Stability Guide v1.12

[Leoreth]

I chose to represent the relations stuff with your number of OB treaties. It makes sense because you need good relations to have them, and they're more in your control than relations themselves.

 

[Daedwartin]

Hmm... can I throw in my opinion that they shouldn't? . Bad relations usually make people ashamed to be in their country and lead to dissidence.

Not always. some nations' people pretty much demanded the government kick the foreigners out, not caring what those nations thought. After all, they are foreign barbarians.

Like China and Japan.

 

[need my speed]

Besides, do people in the USA honestly care that Iran, North Korea, et cetera, don't like the USAn government (for example)?

 

[BenZL43]

Have some love for the Mongols: razing 7 cities means -70 expansion stability that tooks 175 turns (±1750 years) to decay completely. I’d say the first raze is free, the rest have milder effects for Mongols somehow

 

[NKN]

I think a better solution would be to make the razing penalties less cumulative.

 

[Leoreth]

Completely forgot about their UHV.

 

[Daedwartin]

Completely forgot about their UHV.

Yeah. If there's any nation which wouldnt care a hoot about razing down the enitre freaking continent, it's the Mongolians.

Who only stopped doing so every time because it was pointed out that living people give more tribute than dead ones.

 

[Leoreth]

It will probably end up being included in their UP.

 

[NKN]

It will probably end up being included in their UP.

I don't really like these types of UP's. While in this case it might be necessary, can we then change some of the others (maybe Mughals) to something a little more gameplay-affecting?

 

[Leoreth]

I don't really like these types of UP's.

What are you getting at? And how does that relate to the Mughals specifically?

 

[Leoreth]

Updated the trade stability section to include my better explanation from a later post and recent changes:

Your cities have trade routes to other cities generating commerce (exports). Other cities have trade routes to your cities also generating commerce (imports). For all civilizations, their total trade volume is calculated, which usually is the sum of exports and imports, but for Mercantilist civs it is twice their export volume instead.

The trade volume is divided by your number of cities, then subtracted a modifier that increases with your era. Effectively, you can achieve a positive score by increasing the trade yield in your cities and securing trade routes with foreign cities.

The trade stability is capped at +10 and -10 respectively.

I also updated the severe territorial crisis effect:

Severe territorial crisis: "Collapse to core": if more than half of all non-core cities are ahistorical, all ahistorical cities will secede. Otherwise, all non-core cities will secede.

 

[NKN]

What are you getting at? And how does that relate to the Mughals specifically?

UP's which just reduce stability penalties aren't very interesting. The Mughals' UP (IIRC) is that there's no stability penalty from multiple religions.

 

[BenZL43]

I think he meant the issue should be addressed in more creative way rather than just modifying the UU/UP of the respective civs. That would made the game more interesting. He also meant that Mughals UP could have some change. That's what I get.

 

[The Diocletian]

UP's which just reduce stability penalties aren't very interesting. The Mughals' UP (IIRC) is that there's no stability penalty from multiple religions.

I think that's Poland's. The Mughals is that there is no happiness from non-state religions.

 

[FinalLegendZero]

I think that's Poland's. The Mughals is that there is no happiness from non-state religions.

The Mughals' UP does both, actually.

 

[The Diocletian]

The Mughals' UP does both, actually.

The UP says it only gives no unhappiness from non-state religions. What do you mean?

 

[FinalLegendZero]

The UP says it only gives no unhappiness from non-state religions. What do you mean?

According to the guide's religion section, the Mughals have been made an exception to the stability penalty for non-state religions. Leoreth probably just hasn't updated the text for their UP yet.

 

[Leoreth]

I think he meant the issue should be addressed in more creative way rather than just modifying the UU/UP of the respective civs. That would made the game more interesting. He also meant that Mughals UP could have some change. That's what I get.

I'm open to suggestions, but I think in general the raze rule works and only the Mongols need an exception. Their UP is the obvious way to signal this exception compared to just secretly adding it into the code.

I think that's Poland's. The Mughals is that there is no happiness from non-state religions.

If anything a valid criticism is that Poland's UP is only a weaker version of the Mughal one.

According to the guide's religion section, the Mughals have been made an exception to the stability penalty for non-state religions. Leoreth probably just hasn't updated the text for their UP yet.

To clarify, the Mughals do not receive any penalties from non-state religions at all. That includes unhappiness and stability penalties. I should probably update the description to be more general.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I also updated the severe territorial crisis effect:

Severe territorial crisis: "Collapse to core": if more than half of all non-core cities are ahistorical, all ahistorical cities will secede. Otherwise, all non-core cities will secede.

So, is this in effect, a Domination lock-out?

 

[Leoreth]

Unless you manage to stay on Unstable ...?