Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

tax_stab and army recruiting limits.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
ErrantOne

ErrantOne

Captain
May 8, 2001
425
0
Visit site
In experimenting with the following tax_stab.csv settings I really noticed an unexpected side effect. At very low stability the countries ability to recruit new armies was quite limited. These are the setting used when Playing SWE in the IGC 1492.

Stability;Modifier(%)
3;25
2;0
1;-15
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-85
-3;-95

You really don’t notice the difference until you are -2 or -3 stability. With SWE at -3 they could raise 1 regiment of troops in about 4 provinces. Once they hit -2 again (took about 12-18months), they could raise maybe 8-12regiments throughout the land (at one time), and by -1 money was again the limiting factor in raising troops. Even using these settings it was ridiculously easy to mil-annex DAN, LAT and have a successful war vs RUS by 1550 while building up a strong infrastructure.

These numbers are just experimental, but what is very nice about something along these lines is that there is a very high price to pay (internally to the country) for radical policy shifts of the government. Even with these settings it was pretty easy to work your stability back to +3(SWE starts at -2 and went to -3 when they DoWed DAN and took some provinces in 1492-1495) and then stay in the +1 to +3 range with no problems. As a human player it really makes you think twice (or three times) before just haphazardly doing things and taking huge stability hits. Even the change to protestant was not a problem, but it did cause me to really evaluate if SWE was in a good position at the time before switching. And it does leave a 'window of vulnerability' for that country when they switch. Money wise you notice a somewhat significant different between even +1 and +3, while if you are in the negative stability range you may as well plan on not getting much tax income at all.

Just wanted to post this because it highlights a good way to limit recruitment possibilities because the number of troops you can raise in a province seems to be a function of manpower and production capability within the province.

I hope at least a few others will try something like this and share their results. It seems worth exploring. My next experiments will probably make the 0 and -1 more radically negative to see the effects primarily with recruiting of new armies during the normal course of warring on the neighbors.


ErrantOne
 
Originally posted by ErrantOne
In experimenting with the following tax_stab.csv settings I really noticed an unexpected side effect. At very low stability the countries ability to recruit new armies was quite limited. These are the setting used when Playing SWE in the IGC 1492.

Stability;Modifier(%)
3;25
2;0
1;-15
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-85
-3;-95
Click to expand...

With these settings, you are someone/something or you are not...:rolleyes:

Don't go in the dark side of tax_stab my son. Unstability never pays off :D
 
It looks harsher then it feels (at least as SWE). All this really does is make you play smarter and generally stick to your historical neighbors for making war. You can still randomly attack anyone, but you pay a small/moderate price for that. Even with -3stab hit for a non-CB-same religion war, the impact is a bit of cash only. Currently, you have you break a peace treaty the actual effect with IGC 'chaos hurts' is minimal. The +25 bonus for stab +3 is a good way to encourage good government. :)

The exact numbers are debatable. The effect of the extreme low numbers (-80 or lower) are quite interesting for the ability to limit raising troops, which would naturally be hard to do for governments near collapse ( -2 or -3stab).

ErrantOne
 
Is that a bad thing? :D
 
Have playtested this setting with SWE and a couple random minors:

Stability;Modifier(%)
3;25
2;5
1;0
0;-20
-1;-55
-2;-90
-3;-100

What I noticed most is any non-CB DoWs are just plain costly economically. Religion changes are not too bad as long as you plan head because you will not have much cash for a few years. So build your armies up before hand if you expect rebellions.


And it seems to me ENG had a few problems historically when these changes were sweeping the land (Henry VIII, Mary & Elizebeth I) and it was a time of religious struggles that were not settled in just a couple years (like most stability changes in EU).

These settings really hit home if you do silly DoWs/break peace agreements, etc... For a human they can slow down world domination quite a bit. If you really want to slow down world domination adjust '1' and '0' more negative. It makes DoWs something more then a casual affair with very little impact on the country.

Also if you really want to get it over with at once, just go protestant and reform at the same time :)

ErrantOne
 
Last edited:
Was talking about the AI though, who doesn't do that ;)

Yes, there was trouble but England seems the most under effect and it already did so shyte :D Luckily there are now events for Russia and france and so but England still is hurt the most. A human player knows much better to handle such stuff.

Bar changing religion, I never go below 0 anyway and that's quite ok to handle.

These penalties for war (also BB and so) make for a situation where wars HAVE to be won to be any good.A human can pull that off but the AI is a bit challenged in that area :D These settings should make playing on a high agressivness level even easier ;)

Not that that has anything to do with ur settings, it's just the AI :D
 
Agreed taht if you play on the 'furious' setting this would probably make things easier. From hands off games on normal it seems like it there is little impact on the AI, as the AI usually keeps stability in the +1 to +3 range. There are some countries that start eith low stab (SWE -2 is the only one I know off the top of my head.)


These setting are still nice too, as you can really feel the impact in the 0 to +3 range.

Stability;Modifier(%)
3;25
2;0
1;-15
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-90
-3;-100

The main reason for playing under these settings to make it harder for the human to DoW anything and everything. The 'very low' tax setting in the IGC has a -70@ -3 up to -10@+3. This just gives a more radical boost on the high end and radical decline on the low end. What is nice about -3 is that you cant recruit new armies at all until you stabilize your government.

ErrantOne
 
I'm wondering how many decade would take with this settings to raise stability from -3 to -2 as Poland-Lithuania?
Half a century?
 
Originally posted by ErrantOne
Agreed taht if you play on the 'furious' setting this would probably make things easier. From hands off games on normal it seems like it there is little impact on the AI, as the AI usually keeps stability in the +1 to +3 range. There are some countries that start eith low stab (SWE -2 is the only one I know off the top of my head.)


These setting are still nice too, as you can really feel the impact in the 0 to +3 range.

Stability;Modifier(%)
3;25
2;0
1;-15
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-90
-3;-100

The main reason for playing under these settings to make it harder for the human to DoW anything and everything. The 'very low' tax setting in the IGC has a -70@ -3 up to -10@+3. This just gives a more radical boost on the high end and radical decline on the low end. What is nice about -3 is that you cant recruit new armies at all until you stabilize your government.

ErrantOne
Click to expand...

BEing a Counter Reformed Catholic never looked this good :D
 
I'm wondering how many decade would take with this settings to raise stability from -3 to -2 as Poland-Lithuania?
Half a century?
Click to expand...
Test it and let us know. :D

Seriously. do they start with very low stab? If the player drove them down to -2/-3 range, oh well, they did it buy choice.


ErrantOne
 
The original intention of RealEU to change the tax_stab was twofold, make stability matter and decrease the available money.

I like the effects of -100% at -3 stab but I believe you are still a bit too easy at high stability countries.
IMO this would be a better tweak

3;0
2;-10
1;-20
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-80
-3;-100

This might seem a bit severe at first glance, but remember, if you really need money fast you can always reroute money from research =).
 
Originally posted by ErrantOne

Test it and let us know. :D

Seriously. do they start with very low stab? If the player drove them down to -2/-3 range, oh well, they did it buy choice.


ErrantOne
Click to expand...
they start at +2
I sometimes get -3, but i'm human, not AI so i can handle it :)
but i saw PL at -3 to -1 stability for decades at "chaos hurts" settings, because they dowed someone without CB or even after peace treaty, or bancrupted
stability is the most important thing for pl
But i have an idea
The internal weakness of PL commonwealth is barely represented in EU,
but this stability issue means- when PL drops it's stability, state is in anarchy, unable to defend, finance it's armies, or develop
much as in history
indeed PL ai was almost doomed if it reached very low stability
so i have an idea
maybe add an event dropping stability in 1648, where there was huge civil war in commonwealth?
along with maybe two-three peasant unrest?
1648 marks the beginning of decline of Poland-Lithuania, compared to what it achieves ingame Poland is managed almost as good as England bad :) at least compared to what happenned in history
anyway, i think i should have posted it in IGC thread :)
that's what i wanted to say :)
 
not so much as i thoug, about 8-9 years first point, but i'm not exact, i've modified goods.csv
but monarch was contributing almost as much as budget :)
anyway, it can be used to reflect Poland main historical events, revolt in 1648 (event 47 plus 1-2 events 42 plus some events 44)
mabye some events 35 to ensure mobilising country for fight.
then some stability raising events decade later, when Poland began recovering ( event 40 is the only one, i think so maybe three of them, and another during Sobieski reign)
Also some events decreasing stability could reflect Poland general inability in XVIII century, but i'm not sure about it
 
Huszics
I like the effects of -100% at -3 stab but I believe you are still a bit too easy at high stability countries.
IMO this would be a better tweak

3;0
2;-10
1;-20
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-80
-3;-100

This might seem a bit severe at first glance, but remember, if you really need money fast you can always reroute money from research =).
Click to expand...

I am not that familiar with all the real_EU tweaks. Right now I am playing under IGC2.1 with Savant's tweaks for REALLY lowering trade income. I call the combination IGC+, for lack of a better term.

Under these settings the MAJOR income source for most countries is taxation, so any sigificant impact on taxes hurts in a big way.

Something that always bothers me is the realitively linear decline in revenues with most tax_stab settings. Prosperity or unrest are not linear IMO. So there should be a bonus for long term peace and large penalitys for the lower stability range, whatever the numbers chosen. Using the number range you gave as a basis, personal preference would be: (might try these setting too)

3;+10
2;+0
1;-10
0;-40
-1;-75
-2;-90
-3;-100

+3 to -3 is a small range to express discontent, IMO. Here is one possible conception of the system:

+3, this is the government at its best. the people are generally content/secure (or as much as they can ever be), so there is a (small)productivity boost.

+2, normal range of stability for good governments. people are not moved to take any actions against the government, generally pay their taxes, and can be conscripted at normal rates.

+1, there are some concerns about the governments with a limited number of people outright discontent. taxation begins to slightly suffer

0, people are unhappy and unwilling to fully contribute to the government but can still be pressed into service of the army.

-1, talk of 'change' is common, some advocates of revolt are speaking openly. Nobility is discontent. taxes really suffer as the government is lacking support of the peasants and some/many of the nobility. It is still possible to raise troops in loyal provinces.

-2, The government is losing control. people are preparing for a possible change in the near future. The Nobility is focused on surviving and thriving in the new government which is might emerge. Power politics at its best/worst. Very little taxes are coming in and it is quite hard to raise any fresh troops.

-3, revolt(s) are happening or likely anywhere in the lands. The peasants are worried about survival. The nobility are focused on being on the winning side. Great uncertainty throughout the land. The government has lost all control. Laws can only be enforced by whatever is left of the kings army. No taxes are coming in. No new troops can be raised.


This is just one way of looking at it. Also this is just one aspect of the financial system. The trade incomes were the HUGE problem in the original game settings. CoTs with 2000+ values being monopolized by a very few countries. Under IGC+ the biggest I have seen was in the 600-800 range towards the very end of the game (last 50years). Normally see them at 200-400 during mid-game for larger CoTs.

In the end, we should all just play the settings that are fun for us. I like the forum becuase everyone offers their own points of view
which is a great source of ideas.


ErrantOne
 
not so much as i thoug, about 8-9 years first point
Click to expand...

Thanks Maur13 for testing POL. 5-10years per point seems reasonable to me for someone like POL. SWE can do it quicker 2-3years a point. And the minors I messed with (SIC-Sicily-2provinces, IRA-Uzbeks, 5-8provinces) were faster still. The harsh thing for minors is 2-4years with almost zero cash hurts research quite a bit. And they are unlikely to get to infra. lvl 5 for a very long time so raising the inflation level during the first 100-150years kills any end-game you might have had. Alot depends on their tech group too.

Thanks again for trying that :)

:cool:

ErrantOne
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back