.
- crises start one level lower (i.e. minor crisis only possible on stable when dropping to shaky)
- crises aren't easier to get on stable or solid compared to shaky anymore
- minor territorial crises now makes you lose control over overlapping tiles in the radius of one city
- moderate territorial crises now cause the secession of a single city, determined by its settler map value
- severe territorial crises now cause the secession of all ahistorical cities, unless all cities are historical, where they will cause a collapse to core
- changed the anarchy from domestic crises to 1/2/3 depending on severity
- city unrest in domestic crises is now deterministic and based on city happiness
- unit desertion is now deterministic: x% of the units on every tile (rounded down)
- canceling trades is now deterministic: starts with the civs your relations are worst with
I will also modify the interface to include a prediction whether you're in danger of a crisis should your stability score stay the same as during the last check.
therox
Hydralisk
The ''losing random cities'' should be a mix of 
, distance to palace and culture %
, distance to palace and culture %That's a good way to make it absolutely confusing as to what the actual reason was. Settler map values directly represent how strongly a city at the spot would be integrated into your empire so it makes sense that a city with a low value would secede first.
NerfCothons
Warlord
This seems easy to manipulate as a player; have a Settler in a foreign area and settle when the crisis hits. It also seems to punish players for sticking to historical city sites.
Maybe for the human player only run a periodic stability check that makes no changes to our stability but keeps the stability tab updated?
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
I haven't played much with the new system yet, but doesn't this allow you to deliberately found one city outside of historical area to 'shield' yourself from collapse to core?
EDIT: Ninja'ed
NerfCothons
Warlord
I liked how whole cultural regions seceded. So a historical 19th century British empire for example experiencing a severe territorial crisis could lose all of India, all of it's South African holdings, all of its Canadian holdings, etc. Maybe we could just rely on continental lines.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Hinduism/Buddhism actually, although AFAIK, they don't receive a penalty together.
-6 Religious Disunity penalty which occurred during both Animism & Pantheon as there aren't other choices so early in the game.
Yep, the before & after.
Similar threads
