Is the decadence mechanism need a bit of tweaking?

[Bivox]

The progress and decadence system is interesting but I think it need some tweaking because we lack mechanism to control it. It usually becomes out of control when I am glorious nation or in a golden age ( the decadence rate should decrease in that not increase !) . In my play as Rome I was carefully to devellop my regions build culture and expand carefully but still now I have 4000 culture and 6000 Decandence after entering golden age and rising. I usually the reform decision hits when I have an incapable administrator as a ruler . Decandence can be tedious and unnerving because it can ruin a playthrought.

So i think we need better mechanism to control decadence :

- government expansion : one of the reason Roman and Hellenic kingdoms were successful they had a complicated government not just a ruler . So you can put advisors , governors and ministers to get bonuses and pass laws including ones that reduce decadence. The reform being dependent on rng is really annoying maybe make sacrifices in income , manpower and infrasturce and get decadence reduction . The more you are willing to sacrifice the more dependence reduction you get , consider it like a fiscal reform in today's goverments.

- A bit more choice to devellop provinces . So if we introduce a governor system , we can boost a province devellopement by allocating manpower or gold to boost it's development. As some I had thousands of manpower going to waste as rome and as Seuleucid I had so much gold and nothing to use on. I would love an option to build Aqueducs and schools in decisions and upstart new provinces. Maybe a decision to concentrate effort on a province or even a city ( Constantine turned bysance into major metropolis as Constantinople)

- events that boost or reduce decadence. Per example , you get an event of corrupt governor so you get choice to bring him to trial ( decrease Decandenxe but get commerce debuff for a while ) or make him share his profits with you.

- we need other options to deal with enemies and conquered area. So I can give territory to allies or client state ( if they lost them I first place ) liberate areas , or create client state without any decadence hints. Liberating nations should actually generate decadence reduction and a boost in relationships

- A casus belli system with different motif that give reduced Decandenxe when conquering. Like if you get raided by a tribe you get the choice to declare war punish the enemy with 50% decadence reduction.

- glorious and golden age traits should add so much decadence because you are at the night of your power.

So anything to add on subject

-

[ledo]

I really like the idea of a governor system, and tying that into rebellions etc. Having good governors who sometimes decline in loyalty over time and under certain conditions could be a fun province management system. You could also use it to make more original empires by differentiating between chiefs, satraps and governors etc. as well as having their roles change with government types and empire stability etc. It could also start to play into beefing up diplomacy and expansion, with players able to deal/sway governors themselves, reducing their loyalty and possibly having them rebel when you go to war. You could also have a leader pool for governors and they have higher loyalty if they control more territory or better territory etc. It could make for a fairly abstracted and simple system that mimics the management of internal politics. You could even create a casus belli type/forced peace that installs a puppet ruler from a bribed/enticed governor to beef up diplomacy, and create a war type that doesn't require you to take territory, but takes a lot of planning, costs resources and can be countered by the enemy through gifts of money and land to the governor to keep their loyalty up. Really solid idea.

I play mostly multiplayer so I have limited experience in late game (only a few games past turn 150 and I mostly play smaller countries), so I don't really have the experience to comment on the other proposals.

[Bivox]

Mechanism that show internal political struggle and a loyalty system for generals and governors will give the game more depth.

[LDiCesare]

You already have lots of choices to reduce decadence/increase culture/increase loyalty at province level. The issue is if you are at government level 1 or 2, you lack any efficient options. To me, the biggest CDR issue early on is when you accumulated tons of slaves due to war, which cause your main regions to have 0 loyalty, thus contribute 0 to the CDR ratio. When you are big, you have many more tools (naumachia...), but killing population remains the best tool and it's both unfortunate and slow.

Regarding golden ages, the doc says it's on purpose, that decadence must reach you in the end and you shouldn't be able to use them to avoid it. I generally consider these mostly harmful as they are right now. The experience bonus is rather useless as you probably already have a huge army at that time, so everything else is a negative.

The easiest way to handle decadence is to lose and take back an objective region, as it reduces government age, but again, this is rather unfortunate.

Giving territories, liberating client states, would both be great.

Being able to use extra manpower and metal (money can usually be spent) on decisions or something would be nice.

Shrinking is also a great way of reducing decadence, but when you grow back, you will win more wars, get more slaves, more unhappiness, less loyalty, and the situation is likely to be worse than before, even if you built lots of culture buildings and as many slave markets as you could.

[Morbio]

Maybe this is a Rome specific issue, but I've been playing a SP game as Epirus and have never had any decadence issues. I'm at about turn 350 and have recently become top of the legacy list and I go from Glorious Empire to Glorious Empire. I've never had a rebellion and I rarely ever get any negative tokens. My game strategy;
* Sell slaves at every opportunity from the start of the game.
* Utilise events to pacify the populace and to convert foreigners to my religion
* Expand at the province level. I rarely took a region if I couldn't take others within a few turns to form a province.
* In the first half of the game... never build buildings that create decadence. In the second half then only build them if the decadence is small and they have high loyalty. e.g. I've never built a Gladiator School and very, very rarely have I built Noble Gardens/District.
* Always build decadence reducing buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build legacy and culture buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build religious conversion buildings if my region isn't 100% Hellenic
* Billet armies in newly conquered regions until the populace calm down.
* In the early years only expand into Hellenic regions.
* Avoid conquering lands north of the Alps and Dacia. The Germans are more trouble than they are worth.

[Bivox]

My Carthage and Seuleucid playthrought was a lot easier but both had option in building that give high level culture like Odeon and temple for Carthage. Rome need a bit more options.

I just whish we know how much decadence we get when we conquer a region. In Europa universalis , when you declare war you can occupy territory and just after the peace deal you can annex territory. In the piece deal depending on how much you take they show you how much over-extension and aggression you are accumulating.

In this game it is hard to guess if an area is good to take or will it
Create too much decadence. Maybe on easier gameplay levels decadence should be reduced .

[Bivox]

Maybe this is a Rome specific issue, but I've been playing a SP game as Epirus and have never had any decadence issues. I'm at about turn 350 and have recently become top of the legacy list and I go from Glorious Empire to Glorious Empire. I've never had a rebellion and I rarely ever get any negative tokens. My game strategy;
* Sell slaves at every opportunity from the start of the game.
* Utilise events to pacify the populace and to convert foreigners to my religion
* Expand at the province level. I rarely took a region if I couldn't take others within a few turns to form a province.
* In the first half of the game... never build buildings that create decadence. In the second half then only build them if the decadence is small and they have high loyalty. e.g. I've never built a Gladiator School and very, very rarely have I built Noble Gardens/District.
* Always build decadence reducing buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build legacy and culture buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build religious conversion buildings if my region isn't 100% Hellenic
* Billet armies in newly conquered regions until the populace calm down.
* In the early years only expand into Hellenic regions.
* Avoid conquering lands north of the Alps and Dacia. The Germans are more trouble than they are worth.

The problem with rome most loyalty building have a decadence affect. Maybe they could earn an ability that reduce the decadence of building like collossuem and racing tracks since they favourite of Romans.

[devoncop]

Maybe this is a Rome specific issue, but I've been playing a SP game as Epirus and have never had any decadence issues. I'm at about turn 350 and have recently become top of the legacy list and I go from Glorious Empire to Glorious Empire. I've never had a rebellion and I rarely ever get any negative tokens. My game strategy;
* Sell slaves at every opportunity from the start of the game.
* Utilise events to pacify the populace and to convert foreigners to my religion
* Expand at the province level. I rarely took a region if I couldn't take others within a few turns to form a province.
* In the first half of the game... never build buildings that create decadence. In the second half then only build them if the decadence is small and they have high loyalty. e.g. I've never built a Gladiator School and very, very rarely have I built Noble Gardens/District.
* Always build decadence reducing buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build legacy and culture buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build religious conversion buildings if my region isn't 100% Hellenic
* Billet armies in newly conquered regions until the populace calm down.
* In the early years only expand into Hellenic regions.
* Avoid conquering lands north of the Alps and Dacia. The Germans are more trouble than they are worth.

I agree with this advice and with the fact that played correctly decadence can be controlled.

It is interesting that the OP references EU 4 as an example of how a system is clearer as to consequences. If the OP is map painting in the style of EU4 then this will be the root of his problem.

Expanding with little or no regard for province integrity or in developing lots of buildings which generate decadence (even if they also generate culture) is a sure fire way to run into problems.
Careful management of government age is also vital. If Rome becomes an Empire within 50 years of a 500 turn game it is likely to have serious problems with government age so pacing also becomes important.

The mechanic is quite correct in assuming that an advanced Empire generates more decadence and not less than a more primitive one . The period before the decline and fall of great Empires have been notable for displaying great luxury, excess, indolence and even golden ages of culture rather than frugality and toil. If we were to examine the decadence producing buildings and slave populations serving the ruling classes in the OP's troublesome Empires I would bet both are in high supply

[georgioz]

Maybe this is a Rome specific issue, but I've been playing a SP game as Epirus and have never had any decadence issues. I'm at about turn 350 and have recently become top of the legacy list and I go from Glorious Empire to Glorious Empire. I've never had a rebellion and I rarely ever get any negative tokens. My game strategy;
* Sell slaves at every opportunity from the start of the game.
* Utilise events to pacify the populace and to convert foreigners to my religion
* Expand at the province level. I rarely took a region if I couldn't take others within a few turns to form a province.
* In the first half of the game... never build buildings that create decadence. In the second half then only build them if the decadence is small and they have high loyalty. e.g. I've never built a Gladiator School and very, very rarely have I built Noble Gardens/District.
* Always build decadence reducing buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build legacy and culture buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build religious conversion buildings if my region isn't 100% Hellenic
* Billet armies in newly conquered regions until the populace calm down.
* In the early years only expand into Hellenic regions.
* Avoid conquering lands north of the Alps and Dacia. The Germans are more trouble than they are worth.

You do not be as drastic as this. Some remarks:

- I found that You do not need to sell slaves - if you gain mostly hellenic ones. In fact having hellenic slaves in large cities is very advantageous. I always prefer to move slaves around - and even that only if I have problems with loyalty.

- There are building that are most of the time worth the decadence. For instance Monument us zero slot, brings you closer to tier 2 culture buildings and produces 10 culture with ideal loyalty. Since you lose 10% of decadence in each region each turn the 0.25 decadence translates into 2.5 decadence which with 10 culture results in CDR of 4. Which offsets the decadence well enough most of the time.

- The same goes for other buildings. In the end you can treat decadence in the same way as other resource - as it comes down to how many citizens need to be kept producing culture for “upkeep”. For instance bank produces 0.2 decadence for 20 money. So in the end it eats 0.3 culture producing citizens for 1:1 CDR equivalent (besides infra upkeep). But it gives large money income, % commerce and tax bonus, imports gold (more trade income if you control the exporting province) and gives good decision option. Again, bank is almost always worth it if you can import gold and sometimes even if you cannot.

- In the end even conquering regions costs decadence. Even if part of province it gives 0.025 decadence for every other region in province you own and twice that for non-province region. The only long-term solution toward expansion is culture production. I find it far easier compared to decadence mitigation. Building what is necessary for given regions - especially loyalty that helps you getting those sweet culture buildings - is superior strategy I find.

[Bivox]

Maybe this is a Rome specific issue, but I've been playing a SP game as Epirus and have never had any decadence issues. I'm at about turn 350 and have recently become top of the legacy list and I go from Glorious Empire to Glorious Empire. I've never had a rebellion and I rarely ever get any negative tokens. My game strategy;
* Sell slaves at every opportunity from the start of the game.
* Utilise events to pacify the populace and to convert foreigners to my religion
* Expand at the province level. I rarely took a region if I couldn't take others within a few turns to form a province.
* In the first half of the game... never build buildings that create decadence. In the second half then only build them if the decadence is small and they have high loyalty. e.g. I've never built a Gladiator School and very, very rarely have I built Noble Gardens/District.
* Always build decadence reducing buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build legacy and culture buildings at the earliest opportunity
* Always build religious conversion buildings if my region isn't 100% Hellenic
* Billet armies in newly conquered regions until the populace calm down.
* In the early years only expand into Hellenic regions.
* Avoid conquering lands north of the Alps and Dacia. The Germans are more trouble than they are worth.

I agree with this advice and with the fact that played correctly decadence can be controlled.

It is interesting that the OP references EU 4 as an example of how a system is clearer as to consequences. If the OP is map painting in the style of EU4 then this will be the root of his problem.

Expanding with little or no regard for province integrity or in developing lots of buildings which generate decadence (even if they also generate culture) is a sure fire way to run into problems.
Careful management of government age is also vital. If Rome becomes an Empire within 50 years of a 500 turn game it is likely to have serious problems with government age so pacing also becomes important.

The mechanic is quite correct in assuming that an advanced Empire generates more decadence and not less than a more primitive one . The period before the decline and fall of great Empires have been notable for displaying great luxury, excess, indolence and even golden ages of culture rather than frugality and toil. If we were to examine the decadence producing buildings and slave populations serving the ruling classes in the OP's troublesome Empires I would bet both are in high supply

I actually build a decent economy with a lot of tiers 3 culture building . And most of the game my culture was superior to decadence. The problem has started when I hit the golden age . In it's current form it is more trouble and punishment then reward . I whish in golden age I could build wonders faster or show up more often to help me with decadence.

[devoncop]

I actually build a decent economy with a lot of tiers 3 culture building . And most of the game my culture was superior to decadence. The problem has started when I hit the golden age . In it's current form it is more trouble and punishment then reward . I whish in golden age I could build wonders faster or show up more often to help me with decadence.
[/quote]

The question is "How quickly did you race through to tier 3 ?" It needs to be paced. Otherwise your Govt age from the time you achieve Tier 3 becomes a big problem.

Think of it like Stalin's rush to industrialisation ignoring all other needs .....pretty devastating. Rapid change can be very unpopular.

[Bivox]

hum. so a bit more complicated then i thought. just a question how important are sanitation builiding ? do they affect unrest on each citizen ?

[ledo]

I always find this question a bit weird though since people talk about absolute numbers (i.e. Decadence<Culture). Do they matter for something? I thought since the aging/progress is a ranked structure, it only matters relative sense. I.e. you only need to do better than 25 other civs to stay out of aging, and if you're having difficulties, so are they. The only difference is if you've gotten too large for your own good, or haven't been managing your culture/loyalty as well as they have. In this sense I don't see why the decadence mechanism would need tweaking overall, as much as individual playstyles. Although obviously, there might be extreme circumstances or specific instances where a small tweak might be necessary, but since its a relative measure and we all have the same toolbox (on regular difficulty) I don't really see much of a problem overall. That being said, I like some of the ideas just for the flavour aspect (i.e. governors).

[Bivox]

Getting large is not one of the reason ?

Rome became a massive empire so did Seuleucid, Parthia and Maurya . As I see it now objectives and glorious state is more a punishment then reward. I think decadence should be slow down by a lot , Romans had a centuries of expansion and glory before getting to decadence and collapse. Here make one mistake and decadence increase exponentially. As I see it now , decadence is really annoying and tedious . Just saying that we need a bit room to manoeuvre and grow.

I know decadence is a system put so we don't eat the map like in other games but it should not punish the player for trying to make his nation grow . After a certain level of size for empire and cities , it becomes really difficult to manage.

They could take CIV route so luxury goods can give happiness bonuses , so does security and having a wealthy economy and good food security. This was ancient times were things for the masses like food , security and health were more of a problem then culture and should way more in unrest and happiness and loyalty.

[ledo]

Getting large is not one of the reason ?

Rome became a massive empire so did Seuleucid, Parthia and Maurya . As I see it now objectives and glorious state is more a punishment then reward. I think decadence should be slow down by a lot , Romans had a centuries of expansion and glory before getting to decadence and collapse. Here make one mistake and decadence increase exponentially. As I see it now , decadence is really annoying and tedious . Just saying that we need a bit room to manoeuvre and grow.

I know decadence is a system put so we don't eat the map like in other games but it should not punish the player for trying to make his nation grow . After a certain level of size for empire and cities , it becomes really difficult to manage.

They could take CIV route so luxury goods can give happiness bonuses , so does security and having a wealthy economy and good food security. This was ancient times were things for the masses like food , security and health were more of a problem then culture and should way more in unrest and happiness and loyalty.

Getting large is one of the reasons, I just mean a lot of discussions are talking about decadence in absolute terms, i.e. my decadence overtakes my culture. But that's irrelevant, what's relevant is my decadence is growing faster than everyone elses. I also don't think decadence leads to collapse, it leads to a periods of turmoil and civil war, which Rome had many of. No Rome didn't collapse in the time period where it might shift to old or decadent in this game, but it did have periods of regression, instability and then renewal within those hundreds of years of expansion. If you're collapsing once you go from glorious to decadent/old then that's a problem, but not necessarily with the game mechanics.

[SpeedyCM]

, Romans had a centuries of expansion and glory before getting to decadence and collapse. Here make one mistake and decadence increase exponentially. As I see it now , decadence is really annoying and tedious .

Just to this point, Rome had about 100 years of relative internal peace at the end of their expansionist phase (the 5 good emperors) outside of that internal strife and conflict was the norm (with brief periods of stability) from the later part of the 2nd century BC till the fall of the Western Empire at the end of the 5th century AD.

[Pocus]

There might be missing some more straightforward tools to control decadence at the national level, but it would require significant content to be interesting, clear and fun. So for now, that's not a priority, although it is being considered. That's not like you have no tools or strategies to fight off Decadence.
Plus, I'll daresay, that the game is not designed to escape easily and continuously decadence. It should be part of the life of your nation, the cycle of ebb and flow. Some people are so adamant in refusing any decadence that they don't have any decadence producing building, which is an error (see the demonstration on how nice the monument is, even if it generates decadence). Some understand on an intellectual level that having some decadence is acceptable, but would absolutely refuse that at some point their nation can become old (or even decadent, shivers!) for some time. But that's the system, and it's part of the 'fun'. If you accept going down for some time, then you can bounce back more easily, if only because your government gets a 50% reduction on its age each time it changes status.

[pnoff]

As I wrote before somewhere, the main thing I don't like is the sharp discrete increase in decadence when you go from Stable to Glorious due to status age. I guess people in my nation get relaxed when we become glorious, but why won't they get relaxed when we are stable for forever? I'm not agitating for reduction of decadence, but for smoothing things out.

Gameplay-wise it incentivizes cheese of rushing t3 government and staying Stable forever.

[Pocus]

If you never move out of stable, then you get a cumulative +3% decadence from govt age per turn...

[Fimconte]

If you never move out of stable, then you get a cumulative +3% decadence from govt age per turn...

Where is this displayed?
Or is it disabled on 'balanced' difficulty?
This is after ~83 turns of 'generous' expansion as Belgae: