I was talking about expansion stability where seemed to have most problems with.
Stability feedback thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
I have some feedback concerning the latest version.
The Foreign stability rating appears to be permanently stuck.
But what I mean is that the mechanic isn't working as intended, not that it's actually permanently stuck.
I'm constantly experiencing OB agreements being cancelled due to a negative Foreign rating (caused by "Bad Relations").
And only one civilization is Furious at me, while a few others are all Annoyed.
The majority of the rest are all Cautious, and a few of my vassals + Arabia are the only ones that are Pleased with me.
The issue with Foreign is that while the new stability mechanic is impermanent,
your relations with civs don't get better over time; they constantly ask you to DoW
others and trade embargo others, and if you refuse them, you start to accumulate little hits.
It never goes up, basically, because you don't get as many chances to improve relations and there are numerous cases where your relations can go down.
As a result, you struggle to maintain relations with other civs slowly across the whole game and it can really adversely affect:
1) Your troop movements
2) Your civ relations
3) Your stability
What I propose is, in order to remedy this are two separate solutions:
-Civs forget refused call to arms/trade embargo/trade instances within 10 turns.
Civs forget that you declared war on their friends within 20 turns (per individual instance).
Civs forget city razing within 30 turns.
France will need a new UP as a result.
-Threshold for "Bad Relations" is when over half the scoreboard is Furious or Annoyed with you; Cautious incurs no penalty.
Or a combination of both my suggestions.
Enclosed is a save:
EDIT: This save also happens to crash when I hit Enter and proceed onto the next turn.
The Foreign stability rating appears to be permanently stuck.
But what I mean is that the mechanic isn't working as intended, not that it's actually permanently stuck.
I'm constantly experiencing OB agreements being cancelled due to a negative Foreign rating (caused by "Bad Relations").
And only one civilization is Furious at me, while a few others are all Annoyed.
The majority of the rest are all Cautious, and a few of my vassals + Arabia are the only ones that are Pleased with me.
The issue with Foreign is that while the new stability mechanic is impermanent,
your relations with civs don't get better over time; they constantly ask you to DoW
others and trade embargo others, and if you refuse them, you start to accumulate little hits.
It never goes up, basically, because you don't get as many chances to improve relations and there are numerous cases where your relations can go down.
As a result, you struggle to maintain relations with other civs slowly across the whole game and it can really adversely affect:
1) Your troop movements
2) Your civ relations
3) Your stability
What I propose is, in order to remedy this are two separate solutions:
-Civs forget refused call to arms/trade embargo/trade instances within 10 turns.
Civs forget that you declared war on their friends within 20 turns (per individual instance).
Civs forget city razing within 30 turns.
France will need a new UP as a result.
-Threshold for "Bad Relations" is when over half the scoreboard is Furious or Annoyed with you; Cautious incurs no penalty.
Or a combination of both my suggestions.
Enclosed is a save:
EDIT: This save also happens to crash when I hit Enter and proceed onto the next turn.
That is a good idea.
Civ relation modifiers already decay over time based on LH personality. Maybe your diplomatic approach needs to become a bit more ... diplomatic if you run into constant problems with furious civs.
Something should be done with diplomatic AI. It feels very arbitraty and child like. AI makes very often very unreasonable demands, religion is way too important, AI can hate you deeply simply because you traded with their worst enemy, worst enemy is very arbitraty and giving gifts seems to be only way to make AI happy. Very often I simply ignore diplomatic AI because it is so confusing.
I agree that civics should be more important than they are now, beyond the favorite civic mechanic. Civics should also have more of an impact on how important religion is (it makes sense that Theocracies care more about religion).
Agreed. It always annoys me that every East Asian civ hates me because of wrong religion. Usually they hate me as well because I traded with their worst enemy before I even met them.
Maybe there should be more deals, like treaty of friendship and so on.
Maybe there should be more deals, like treaty of friendship and so on.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
This is more apparent with positive modifiers than it is with negative ones.
With the negative ones, they mostly all seem to pile up very quickly and as a result, do not appear to decay at the same rate.
There is a steady uphill climb that only gets worse the more civs there are over time and the longer the game has gone on because of this.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I have put some thought into this new mechanic for expansion. And I don't like the new way expansion is calculated at all. It is not intuitive.
Since Rhye introduced stability, expansion has always been about historical tiles controlled vs non-historical tiles controlled.
I accept and consider it a neater mechanism to now count only city tiles rather than tiles controlled.
But counting core population compared to non-core population is just way too harsh, particularly on civs with food-poor core areas.
I strongly believe that this needs to be reconsidered to historical vs non-historical, rather than core vs non-core. And by historical, I mean that contested areas would count as historical for the expansion stability mechanism.
Then you can abolish expansion stability right away, and the rest of the stability system with it.
Royal Tenenbaum
Write your Own History
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,755
It sounds intuitive to me. What part about it isn't?
blizzrd
Micromanager
Why? I didn't propose any such thing.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Expansion penalties should kick in because you have expanded outside the historical limits of your civilisation, not because the population outside of your capital (often the only city in your core) is smaller than your total population from everywhere else.
Here is the reason why I am still playing 1.11. I am waiting how the new stability system turns out, but it also might be that I'll never update to it.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Which is a shame, because there is a lot of good stuff that you haven't seen yet then.
Royal Tenenbaum
Write your Own History
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,755
I haven't played the SVN that much. Does that make Netherlands super unstable?
blizzrd
Micromanager
I haven't played Netherlands either. There is enough food near Amsterdam to at least make it the biggest city in the civilisation by a fair margin though, so the issue is not as great as for other civs such as Ethiopia.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
They're only alive because I capitulated them in my game.
To be honest I like expansion aspect of the new stability system very much. Building the russian empire completed with the old system you always are near shaking and unstable. In the new system you can colonise all the Siberia, Alaska and Fort Ross and be Solid!!!
Moreover, when I conquer Spanish colonies Spain becomes more stable, which is more logical, since it is less expanded.
Well, I admit that it may suits to my gameplay.
However, I consider the crisises really severe. In my game Scandinavia is unstable and faced a severous crisis, 5 turns of revolt in every city and 5 city secessions!!! Well, this is called semicollapse. It was weird since, Scandinavia had luxury recourses like silver and fur. Moreover, it was a domestic crisis, so losing its most productive cities is really awkward. Well, I mean it is a domestic, not an expansion crisis. Five turns of revolt in all cities is like five turns of anarchy in fact, you have no defences, no cultural influence, all resources agreements are cancelled, other civs can found new cities in your land, secession isn't needed, the situation is severe enough already.
Foreign crisis seems too strong too. I'm in the 1850s and there are only two defencive pacts. I think defencive shouldn't be cancelled, because in final analysis they cause many wars in the game. They are the main cause of late world wars, the foreign crisis destroys this aspect of the game.
I haven't experienced other type of crisis, but I intend not to. I'm really afraid of experiencing any kind of crisis.
P.S: Netherland is a leading power in my game, especially a technology leader (well it managed to control the whole of south Africa).
Moreover, when I conquer Spanish colonies Spain becomes more stable, which is more logical, since it is less expanded.
Well, I admit that it may suits to my gameplay.
However, I consider the crisises really severe. In my game Scandinavia is unstable and faced a severous crisis, 5 turns of revolt in every city and 5 city secessions!!! Well, this is called semicollapse. It was weird since, Scandinavia had luxury recourses like silver and fur. Moreover, it was a domestic crisis, so losing its most productive cities is really awkward. Well, I mean it is a domestic, not an expansion crisis. Five turns of revolt in all cities is like five turns of anarchy in fact, you have no defences, no cultural influence, all resources agreements are cancelled, other civs can found new cities in your land, secession isn't needed, the situation is severe enough already.
Foreign crisis seems too strong too. I'm in the 1850s and there are only two defencive pacts. I think defencive shouldn't be cancelled, because in final analysis they cause many wars in the game. They are the main cause of late world wars, the foreign crisis destroys this aspect of the game.
I haven't experienced other type of crisis, but I intend not to. I'm really afraid of experiencing any kind of crisis.
P.S: Netherland is a leading power in my game, especially a technology leader (well it managed to control the whole of south Africa).
blizzrd
Micromanager
I never had any stability problems with Russia under the old mechanic. I have been Stable or Solid for the entire game.
