The real stability maps

[Lone Wolf]

I don't even get the reason for that discussion. Even with France being red for Germany, Germany doesn't automatically becomes unstable when conquering France.

I'm more intrested in colonial dispreparensies, like Dutch/Danish Indian posts warranting some yellow spots for them in India, but French Indian posts not warranting any for France.

 

[ThurinEthir]

I don't even get the reason for that discussion. Even with France being red for Germany, Germany doesn't automatically becomes unstable when conquering France.

I usually conquer France first, and holding that area for over a 1000 years can cause some stability problems.
But whatever. I don't even get the point of this. The Frankish empire has nothing to do with stability.

Speaking of colonization, why does Rome have some light green spots in North America again? As far as I know, there aren't huge Italian populations there. (Nova Scotia and Uruguay) Rhye, are you trying to make Italy more powerful than it should be?
And shouldn't America have yellow in the Philippines? I'm not too sure on this one, but I could have sworn it was an American territory before WWI.

 

[Lone Wolf]

but I could have sworn it was an American territory before WWI.

Exactly, it was an American colony. The USA granted independence to it in 1946.

 

[blizzrd]

And shouldn't America have yellow in the Philippines? I'm not too sure on this one, but I could have sworn it was an American territory before WWI.

The Philipines were a Spanish colony (named after Philip II of Spain) for 300 years before America was ceded the Philipines by Spain after it lost the Spanish-American War of 1898-9. The Philipines were an American colony for approximately 30 years until 1935 when they were granted independence. Japan invaded during WWII and American troops liberated the Philipines which again became independent in 1946.

30 years of American rule shouldn't in my opinion give the American's much of a historical basis for the Philipines. Should be Spanish.

 

[ThurinEthir]

You do realize it could be yellow for multiple civs...
As for the period of time, here we face the problem of double standards again. Quite a few spots that are already marked (for various civs) really weren't occupied for that long. (And if we go by turns, I would say 30 is enough)

 

[blizzrd]

Hawaii isn't yellow for America. So the Philipines definitely shouldn't be yellow for America.

 

[blizzrd]

Hi, let me try to make it clear:

- stability is a sum of many factors, including expansion
- expansion rating is a sum of some factors, including some penalties based on historical bondaries and other civs' core area.
- historical boundaries are described in settlers maps
- settlers maps don't just strictly follow historically occupied areas, but are adapted for gameplay reasons (i.e. i forbid Germany to settle in the Dutch area)
- the maps you see are the result of an elaboration of settlers maps + core areas. No sense in taking them literally i.e. suggesting that plot "x,y should be yellow". Would make more sense if there existed dedicated stability maps, but for practical reasons, they are based on the settlers ones.

I already understood that the stability maps are a product of several other sources of data. But I think something definitely needs to be tweaked within this data to address each of the concerns that I posted here.

 

[NerfCothons]

Hey, if you go back far enough we're all brothers of the same African mother. Gimme a hug.

 

[Antilogic]

India's core area is yellow for Britain.

Indeed, also America's core area is favoured by many civs (England, France, Dutch) on the settler maps.

There is a difference between stability maps and settler maps, which I think may be the confusion here.

But it's not green. That's my point.

 

[Lone Wolf]

But it's not green. That's my point.

And Wolfigor was saying that England, France and etc. should be yellow for Romans, not green.

 

[Antilogic]

Figures I didn't follow that detail closely enough. All right, I can see it being yellow and all right.

 

[civ_king]

WTH is with US having green near greece, Rome in Canada, and viking having yellow in India?

 

[Lone Wolf]

and viking having yellow in India?

There were times when Dennmark had some trading posts in India. Why these count, but the French ones do not, I don't know.

 

[ThurinEthir]

WTH is with US having green near greece

My guess is either Kosovo or Bosnia/Serbia/something in that area. I don't know much about either of those conflicts, but I wouldn't think American intervention justifies a light green spot though.

 

[civ_king]

Facepalm, I think it might be Kosovo however, what's up with Rome having green in Canada, is that a large Italian Area?

 

[dragodon64]

No.
The differences today between French and German people was due pricipally to the split of Charlemagnes empire some 1200 years ago. To compare this situation with the ethnically diverse situation in the Middle East however is profoundly absurd.

Are you implying that the cultural evolution of France and the region that is today Germany is a political division of an empire? Thats pretty absurd; it would be really hard to simulate what France and Germany would be like today without that partioning, but culture and language (which determines what people think of as their nation did not diverge in that area because of a schism (for one thing, it wasn't too unified in the first place).

 

[blizzrd]

Are you implying that the cultural evolution of France and the region that is today Germany is a political division of an empire? Thats pretty absurd; it would be really hard to simulate what France and Germany would be like today without that partioning, but culture and language (which determines what people think of as their nation did not diverge in that area because of a schism (for one thing, it wasn't too unified in the first place).

Nationalism as a concept wasn't around for many hundreds of years after the split of the Frankish empire.

I disagree with your view that "culture and language did not diverge in that area because of a schism".

My view isn't that there is only one reason for the differences today between France and Germany, but that a significant reason for the differences between France and Germany can be attributed to the splitting of Charlemagne's empire amongst his sons at the time of his death. And I don't think that this is an "absurd" concept either.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I think it's also worth noting that, prior to the Frankish kingdoms, the geography of the region encouraged splits between the inhabitants, with the Gauls/Romans on one side and the Alemmani on the other.

 

[wolfigor]

I think it's also worth noting that, prior to the Frankish kingdoms, the geography of the region encouraged splits between the inhabitants, with the Gauls/Romans on one side and the Alemmani on the other.

it was not only the geography, but also the fact that Gallia was under the Roman empire while the Alemanni (germans) where not: the political division was a tronger barrier to communication than the geographical border.

 

[Arkaeyn]

But that's part of the reason. Gaul was possible to be conquered and governed as a geographical-political unit, where Germany was not.