Is there such thing as a "healthy level of corruption?"

[Neutrino Bomb]

As you already know. Corruption gives mostly negative effects... except one. Every 10 corruption lowers unrest by 2.

That's really significant! I'm starting to wonder if there's a healthy level of tolerable corruption you should try to maintain just for the unrest bonus?

Ideally it should hit the sweet spot where if you conquer wrong religion wrong culture lands, it's JUST ENOUGH so there is not enough unrest to spawn rebels. Ideally it's pushed to breaking point, dying out at 70% progress or so.

Because otherwise you'll have to press the increase autonomy button anyway. Doesn't that come with its own down sides? (especially absolutisim)

What's everyone's opinion on this? (assuming if money is no issue)

[Paco]

At one point I just gave up working on corruption and let it grow and since then I haven't had to worry about any type of rebels. Even at one point when I had 10+ uncored provinces with my stability at -1 I still didn't get any rebels with my corruption at 100

[Erik_Rex]

late game rebels really should not be a problem, so I really don't feel the unrest is worth it for all the negatives you get, so I don't see a poin in ever letting it get to far over 0.
the power cost increase is not worth it as the main problem in the game is monarch point management.

[Neutrino Bomb]

Escrito originalmente por Rexxar:

late game rebels really should not be a problem, so I really don't feel the unrest is worth it for all the negatives you get, so I don't see a poin in ever letting it get to far over 0.
the power cost increase is not worth it as the main problem in the game is monarch point management.

But if your rebel progress gets high you're gonna need to spend mil points to harsh treatment anyway

[Tiny Tyrant]

The ideal number is 0 tbh. Corruption's cons massively outweigh it's one pro; there is almost nothing that justifies increasing monarch point costs across the board. Corruption is even worse in Dharma because it raises minimum autonomy which can drastically slow down government reforms.

Dealing with rebels costs nothing but manpower, which isn't an issue at all if you have quantity ideas. Rebels will only ever be an issue if you're expanding too much too fast. It's generally much better to use manpower to put down rebels than it is to use monarch points to never have them.
Monarch points > manpower.

[Erik_Rex]

Escrito originalmente por ICON_RES_HORSE Neutrino Bomb:

Escrito originalmente por Rexxar:

late game rebels really should not be a problem, so I really don't feel the unrest is worth it for all the negatives you get, so I don't see a poin in ever letting it get to far over 0.
the power cost increase is not worth it as the main problem in the game is monarch point management.

But if your rebel progress gets high you're gonna need to spend mil points to harsh treatment anyway

or kill them with your army, after the age of absolutism pops, you never really want to increase atonnomy ether, and prefrably lowering it causeiong more rebels to spawn. Its all about the absolutism.
you should really never get into a situation where you can't handle your rebels. though yes, some times you want to prevent the from spawning, but harsh treatment (rearly worth it I think) is alot less costly than say a 10% increas to ALL power cost due to corruption.
that is my opinion though :)

[Medicles]

Escrito originalmente por ICON_RES_HORSE Neutrino Bomb:

Escrito originalmente por Rexxar:

late game rebels really should not be a problem, so I really don't feel the unrest is worth it for all the negatives you get, so I don't see a poin in ever letting it get to far over 0.
the power cost increase is not worth it as the main problem in the game is monarch point management.

But if your rebel progress gets high you're gonna need to spend mil points to harsh treatment anyway

Dont use military points for harsh treatment. That should only be done in the worst situations, like you just won a war but have no manpower and only a 10k stack, but a 20k rebel stack is spawning in the next month. Usually you kill the rebels with your army. The monarch points are too valuable to spent on such things like harsh treatment (except if you need absolutism).

[[AUT] Beazerka]

Nope. Maybe VERY situational but imho just NO.

Harsh Treatment? Ill just do that in an emergency case. (big fat war and your army is far off and there are no Mercs left or dont wanna have mercs) Just Kill them off. Or negate them with your army. My usual "treatment" for rebels is LOWER autonomy (after Age of Absolutism) and let them come^^


Money is barely a Problem to fight corruption. Heck money is no prob in this game after the first 40-100 years.

So no there is no "healthy" Corruption, you need more points (for everything) and it cripples your inceome (even if you dont fight it and esp if its to hight)

Beside that there is so much you can do to avoid problems where this littlebit of unrest for a horrendous ammount of corruption is debatably good. Your advisor i.e. gives -2 unrest AND dont give you those insane penaltys fur a few ducats.

Edit to rebels. If you get cought by suprise from rebels then yeah somethin is very wrong. Again there are cases where this not apply.

[Crim]

About 1 or 2 Corruption is healthy
Mainly because it will go away on it's own with Ahead of Time and Stability

[Neutrino Bomb]

What if my armies are needed elsewhere and can't be bothered to be bogged down by "potential rebels" for a whole 5 years while you can't force them to spawn except to wait for their "chance" to spawn?

[Crim]

Escrito originalmente por ICON_RES_HORSE Neutrino Bomb:

What if my armies are needed elsewhere and can't be bothered to be bogged down by "potential rebels" for a whole 5 years while you can't force them to spawn except to wait for their "chance" to spawn?

This is personally why I enjoy having a Vassal set to Defend
Goes around and takes care of Rebels.

[Neutrino Bomb]

what about getting into tough wars where +5 war exhaustion can easily put your entire empire in rebels if you have 0 corruption?

[Neutrino Bomb]

Also getting sown discontent and random +unrest events

[Conrad von Hötzendorf]

Let's do some math here. First let's look at Separatism. That's important because it's the only thing here that decreases (except over extension). The base value is -15 unrest. It takes 3 years to core so by the time you're done coring it should be at -13.5, until that point you'll also have up to -5 unrest from OE.

Hopefully by that point you have no war exhaustion either (-3.6 progress during the 3 years of coring) if you do you're kinda fked.

Now religion and culture. The vast majority if your conquests (especially in a WC) will be wrong religion wrong culture.

-2 Not accepted culture
-3 Tolerance

Are you 100% legitimate? Hopefully.

+2 Legitimacy

Do you have a theologian? You obviously sacrifice other potential benefits but you do get -2 unrest

+2 theologian

Positive stability? Let's just assume most people keep it at +1 or +2 most the time

+1.5 Stability

How about another +1.5 just to average out the random bonuses you get from your religion or nation or any other thing such as leader trait and events?

+1.5 Misc.

Are you at dip 18? Well bad news you'll probably get perma sown discontent by AIs since this game has no efficient anti-spying methods.

-2 Discontent.

Ok at this point you're at 0 and you're against +13.5 unrest so... you'll get rebels for sure.

However if you have humanist:

+3 tolerance
+2 policy bonus
+5 years of separatism reduction

now you're at only +3.5 unrest! It will be 0 at 17.5 Corruption.

Hope that's the answer you're looking for.

[Fellini_Fiend]

1-2 corruption is pretty healthy and you don’t need to necessarily root it out at full maintenance either at that point. Besides you will definitely get events that add like .5 corruption randomly so it’s natural to have some once in a while. However if it’s overextension that is having an effect on you in terms of corruption you should have it at least be balanced to where it at least doesn’t gain extra corruption.

In my opinion even 5 corruption isn’t too bad under the right circumstances. If you have truces all around you and can afford to lower your army maintenance to 0 while raising the maintenance to root out corruption at a higher rate while barely maintaining a profit then that would be fine, just don’t spend any points at all during that time since it would cost you extra points to do so.

If there is a specific government reform that you really wish to have and don’t plan on warring for ten years or are way ahead in time in tech or can save up points for that long taking the 10 corruption hit can be worthwhile as well you just are forced to not do anything but sit back and relax for ten years while you bring that corruption down. That would be an ideal time right after a war that cost you all of your manpower, then you could regain it all back during that time and then finally continue your expansion.

[Neutrino Bomb]

seems like with the exception of 2 people here nobody else is concerned about unrest bonus