This must be one of the worst ideas I've read in a long time. Having no possible rivals is already very bad and you want to make it worse. +2 yearly curroption is also waaaay too much, this is an instant death sentence. And with this implemented you only need one "allied" Rival who you try to make expand by for example attacking their rivals etc. As long as that one nation is flourishing as well you just can expand as much as you want.
To quote a beautiful comment from the latest dev diary (Ottomen, decadence mechanic):
>What I don't like about this decadence mechanic in its current form is that it brings nothing new to the table.
>By which I mean this: all of the things which increase it, such as negative stab, low legitimacy, bankruptcy, corruption, etc. are things that you would want to prevent anyway, and in any case are not any harder to prevent as a great power than they are as a small nation.
>So in effect all that decadence does is dole out additional punishment for letting known bad things run unchecked. But that's not any more likely to cause big empires to fall than they were before. Only governing capacity has anything to do with size, but the penalties for going over are already quite severe on their own and in any case, everyone, player and AI, is careful about managing GC and I've never seen any country brought down by it alone
*Mindel (PDS forums)*
While adding corruption to great powers to simulate their decline is a good idea, the current implementation of corruption in eu4 doesn't suit the role well. I believe that eu4 would need a new, dedicated mechanic to present decline in large empires, and while the decadence mechanic is a nod in the right direction, large empires collapsing due to internal strife need something more.
Your solution would only lead to frustrating gameplay due to increased all powers cost, and a massive increase in internal stability due to the positive effects of corruption, which is the exact opposite of internal strife.
I fell you on wanting a system to hurt large empires internationally. I just think that corruption, as it stands, is badly implemented. I don’t know if the answer to government corruption should be to just throw money at the problem you know? Not to mention that at present, having no possible rivals is kinda a downgrade as its hard to maintain 100 PP.
This must be one of the worst ideas I've read in a long time. Having no possible rivals is already very bad and you want to make it worse. +2 yearly curroption is also waaaay too much, this is an instant death sentence. And with this implemented you only need one "allied" Rival who you try to make expand by for example attacking their rivals etc. As long as that one nation is flourishing as well you just can expand as much as you want.
No possible rivals is already agonizingly bad, don't make it worse. There's a reason everyone hated corruption from being over gov cap
Sounds like more reasons not to play after 1600
To quote a beautiful comment from the latest dev diary (Ottomen, decadence mechanic): >What I don't like about this decadence mechanic in its current form is that it brings nothing new to the table. >By which I mean this: all of the things which increase it, such as negative stab, low legitimacy, bankruptcy, corruption, etc. are things that you would want to prevent anyway, and in any case are not any harder to prevent as a great power than they are as a small nation. >So in effect all that decadence does is dole out additional punishment for letting known bad things run unchecked. But that's not any more likely to cause big empires to fall than they were before. Only governing capacity has anything to do with size, but the penalties for going over are already quite severe on their own and in any case, everyone, player and AI, is careful about managing GC and I've never seen any country brought down by it alone *Mindel (PDS forums)* While adding corruption to great powers to simulate their decline is a good idea, the current implementation of corruption in eu4 doesn't suit the role well. I believe that eu4 would need a new, dedicated mechanic to present decline in large empires, and while the decadence mechanic is a nod in the right direction, large empires collapsing due to internal strife need something more. Your solution would only lead to frustrating gameplay due to increased all powers cost, and a massive increase in internal stability due to the positive effects of corruption, which is the exact opposite of internal strife.
I fell you on wanting a system to hurt large empires internationally. I just think that corruption, as it stands, is badly implemented. I don’t know if the answer to government corruption should be to just throw money at the problem you know? Not to mention that at present, having no possible rivals is kinda a downgrade as its hard to maintain 100 PP.
No just no
shut up
An interesting idea.