And that is worth a full stability point and all the trouble associated with that drop?
How do you propose raising stability? It isn't like we have much, if any leeway in centralization.
That is the whole point here. You want just a little bit more for a huge relative cost. I mean is 2-3 Econ worth a whole stability point? I mean, we can spend that amount just getting that astability back.
Yes, it is worth it.
RO+PG for +1-3 Stability at cost of -3 Art, -1 Econ. We have not done RO for quite a while anyway, so it is quite overdue.
Delays Palace for one turn, which is bad, but is otherwise a good combo to use time to time.
Or, if you want only 1 action, Festivals. Way worse narratively, but will give Stability, so ehh.
As for why it is worth it - as I've said, to encourage the mode of thinking which leads to taking in more people, which is tolerance and generosity. Yes, it is not full -3, but I take what I can get.
Agaain, it is not
for Stability, it is for encouraging practice of helping people in need and accepting them, which then shows in religious and regional divides being less likely to grow into violence and people being ready to accept foreign ideas if they have merit (cue Iron).
Taking the least option is a tradeoff too, you know. So, well, why do you think it is
better than -1.5 option? How do you propose raising our tolerance otherwise - for Stability raising we have actions, for 'not being assholes' not so much.
So far defenders of the least option tended to just describe other ones as more risky and almost...superfluous? Luxurious? Not austere enough?
Not sure how to explain it, but I am frankly tired of discussion where I explain the benefits of higher option in at least 3 (or was it more by now?) quite posts in less than two days, while my opponents, instead of explaining benefits (both narrative and numerical...although numerical ones are saving up 1 action, basically) of their choice, spend time picking away at mine.
1 stability-restoring action saved is all I can see in terms of benefits from the least option (refugees taking
is Econ-neutral, given the restoration options costs).
Effectively, the apt
underselled (it ignores 'glue our people together by traditions of tolerance' aspect, which is quite a big deal too) description of -1.5 as compared to -0.5 is "take 1 action to get a more likely to win shot at techstealing and foreign intel", which is a deal worth taking on its own, I think.
TL;DR: What do we
gain from the least option as opposed to taking some more, besides 1 action? What is the comparative benefit that makes it worthwhile?
