Stability feedback thread

Hey there,

since I've been struggling with stability in this mod, I'd like to ask a few questions.

In my understanding it would be incredibly useful to switch all citizen (or at least a sizeable amount) to be "citizen" (the non-specialist-specialists) so your production & commerce is considerably lower than usual, before signing a peace treaty or starting a golden age.
the resulting check would give me bad values but won't hurt and the next one will be awesome, since my economy is at +10 compared to the earlier one.
with peace&GA you could do this and then switch to "normal" again in the same turn, so you wouldn't lose anything.
is this gedankenexperiment correct?
I suppose that would work.

to a lesser extent: whipping should also be done just before one of the above events happens, right?
Well, whipping affects a number of factors. Your economy shrinks which might be advantageous later on, but you also generate unhappiness which creates instability and lose population which might impact your expansion rating depending on where you whip. So it depends.

also: how close together can stability checks be? for example if I sign peace twice in the same turn would that give me 2 checks? (the 2nd one would be almost always worse, since there is no economic increase in that turn)
Two checks can closely follow each other, but experiencing a crisis starts a cooldown where you are immune to stability checks (positive or negative), depending on the severity of the crisis (longer for severe crises).

Does razing a city influence stability somehow?
Not your stability rating, but razing a city triggers a stability check so it can cause a stability drop and a crisis.

(not exactly fitting here, but I don't want to start a new posting just for this: what is the population treshold for tech cost increase? and does it vary by civ?)
It varies by era. The threshold is 10 * (6 + 2 * era). It doesn't vary by civilization because it is meant to penalize very large empires, no matter who creates them. This is about game balance, not historicism.
 
I think to address civs with small cores, I will include a small base core population for everyone so they aren't as penalized anymore.
 
After having played another game with a civ that has to deal with > minus 40 on their expansion stability modifier for the UHV....

How about making the modifier for historic areas 0?

So basically it is: 4*corepop - 0*historicpop - 3*foreign/contested-pop?
this way the player wouldn't get penalized for expanding in historic areas but still for foreign ones. (of course this might also require some reevaluating).
 
I think that historic population should count for +1. It makes no sense to be penalized for settling in historical territory.
 
I think that either foreign should be changed to -2 or foreign core should be changed to -3.

As many people have said, I feel that this stability system penalizes too much. Maybe there should be positive effects for Very Solid (or even solid) civilizations, that are semirandom like crises.
 
Historic should be 0 at absolute most- I think -0.5 or -1 is fine. Giving positive population scores to historical areas will make expansion far too easy, especially for civs like Russia or England.
 
Contested area is historical. Historical area should be penalised. I suppose the thinking behind this system is as follows:

The player should be able to expand in core and historical areas and have no effect in stability, or in other words the expansion stability will be around 0.

So, the core area modifier should be positive and the historical area negative, else the sum can never be 0. The current modifiers let you have an empire four times larger than your core area. This means that if you have a core area of 20, then you can control an empire of 100 without any expansion stability hit, it is really good IMO.

Foreign area is penalised, so that the player avoids expanding there.
Foreign core area is penalised by the "chance of respawning" event and the "flipping area", so it doesn't need any more penalising.
 
citis is right on the mark here. The point is that in the average case, your expansion rating should go into the negatives as soon as you start controlling cities in foreign territory. If there was a buffer accumulated by core cities that isn't canceled out but even increased by historical cities, you control a great number of foreign cities without any penalties which is not how it's supposed to be.

Also consider that there are a couple of civilizations that should be unstable even if controlling only their historical territory. The Spanish Empire, for instance.

Currently you can control 2+era the amount of population in historical territories compared to your core population. As most expansion starts in the Renaissance at the earliest, that's a factor of five, which I cannot believe to be insufficient for traditional expansionist civs. And if it's harder for civs with a smallish core to sustain a huge empire, even better. The same goes for very early expansion.
 
okay, I still hope you'll implement a bonus for small-core-civs.
The Incans have 1 tiny city in their core and need to controll 5 more for their first UHV, not to mention the half dozen more for their last. If you're already negative from your historical area it just kills the fun.
Also: why does it never give bonus stability? If you stick to only your core, shouldn't the modifier be positive? that might help in the initial phase of some civs

I still think that having permanent stability (expansion, military, domestic foreign) and one that isn't (economy) while not limiting consecutive stability checks is weird.
 
I already have added a constant core population modifier to help civs like the Inca and Tibet.

Positive expansion stability was initially planned, but removed because it trivialized the other categories for civs that stay in their core area early on.
 
To get this ridicilious core population system working, you shoud adjust every civ's core accordingly and change the parameters for population weight. Now only expansion matters for stability, everything else is pretty much redundant. Tbh the stability system turned out to be a complete failure for any other victory except UHV and I have quitted playing DoC because of it.
 
It should've been 600 (the large commit). I might not have mentioned this specific change in the description because there was a lot of stuff I did before this commit.

That said, the factor might need some balance. Maybe I should play a Inca game.
 
Just a random excerpt from my to do list regarding economic stability:
Baseline growth percent is too harsh
-> wow commerce growth is way more erratic than expected
-> okay yeah seriously there needs to be a better way than this
...
 
Okay, I got out my math skills to improve the calculations a bit. Should be a lot better soon.
 
Okay, a quick guide for how the stability mechanic works so people can actually judge what's going on.

First of all, stability checks don't happen periodically anymore. They are triggered by one of the following events:
- losing a city
- razing a city
- researching a tech
- becoming a vassal
- vassalizing another civ (+)
- declaring war / being declared war on
- making peace (+)
- changing civics
- changing state religion
- moving your palace
- building a wonder (+)
- starting a golden age (+)
- receiving a great person (+)

Under certain circumstances, the check is canceled because the civ is currently immune to it. The main reasons for this are that the civ has just spawned, just received a crisis and is therefore protected or is in anarchy or a golden age.

During the check, the civ's stability score is calculated. This score only depends on the current state of the civ without any permanent influences. The score is the sum of the results in the five categories expansion, economy, domestic, foreign and military. More details on the score calculation follow later on.

Then, a threshold is determined with to which the score is compared. The threshold is higher at higher stability levels and lower at lower levels. This has the result that unless something changes within your civilization and therefore your score at the next check, you eventually arrive at a certain level and stay there. Here's what can happen:

score > threshold + 10: your stability level increases by one
threshold < score <= threshold + 10: nothing
threshold - 10 < score <= threshold: a crisis occurs
score <= threshold - 10: your stability level decreases by one, a crisis occurs

Checks triggered by events marked with a (+) can only result in a stability increase, never in a decrease or crisis.

A crisis affects your civilization negatively in some way. The type of effect depends on the category your score was worst in, and the severity of the crisis depends on your stability level. The level is reduced before the crisis starts in the last case above, so it's one level more severe than the level you entered the check with. Here's how the stability levels correspond to the crisis levels:

solid -> no crisis
stable -> minor crisis
shaky -> moderate crisis
unstable -> severe crisis
collapsing -> terminal crisis

A terminal crisis always results in complete collapse no matter the type. As you can see above, it's possible to be on collapsing stability level and still never experience a crisis, so it's not guaranteed that you collapse on this level (but very much possible until your situation improves). Also, solid makes you completely immune to crises until your stability drops again. Here's a short summary of the effects:

EXPANSION
Minor: a random city secedes
Moderate: all cities in foreign territory secede
Severe: all cities except your core secede

ECONOMY
Minor: lose 10% of your current research (first in gold, then in beakers)
Moderate: lose 50% of your current research, one turn of anarchy
Severe: lose 100% of your current research, three turns of anarchy, cottages degrade, great people points are reset

DOMESTIC
Minor: one turn of anarchy, 25% chance for all cities to have unrest for three turns
Moderate: three turns of anarchy, 50% chance for all cities to have unrest for five turns
Severe: five turns of anarchy, all unhappy cities secede

FOREIGN
Minor: two random open border agreements are canceled
Moderate: five random open border agreements are canceled, all defensive pacts are canceled, all peace vassals are freed
Severe: all open border agreements are canceled, all defensive pacts are canceled, all vassals are freed
(every canceled treaty also includes a relationship hit and makes the civ not want to talk to you)

MILITARY
Minor: all cities lose their defenses
Moderate: all cities lose their defenses, 25% chance per unit to desert
Severe: all cities lose their defenses, 50% chance per unit to desert, cities secede to civs you're at war with if they're in their target area

Here's a short summary of what can affect your stability score in the different categories:

EXPANSION
- ratio of core vs. non-core population (cities on historical territory are weighted much less than ahistorical, conquered, or foreign core cities)

ECONOMY
- economic growth (change of total commerce compared to 10 turns earlier)
- penalty for trading with richer civs under Mercantilism
- penalty for trading with Free Market civs under Central Planning

DOMESTIC
- relationship of happiness/unhappiness in your empire
- number of unhappy cities
- civic combinations
- contemporary/outdated civics
- religious unity (state religion in all cities, not too many non-tolerated non-state religions)

FOREIGN
- open borders with collapsing civs
- stable/unstable vassals
- defensive pacts with stronger civs
- being the worst enemy of a stronger civ
- having furious relations with someone
- being at war while in Autocracy
- being at war with heathens / brothers of faith while in Fanaticism

MILITARY
- winning/losing wars
- losing military strength compared to 10 turns earlier

I really don't think that being stable should trigger a stability crisis. It makes no sense. Stability crises should only kick in if your stability falls below 0.

So I would suggest adding a new stability level: Very Unstable (in between unstable and collapsing)

And than do it like this

stable -> no crisis
shaky -> minor crisis
unstable -> moderate crisis
very unstable -> severe crisis
collapsing -> terminal crisis
 
"Minor: all cities lose their defenses"
"Minor: two random open border agreements are canceled"
I didn't knew why this happened :O
 
Back
Top Bottom