We have to define what "happy" means in EU2 terms...
I sense a doubleplusungood meaning of "happy" here
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I sense a doubleplusungood meaning of "happy" here
I agree with you that is hard to find countries which experienced periods of complete stability, but you must question yourself if some of the problems that would sometimes arise would reflect a decrease (thinking in game terms and mechanics) of stability. Also there is the much more important question than the historical one, that is the playability of the game. This situation could easily upset many players who would feel desperate for having stability problems almost permanently, not allowing them to focus on other aspects of the game with more attention.
Just a side note, Portugal experienced what we could say that's +3 stability in the early 15th century which allowed the expansion overseas to Ceuta in 1415. Had not been that, that expansion would not have happened.
Stability encompasses so many different things that any nation WILL experience several decreases of stability in a game of EU2. Remember that stability even influences the chance of merchants that you send, not only things like revoltrisk or more taxes.
About the playability I see no problems whatsoever - Stability +3 might be the optimum possible but it certainly is not the only place on the stability ladder where a game is fun or possible.
Only a perfectionist would have to have +3 stab to have fun with his game - and having +3 stab as a smaller nation (e.g. Switzerland with only 2 provinces of the right culture, the right religion early in the game and both coreprovinces) is very easy and fast to achieve as stabcosts are cheap.
As far as I know Stability does not influence the chance to explore seazones - so ingame your example of Portugal has nothing to do with stab, rather with Explorers and having ships.
Edit: 1415 is before the timespan of normal EU2 which starts 1419.
But if you want to make it harder to achieve a +3 stab situation, that means you'll have to get more stab hits than usual, is that correct? Well, unless the formula that MattyG exemplified is used, this means that not only a +3 stabilty will be hard to achieve, but also any "stable stability".
Come on... 4 years? lol Anyway, the earlier we go, the worse it gets to find stable kingdoms.
We have to define what "happy" means in EU2 terms...
Happy means the release of the new map and all the changes to the code.
Certainly, which is why his ideas are good. +3 needs to be hard to acheive, but it also shouldn't be something that then disappears because some modder thought that every event needs a stab hit, that every time one province of a 100 province country isn't happy that suddently the entire empire is unhappy.
Ever played CK/DV? A kingdom can spend a century on -2 stability desote being at peace and well-led and its an enfuriating joke. No sooner have you finally had the rare event that raises your stability a single point than another of the endless -1 stab events happens to knock you back down again. The event effects are not made with the system in mind and that creates frustration and inaccuracy.
So, what I am saying is that if you build-in making it difficult to rise above 0 stability (agree 100%) then you need to have event-design and the tools for modders to make sure that stab hits when at high level are not cavalier. Or you will drive players CRAZY. It goes against the principle of good game design: don't challenge players and then swiftly and casually take away their rewards.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the normal stability for a country should be based on its size. What do I mean by 'normal'? Outside of planned periods of civil war/poor monarchs, the activities and decisions of a non-aggressive player should see the stability tend toward:
-1 for a country 40 provinces or bigger
0 for a country 6 to 39 provinces
+1 for a country up to 5 provinces
Rough estimates only.
So, for a country the size of Russia in 1650, it should be cheap to move from -3 to -2 and -2 to -1, harder to get to 0 and very hard to get to +1 or higher.
BUT, if the player does everything 'right': no slider changes, no aggro wars, not breaking alliances etc, then it should be rewarded by acheiving and keeping a higher level of stability.
Whereas, for Lorraine in 1419, it ought to always race toward +1 stability and +2 and +3 should be easy enough to get to and maintain unless it's behaving badly.
Last edited:
Arguably... yes !!!Happy means the release of the new map and all the changes to the code.
For stability, the answer could be found for modders in fully externalized rules/modifiers.
Though I agree size should have an influence in the cost of maintaining the stability of a nation, it should not be the decisive factor. Europe is full of examples of small nations/city states whose stability was rock bottom for long periods of time, in spite of the ability of their rulers, and of Empires which maintained a high level of stability for a long period of time (otherwise they would not have got larger). Stability should also factor in the political regime of a said country, level of prosperity of its citizens, prestige of the crown/state, power of the religion, existence of a common identity, etc. things which are going to be difficult to mod and, I believe, will make the game more complicated than it should be.
Laur
Laur
Most of that is already included in standad EU2. Stability costs become higher if a province has not the state religion and even smaller countries will have problems when they own only provinces that have the wrong culture.
i would like to see the availability of adding pirates/privateers to the command method so that they can be done via events.
I need precision for this:
pirates => not directly tied to country firing the event
privateers => possible badboy effect for the country firing the event
Will only apply to seazones (of course).
Agreed?
pirates => not directly tied to country firing the event
privateers => possible badboy effect for the country firing the event
Will only apply to seazones (of course).
Agreed?
Yes, privateers were sponsored by the Crown (Raleigh, for example), whilst pirates were sea-going bandits who pledged allegiance to no one but themselves and their 'code'.
If privateers are not implemented as historical leaders.
but if these commands or pirates and privateers can be implemented, then this will fix events like the Drake ones
IIRC there is a max of 6 states per alliance, can this be amended or lowered to 4 ?
True, Drake was the first to come in my mind too.
IIRC, already 4 for players. Better answer for this is externalized values/modifiers. Huge task...
An alliance can have 5 members. I think the alliance system should be reworked somewhat, but that would probably be a huge task as you say.
By the way, when speaking of Pirates - wasn't Piracy a big source of income for nations (especially muslims) around the Mediterranean? Probably hard to implement it though...
And another thing: Was it common for, lets say Christian merchants to trade in Istanbul? Perhaps make some restrictions on where merchants can be sent...
Yes, four allied members max + the player.
Yes, and all pirates are currently for the PIR special tag. No way to know which country really "uses" them.
It could be implemented as a penalty when trading in a CoT owned by a country with a not compatible religion. Players could understand very quickly but AI will have to learn it the "hardcoded" way in order to save precious resources...
- Status