Use of Stability Modifiers in Events in Aberration
This discussion – like so many that Incompetent and I are kick starting – is in actuality much broader than Aberration and has potential application beyond our little mod. However, we want to at least establish within Aberration a sense of proportion and consistency from one file to the next.
The Stability concept in EU2 is fantastic, but ultimately flawed. Stability effects the entire country, and in significant ways. Would that there was a command that allowed us to reduce or increase stability to a set point, rather than simply up or down, a nice conditional line like:
command = { type = stability value = { if = > 0 then = value = -1 if < 0 then value = 0 } }
Would that we could have commands that increase or decrease Stability by ducats values, as we can the techs, but we can’t.
Would that Stability tended inexorably toward 1, rather than 3, losing value slowly whenever it was greater than 1, but it does not.
But we cannot do any of things and instead Stability is manipulated by hefty whole points regardless of the current state of the nation. A political assassination in single-state Serbia apparently affects everyone just as much as an assassination in the sprawling giant of a successful Caliphate, where regional concerns ought to be just that, regional.
Personally, I find that hits to Stability are too frequent, and with the right combination of player decisions, scripted events and random events Stability can be up and down like the Assyrian Empire. Which therefore demands of us that we be much more circumspect in how we throw such points around. Let’s consider some of the classes of events that are common to EU2 and whether or not they deserve to include stability modifiers, or the intensity of those modifiers. I have ranked them in increasing order of severity, as I conceive of it.
Good event scripting doesn’t end with the sound concept and some well-written flavour text. It requires carefully crafted commands where each impact must be justified in the context of the country, the period and the events that surround it. In most events, I find that the Stability modifiers have been given the least thought. I currently feel that a lot of event writers include Stability hits and bonuses almost as a reflex action. Something has happened, so the entire country must be either upset by it or greatly pleased by it. I’ve done it myself. I have written the event and arrived at the commands and though, well, what do I do now? How does this really affect the country? And none of the other commands seemed to fit, so I began with “stability value = -1” and hoped that something else might grow. Pretty darned lame to use Stability hits as some kind of default impact of human action.
1. Do nothing responses.
There is a class of generally minor events where option_b is typically to maintain the status quo. Often this is part of a ‘move for social change’ type event, or an event that reacts to an event for a foreign power, like “Sabre rattling in neighbouring Krebleckistan!” For some inexplicable reason, many event writers believe that the player who opts for calm and the status quo should take a stability hit. Doing nothing should not hit stability. Perhaps it will increase revoltrisk, reduce Infra or Trade, cost ducts etc, but I firmly believe that do-nothing responses do not effect the stability of a country (up or down). People like do-nothing governments, they find them relaxing. They like the consistency and the predictability, even if the state of the nation is less than ideal.
2. War or Peace?
For me, one of the biggest mis-uses of Stability hits is when the choice for peace gives even the merest –1 Stability. People like peace. Leaders may like war, but the populace likes peace, because it is more likely to lead to economic prosperity for the lower and middle ‘classes’. War means taxes, battles, invasion, disruption, loss of life, forced conscription and the like. For merchants it is event worse, with trade routes becoming unsafe, ships being sunk, embargoes and stress, stress, stress. In general, war should mean drop in Stability, not peace. But all to often I see events where if option_b is chosen to avoid conflict, the player takes a Stability hit. Failing your allies or a vassal is already going to punish you greatly in Stability (too greatly, I believe, but that issue is beyond our control) and there need be no additional hits to Stability for keeping your people out of conflict.
Likewise, going to war should rarely provide bonuses to Stability, for the obverse of everything stated above. There are always exceptions, such as a war against an old foe where the leadership has correctly framed the conflict, or against countries of different race and religion, such as a papal-decreed Crusade. But these should be the exceptions. (Note that the game already has a built-in +1 to Stability when an ai-nation DoWs you.)
3. Social change/unrest.
By this I mean changes to bureaucratic administration of the realm or changes to the authority and freedoms of the lowers social groups. Typically, these kinds of events should carry some form of reduction in Stability, tailored to the magnitude of the change being undertaken. I feel that these events typically have balanced Stability modifiers. But not always. The following Aberration is a neat and interesting one, but lets consider the use of Stability modifiers.
name = "Complaints about Bailiff"
desc = "A Bailiff in one of our provinces have earned a reputation as a greedy and cruel person. The local populace has gathered a petition to have him removed."
action_a = {
name = "Execute the Bailiff!"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = provincetax which = -1 value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "Ignore Complaints"
command = { type = revolt which = -3 }
}
action_c = {
name = "Impose Extra Taxes"
command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
command = { type = revolt which = -3 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
So, this event is about a provincial issue. In a one-province country it effects everyone, and modifiers to stability should actually be even tougher. However, if there were problems with the bailiff in Provence for a French dominated and colonial Brittany, would it really effect everyone in the empire? Would the removal of a local official actually matter to the dominant social and economic classes in Morbihan? Not enough, I suspect, to warrant a hit to 7-point-range national stability. (This is one Aberration event that I think could use some size-scaling, where one of the advantages of being large should be that regional concerns effect less the overall stability of the state.)
4. Economic change.
Everyone is concerned with the economy. We are all part of the economy. Even the 15th Century peasant was part of the economy. Just because few people may have understood the economy or been able to conceive of its breadth and interconnectedness, does not change the fact that it effects/effected everyone. A trade effects the sharecropping peasant because the lord – who also was involved in trading wool – now demands more from the peasants because the wool trade income has dried up. Or because the king has demanded more in taxes. Or because some other influential figure has tried to pass their recent downturn in fortunes onto those below them. Everyone feels the effects of economic change, and this goes for positive changes in the economy. Every economic change event should include movement in Stability. Negative changes really ought to include significant reductions in Stability.
5. Challenges to internal power.
This includes everything from Political Instability to Petition for Redress to Cities Demand Old Rights. Internal power struggles between elites should definitely attract Stability hits.
6. Natural disasters.
Always a Stability hit, and typically severe. Even when the disaster is localized or its effects may not be long term, people in superstitious cultures read much into natural disasters. I would question a –1 Stability hit for a natural disaster and why it isn’t –2 or higher.
7. Ethnic or religious conflict.
No doubt about it, this is the big one. Religious and ethnic tension effects everyone from the poorest peasant to the wealthiest lord and everyone has an emotional and morale reaction. Stability should be strongly effected by events relating to these areas of conflict.
If we assume for one moment that Stability modifiers are to be removed or reduced for some events, how can an event also reflect as impacting the nation? I have a number of suggestions to aid in the crafting of richer and less stability-dependent eventing.
A. Modifications to the Monarch Abilities.
For me, the ability to modify the Monarchs ratings is extraordinarily underutilized in the game. I can think of only a few general events (“Temporary Insanity of the Monarch” “Diplomatic Insult” and “Excellent Minister”) and a handful of nation-specific events that use those commands. Consider what these basic stats must represent. Sure, natural ability. But more than that, they must correspond with the attention to which a monarch historically gave that area of responsibility. In vanilla EU2, they also represent how history has come to appreciate that person. The stats also reveal the quality of the leader’s advisors, not including the occasional talented individual which further raised their level of ability (some of the nation-specific Excellent Minister type events, such as Richelieu). Assuming that the stats of a monarch represent more than their raw ability, they can be appropriately modified by circumstance.
Chosing to not go to war should generally not effect national stability. However, it would certainly effect the monarchs Diplomatic and Military scores. Being seen as a weak pacifist would reduce the monarchs standing among her/his peers (DIP) and refusing to go to war reveal a possible lack of faith in the military and effect their morale, or simply indicate that the monarch was less interested in these affairs. Let me illustrate how the monarch stats could be incorporated into an event in place of stability.
name = “The Snoodle Crisis”
desc = “The invasion of the Booger Peninsula has meant a slowing the passage of Snoodles for trade to the west. The Union of Grubby Merchants has approached us to join in their alliance and ouster the Angry Munchkins from the Peninsula. While we don’t trade much in Snoodles, we would like to have a positive relationship with the Union and care little for the Munchkins. What should we do?”
action_a = {
name = “Drop everything and join with the Union”
command = { type = DIP which = 1 value = 60 }
command = { type = MIL which = 1 value = 60 }
command = { type = ADM which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = alliance which = UGM }
command = { type = war which = AMU }
}
action_b = {
name = “This is an affair for the Grubby Merchants”
command = { type = DIP which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = MIL which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = ADM which = 2 value = 60 }
}
There will likely still be Stability hits for leaving an existing alliance and DoW the Angry Munchkins, so we really don’t need another hit here. Likewise, by choosing peace, the Diplomatic and Military rating for the king (and, therefore, the nation) have gone down, but the emphasis the monarch has clearly placed on domestic affairs is rewarded with an increase there.
B. Keep Regional things Regional
Especially in large nations where Stability is expensive, Stability hits due to regional activities not only seem unjustified, they become downright scary. Ever spent decades hovering between –1 and –3 because of some regional dispute? Tiresome indeed. Consider the following event where Stability modifiers would have been a feature of a typical event.
name = “The Barakan Revolts”
desc = “The Barakan region of our massive sprawling empire, mother Gusha, has always been difficult to rule. Now they are demanding ice cream. Ice cream! Well really, I do scream, because this is preposterous. But they seem really pissed, and the neighbouring provinces are too. How shall we deal with this?”
action_a = {
name = “Suppress the revolt and ban ice cream forever!”
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 345 value = 2 } #and script a subsequent event to reduce this in 20 years, say
command = { type = revolt which = 345 }
command = { type = revolt which = 346 }
command = { type = revolt which = 347 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 345 value = courthouse } # a greater law and order presence
}
action_b = {
name = “Impose strict controls in Barakan and keep a lid on things”
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 345 value = 1 }
command = { type = revolt which = 345 }
}
action_c = {
name = “Negotiate a limited supply of ice cream in exchange for local reforms”
command = { type = cash value = -75 }
command = { type = provincetax which = 345 value = 1 }
command = { type = infra value = 100 }
}
These are just a couple of ideas. I look forward to active discussion on the funky little topic.
MattyG
This discussion – like so many that Incompetent and I are kick starting – is in actuality much broader than Aberration and has potential application beyond our little mod. However, we want to at least establish within Aberration a sense of proportion and consistency from one file to the next.
The Stability concept in EU2 is fantastic, but ultimately flawed. Stability effects the entire country, and in significant ways. Would that there was a command that allowed us to reduce or increase stability to a set point, rather than simply up or down, a nice conditional line like:
command = { type = stability value = { if = > 0 then = value = -1 if < 0 then value = 0 } }
Would that we could have commands that increase or decrease Stability by ducats values, as we can the techs, but we can’t.
Would that Stability tended inexorably toward 1, rather than 3, losing value slowly whenever it was greater than 1, but it does not.
But we cannot do any of things and instead Stability is manipulated by hefty whole points regardless of the current state of the nation. A political assassination in single-state Serbia apparently affects everyone just as much as an assassination in the sprawling giant of a successful Caliphate, where regional concerns ought to be just that, regional.
Personally, I find that hits to Stability are too frequent, and with the right combination of player decisions, scripted events and random events Stability can be up and down like the Assyrian Empire. Which therefore demands of us that we be much more circumspect in how we throw such points around. Let’s consider some of the classes of events that are common to EU2 and whether or not they deserve to include stability modifiers, or the intensity of those modifiers. I have ranked them in increasing order of severity, as I conceive of it.
Good event scripting doesn’t end with the sound concept and some well-written flavour text. It requires carefully crafted commands where each impact must be justified in the context of the country, the period and the events that surround it. In most events, I find that the Stability modifiers have been given the least thought. I currently feel that a lot of event writers include Stability hits and bonuses almost as a reflex action. Something has happened, so the entire country must be either upset by it or greatly pleased by it. I’ve done it myself. I have written the event and arrived at the commands and though, well, what do I do now? How does this really affect the country? And none of the other commands seemed to fit, so I began with “stability value = -1” and hoped that something else might grow. Pretty darned lame to use Stability hits as some kind of default impact of human action.
1. Do nothing responses.
There is a class of generally minor events where option_b is typically to maintain the status quo. Often this is part of a ‘move for social change’ type event, or an event that reacts to an event for a foreign power, like “Sabre rattling in neighbouring Krebleckistan!” For some inexplicable reason, many event writers believe that the player who opts for calm and the status quo should take a stability hit. Doing nothing should not hit stability. Perhaps it will increase revoltrisk, reduce Infra or Trade, cost ducts etc, but I firmly believe that do-nothing responses do not effect the stability of a country (up or down). People like do-nothing governments, they find them relaxing. They like the consistency and the predictability, even if the state of the nation is less than ideal.
2. War or Peace?
For me, one of the biggest mis-uses of Stability hits is when the choice for peace gives even the merest –1 Stability. People like peace. Leaders may like war, but the populace likes peace, because it is more likely to lead to economic prosperity for the lower and middle ‘classes’. War means taxes, battles, invasion, disruption, loss of life, forced conscription and the like. For merchants it is event worse, with trade routes becoming unsafe, ships being sunk, embargoes and stress, stress, stress. In general, war should mean drop in Stability, not peace. But all to often I see events where if option_b is chosen to avoid conflict, the player takes a Stability hit. Failing your allies or a vassal is already going to punish you greatly in Stability (too greatly, I believe, but that issue is beyond our control) and there need be no additional hits to Stability for keeping your people out of conflict.
Likewise, going to war should rarely provide bonuses to Stability, for the obverse of everything stated above. There are always exceptions, such as a war against an old foe where the leadership has correctly framed the conflict, or against countries of different race and religion, such as a papal-decreed Crusade. But these should be the exceptions. (Note that the game already has a built-in +1 to Stability when an ai-nation DoWs you.)
3. Social change/unrest.
By this I mean changes to bureaucratic administration of the realm or changes to the authority and freedoms of the lowers social groups. Typically, these kinds of events should carry some form of reduction in Stability, tailored to the magnitude of the change being undertaken. I feel that these events typically have balanced Stability modifiers. But not always. The following Aberration is a neat and interesting one, but lets consider the use of Stability modifiers.
name = "Complaints about Bailiff"
desc = "A Bailiff in one of our provinces have earned a reputation as a greedy and cruel person. The local populace has gathered a petition to have him removed."
action_a = {
name = "Execute the Bailiff!"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = provincetax which = -1 value = -1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "Ignore Complaints"
command = { type = revolt which = -3 }
}
action_c = {
name = "Impose Extra Taxes"
command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
command = { type = revolt which = -3 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
So, this event is about a provincial issue. In a one-province country it effects everyone, and modifiers to stability should actually be even tougher. However, if there were problems with the bailiff in Provence for a French dominated and colonial Brittany, would it really effect everyone in the empire? Would the removal of a local official actually matter to the dominant social and economic classes in Morbihan? Not enough, I suspect, to warrant a hit to 7-point-range national stability. (This is one Aberration event that I think could use some size-scaling, where one of the advantages of being large should be that regional concerns effect less the overall stability of the state.)
4. Economic change.
Everyone is concerned with the economy. We are all part of the economy. Even the 15th Century peasant was part of the economy. Just because few people may have understood the economy or been able to conceive of its breadth and interconnectedness, does not change the fact that it effects/effected everyone. A trade effects the sharecropping peasant because the lord – who also was involved in trading wool – now demands more from the peasants because the wool trade income has dried up. Or because the king has demanded more in taxes. Or because some other influential figure has tried to pass their recent downturn in fortunes onto those below them. Everyone feels the effects of economic change, and this goes for positive changes in the economy. Every economic change event should include movement in Stability. Negative changes really ought to include significant reductions in Stability.
5. Challenges to internal power.
This includes everything from Political Instability to Petition for Redress to Cities Demand Old Rights. Internal power struggles between elites should definitely attract Stability hits.
6. Natural disasters.
Always a Stability hit, and typically severe. Even when the disaster is localized or its effects may not be long term, people in superstitious cultures read much into natural disasters. I would question a –1 Stability hit for a natural disaster and why it isn’t –2 or higher.
7. Ethnic or religious conflict.
No doubt about it, this is the big one. Religious and ethnic tension effects everyone from the poorest peasant to the wealthiest lord and everyone has an emotional and morale reaction. Stability should be strongly effected by events relating to these areas of conflict.
If we assume for one moment that Stability modifiers are to be removed or reduced for some events, how can an event also reflect as impacting the nation? I have a number of suggestions to aid in the crafting of richer and less stability-dependent eventing.
A. Modifications to the Monarch Abilities.
For me, the ability to modify the Monarchs ratings is extraordinarily underutilized in the game. I can think of only a few general events (“Temporary Insanity of the Monarch” “Diplomatic Insult” and “Excellent Minister”) and a handful of nation-specific events that use those commands. Consider what these basic stats must represent. Sure, natural ability. But more than that, they must correspond with the attention to which a monarch historically gave that area of responsibility. In vanilla EU2, they also represent how history has come to appreciate that person. The stats also reveal the quality of the leader’s advisors, not including the occasional talented individual which further raised their level of ability (some of the nation-specific Excellent Minister type events, such as Richelieu). Assuming that the stats of a monarch represent more than their raw ability, they can be appropriately modified by circumstance.
Chosing to not go to war should generally not effect national stability. However, it would certainly effect the monarchs Diplomatic and Military scores. Being seen as a weak pacifist would reduce the monarchs standing among her/his peers (DIP) and refusing to go to war reveal a possible lack of faith in the military and effect their morale, or simply indicate that the monarch was less interested in these affairs. Let me illustrate how the monarch stats could be incorporated into an event in place of stability.
name = “The Snoodle Crisis”
desc = “The invasion of the Booger Peninsula has meant a slowing the passage of Snoodles for trade to the west. The Union of Grubby Merchants has approached us to join in their alliance and ouster the Angry Munchkins from the Peninsula. While we don’t trade much in Snoodles, we would like to have a positive relationship with the Union and care little for the Munchkins. What should we do?”
action_a = {
name = “Drop everything and join with the Union”
command = { type = DIP which = 1 value = 60 }
command = { type = MIL which = 1 value = 60 }
command = { type = ADM which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = alliance which = UGM }
command = { type = war which = AMU }
}
action_b = {
name = “This is an affair for the Grubby Merchants”
command = { type = DIP which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = MIL which = -1 value = 60 }
command = { type = ADM which = 2 value = 60 }
}
There will likely still be Stability hits for leaving an existing alliance and DoW the Angry Munchkins, so we really don’t need another hit here. Likewise, by choosing peace, the Diplomatic and Military rating for the king (and, therefore, the nation) have gone down, but the emphasis the monarch has clearly placed on domestic affairs is rewarded with an increase there.
B. Keep Regional things Regional
Especially in large nations where Stability is expensive, Stability hits due to regional activities not only seem unjustified, they become downright scary. Ever spent decades hovering between –1 and –3 because of some regional dispute? Tiresome indeed. Consider the following event where Stability modifiers would have been a feature of a typical event.
name = “The Barakan Revolts”
desc = “The Barakan region of our massive sprawling empire, mother Gusha, has always been difficult to rule. Now they are demanding ice cream. Ice cream! Well really, I do scream, because this is preposterous. But they seem really pissed, and the neighbouring provinces are too. How shall we deal with this?”
action_a = {
name = “Suppress the revolt and ban ice cream forever!”
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 345 value = 2 } #and script a subsequent event to reduce this in 20 years, say
command = { type = revolt which = 345 }
command = { type = revolt which = 346 }
command = { type = revolt which = 347 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 345 value = courthouse } # a greater law and order presence
}
action_b = {
name = “Impose strict controls in Barakan and keep a lid on things”
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 345 value = 1 }
command = { type = revolt which = 345 }
}
action_c = {
name = “Negotiate a limited supply of ice cream in exchange for local reforms”
command = { type = cash value = -75 }
command = { type = provincetax which = 345 value = 1 }
command = { type = infra value = 100 }
}
These are just a couple of ideas. I look forward to active discussion on the funky little topic.
MattyG
Great work Mat. I feel that some of the tools available to us are currently much overused. Like Inflation in the Brittany event file, and Trade in the Hansa file. Stability, BB, and revolts, all should be considered carefully.
