Stability should have more consequences

[rjaco31]

I love the Stability concept, and it's kind of the heart of RFC, but what bothers me is that untill you hit the "civil war" status, there is virtually no malus for having a bad stability, and/or no bonus for having a good one. Basically, you can run though five thousands years with a -30 or a +50 stability without noticing the difference...
So I just wanted to add some side-effets, like:
- each "10 stability points" will give you a happy/sad face in every city, if you have +23 it would give you +2 happy faces, and if you have -37, it would give you -3 happyness
- just convert the stability value into +/- % of production, a +23 stability would give +23% hammers and/or trade, and a -37 would give a -37%

The point is, I have no idea on how to add such features, could it be a simple python/xml edit, or would I need to go deep into DLL editing?
Thanks.


PS: don't bother with "gameplay issues" answers, I already heavily modified my RFC and fairness/gameplay isn't exactly my first concern

 

[The Q-Meister]

It's an interesting idea to have stability do something beneficial to the civ if it's strong however the only issue I might have with that is, especially so far as AI-controlled civs are concerned, the civs with strong stability are generally European (along with the US) and the weak stability civs are generally non-European so therefore it would be benefiting civs that are already very strong to begin with and have plenty of advantages built in and that this would just be enhancing them while making the game even harder for all the others.

I don't think anyone would argue that the Euro civs need any more advantages , so that might be the only concern I would have with that concept.

 

[civ_king]

how about bonuses to civs that are less stable and minor penalties to civs that more stable, to balance it out...

 

[AnotherPacifist]

It's a spiral effect if you start giving happy/angry faces to stability, because happy faces beget more stability and vice versa. I would suggest more "We Love the Monarch!" days rather (an occasional boost to your economy is with no maintenance for one city is always welcome without any permanent side effects).

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

It's a spiral effect if you start giving happy/angry faces to stability, because happy faces beget more stability and vice versa. I would suggest more "We Love the Monarch!" days rather (an occasional boost to your economy is with no maintenance for one city is always welcome without any permanent side effects).

This is a much more practical idea that I'd support.

 

[ambassoon]

I like rjaco31's idea, and I think Pacifist has expanded on it appropriately. Good job guys, I definitely support!

 

[AnotherPacifist]

On the other hand, bad stability should entail some consequences like a vote of no confidence and DOUBLE the maintenance in that city.

 

[rjaco31]

Well, someone has any idea on how to do it? I just have no idea on how to add such a "general" feature. I will look through the UP files in order to find some ideas.

 

[onedreamer]

While I like and support the idea, I think that good or bad stability bonus should be VERY limited. The reason is simple: normally, you have good stability when you're doing good, and bad stability when you're doing bad (I disagree about being european or not). Adding further good to good and further bad to bad could make things more unbalanced. So perhaps instead of bonuses, stability could trigger events, that can be more likely good in case of good stability, and vice versa, but that can still be bad in case of good stability and vice versa, with much lower percentages.