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?
I believe it is the lack of Expansion civics that impacts fun the most and has been the biggest loss.
Previously these civics allowed the player to (to a degree) make decisions which could control their stability, depending on whether they were in the business of capitulating vassals, colonising new cities, conquering new cities, etc. These civics gave a good level of flavour. Making decisions related to these civics was fun.
The new system has taken them away, but it hasn't introduced anything to replace the decision-making aspect. Now stability just "happens".
Civics, to me represent something more akin to perk loadouts.
There is still plenty of decision-making all-around, but the focus has shifted on how you deal with other large empires/blocs, at least for Renaissance/Industrial+,
considering blobbing AIs are more common now and there is considerably less you can do to keep AIs weak.
I think also, the new system is a lot more flexible in quite a few regards,
as you no longer have to worry about the 3-turn Economy check that is difficult to understand at times.
I have improved yields and outputs in the older versions before every 3 turns, and still no Economy gain,
while in others, I have had steady gain but couldn't discern what exactly I was doing differently to get it.
On the other hand, Religious Disunity is seriously busted.
I'm beginning to think that it should only be a penalty for Abrahamic-inclined civs
as it's Dharmic civs that are suffering the most needlessly for it right now though.
I believe it is the lack of Expansion civics that impacts fun the most and has been the biggest loss.
Previously these civics allowed the player to (to a degree) make decisions which could control their stability, depending on whether they were in the business of capitulating vassals, colonising new cities, conquering new cities, etc. These civics gave a good level of flavour. Making decisions related to these civics was fun.
The new system has taken them away, but it hasn't introduced anything to replace the decision-making aspect. Now stability just "happens".
I agree that it would be better to have some way of interaction with the stability system, but the old expansion civics were incredibly flawed in the way they just served as a necessary requirement to collect some kind of permanent bonus just to be able to expand at all.
The Imperialism civic has effectively been translated into the effect of Totalitarianism on expansion. I would like to include more stability effects for the traditional civics besides the usual civic combo stuff (especially in relation to expansion), but most of the old expansion civics cannot be directly translated exactly because their effects were permanent. If you have any suggestions, keep them coming.
I'm still going to look at the religious disunity effects and see if something's out of line there.
I think some nations, when they collapse, have it backwards and it needs to be looked at as a major bug.
The Ottomans just collapsed ONLY their core. They lost Istanbul, Ankara, and Armenia while keeping the rest of their full empire. The reason? The Austrians merely declared war.
I don't think city rioting should be a part of this; for the same reason plague's main effect was taken out. It's inconvenient in the annoying type of way and happens too often, often collapsing Spain, Netherlands, and other squished nations while stunting colony growth. Perhaps just unit damage or temporary maintenance increase?
Secession wouldn't be such annoying if you wouldn't lose so many buildings and culture after reconquering your cities. I would suggest that when city goes independent it would keep half of previous culture and conquering independent city which has your culture wouldn't sack buildings.
You may add the bonuses from the stability civics when the appropriate technology is on. For example, if a civ has astronomys discovered it will recieve a +2 stability bonus for every city further than 15 tiles away from capital for the rest of the game. Military tradition will give stability bonus for occupied cities for the rest of the game and viceroyalty will give stability for vassals. However, I haven't tried the new stability system yet, so I consider it could be wrong.
Religious stability hits: it is a matter of religion. Religions in middle east and Europe caused instability because medieval Europe was a theocratic system. In fact Dynsticism is a combination between hereditary rule AND theocracy. This also apply in China (mandate of heaven).
India was devided in many states, so every mahayanapaya had it's own religion and all of them where happy. The same applys to indonesia as well. Let's say that city-states system is immune to religious disaffects like religious instability and unhapiness. In a city states system the state religion represents only the religion of the capital.
Few words about my attempt to play as Italy in svn 557 and diplomatic crisis:
Italy recieve most part of incoming commerce through trade routs, especially after San Marco basilica been built.
Open borders for Italy are very important, but right after I declared war on Arabia to try to take some cities in Egypt (which is impossible as Italy now, because Arabs are too powerful now, after Seljuks collapses, seljuk cities flips to Arabia with all armies, I have seen it, besides their core area too big) all my open borders agreements were cancelled, one for another in next few turns. As a result very low tech rate. 12 turns to research Printing press, it is nonsense.
And only the reason of cancelling open borders was "furious" relations with Arabia. It is not fair at all. Only one thing you can do in this case - just to sit in your core area and afraid to declare war on Turks or Arabs because everyone will cancel open borders with you.
Besides, "friendly" and "pleased" civilizations cancels open borders, in my opinion it is not right at all. Let "furious" and "annoyed" cancel agreements, but not "friendly" or "pleased".
Religious stability hits: it is a matter of religion. Religions in middle east and Europe caused instability because medieval Europe was a theocratic system. In fact Dynsticism is a combination between hereditary rule AND theocracy. This also apply in China (mandate of heaven).
India was devided in many states, so every mahayanapaya had it's own religion and all of them where happy. The same applys to indonesia as well. Let's say that city-states system is immune to religious disaffects like religious instability and unhapiness. In a city states system the state religion represents only the religion of the capital.
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.
I've looked at your save. The lost battle wasn't what triggered your crisis, it was the declaration of war. But I don't think DOWs on the independents should count here. That said, the stability advisor clearly tells you that you're only in the negatives because of outdated civics, so why don't you just change to Free Market or even Mercantilism?
I shortly contemplated the idea of bringing back expansion civics as a way to interact with stability more directly but in the end I couldn't come up with enough concepts to fill a column, which is a good sign that it'd be a bad idea.
So I started thinking about how to represent the old expansion effects with current civics in a way that makes sense with the new system. Some thoughts:
Occupation -> Warrior Code: because it's an appropriate civic for large early empires like Persia or the Mongols and could negate penalties for conquered cities.
Resettlement -> Mercantilism: most colonial empires used Mercantilism, could reduce the weight for historical overseas cities (even down to zero so they don't cost you stability under any circumstances). Alternately, the effect could go to Absolutism to allow for tougher choices in the Organization column.
Imperialism -> Totalitarianism: less penalties for foreign cores or culture. This represents police state measures to keep the occupied territories down. (The effect is already in.)
Viceroyalty -> Vassalage: for obvious reasons. The effect could stay the same.
Commonwealth -> Environmentalism: Commonwealth prevented stability loss from a low amount of trade, this criterion doesn't exist anymore. Environmentalism could instead negate stability penalties from economic stagnation which makes sense considering its acceptance of lower, sustainable growth.
Occupation -> Warrior Code: because it's an appropriate civic for large early empires like Persia or the Mongols and could negate penalties for conquered cities.
Sounds good, although personally I would try and tailor the whole Military column to give a range of stability bonuses.
Warrior code reduces penalties from conquering cities as per Occupation
Mercenaries should reduce the expansion stability penalty from non core population, as the mercs are more reliable armies for large civs (less likely to revolt)
Levy armies reduces the penalty from military losses, as the levies just desert when discontent, rather than starting a rebellion
Standing armies should reduce the stability penalty from unhappiness, as the standing army can put any revolt down
Conscription reduces the penalty from economic stagnation, as economic stagnation can be countered through conscription
That way the military column will always provide some help with stability, and the choice of military civic becomes as much about controlling stability and addressing areas of weakness as it does about maintaining the army, as it often was IRL.
Resettlement -> Mercantilism: most colonial empires used Mercantilism, could reduce the weight for historical overseas cities (even down to zero so they don't cost you stability under any circumstances). Alternately, the effect could go to Absolutism to allow for tougher choices in the Organization column.
Sounds good, tho' I don't think that option would fit with Absolutism. Personally I would say Absolutism should give its own bonus, perhaps the population in core cities should count 50% higher for expansion stability to reflect the greater focus on the capital and core?
Resettlement -> Mercantilism: most colonial empires used Mercantilism, could reduce the weight for historical overseas cities (even down to zero so they don't cost you stability under any circumstances). Alternately, the effect could go to Absolutism to allow for tougher choices in the Organization column.
Mercantilism makes sense and makes the economics choice just as interesting as the alternate organization choice. Especially since Mercantilism is kind of under powered at the moment.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
