6

I am playing as a republic (Florence) and have had the burgher estate seize control of my nation after gaining 80 influence. I have the following questions:

  • Should I try to take the decision to remove them?
  • What are the pros and cons of letting them take over vs. managing the estates?

I'm not looking to find out what are the effects of being above 80 influence as much as I want to know what are the effects of an estate taking over the state and whether I should avoid that or not. Should I pay 3 stability to get out of this situation?

| improve this question | |
  • Some can say yes and explain the advantages, others will explain it will make a disaster that causes negative consequences. I think there is no real answer. This is a game's aspect where you must -choose- your good answer, depending of your gameplay style, your past decisions and other particular and specific in-game factors. – Galabyca Mar 12 '16 at 21:17
  • To get to this I think we need to know what are the consequences of being controlled by an estate. Being in a disaster on its own doesn't seem so bad to me, especially that a lot of disasters can only start if you're not already in a disaster... – SMeznaric Mar 12 '16 at 21:36
2

Of course you should prevent the disaster. It's called "disaster" for a reason. At first, you pay -4 stab - one when disaster starts, 3 when you end it. Additionally, you lose 1 base tax and 1 base production in your capital, and you receive penalties to your military.

Finally, ending the disaster is possible only when burgher influence is below 60. So you are forced to reduce their influence anyway. Why not to do it before the disaster fires?

Honestly, I'm surprised you're even asking this question. Disasters are bad, aren't they?

| improve this answer | |
  • Sounds like I pay most of the penalty when it ends so why is it worth for me to spend 3 stability and a hit to base tax and production to end it? What are the effects of it being in place? – SMeznaric Mar 12 '16 at 17:34
  • @SMeznaric see the wiki about Plutocratic Coup. Here are the penalties: -10% Land morale, -25% National manpower, -25% Land forcelimit, -1 Yearly prestige. That's a lot! – Alien-47 Mar 14 '16 at 13:45
  • Right. If you can put that in your answer and remove the rest of the answer (keep the bit about 1 stability hit on acquiry) I will accept it. – SMeznaric Mar 14 '16 at 14:32
-1

If the Burghers estate gains high Estate influence influence levels (80-100), their estate disaster will begin ticking and - unless lowered - will eventually trigger the Plutocratic Coup disaster.

However, the Burghers provides some bonuses that you can see on the picture below. I suggest you to click on it to see in full size.

The Burghers nation-wide and province modifiers

All informations is available here.

Some can say yes and explain the advantages, others will explain it will make a disaster that causes negative consequences. I think there is no real answer. This is a game's aspect where you must -choose- your good answer, depending of your gameplay style, your past decisions and other particular and specific in-game factors.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Thanks, I did already read the Wiki page on it, and it's clear to me what you get from each faction depending on values of loyalty and influence. My question is about whether I should worry about a faction taking over the state, what is the impact of that? Should I try to manage them to prevent that from happening or just let it happen? And also should I try to remove them from power once they've taken over (3 stability hit seems a steep price to pay). – SMeznaric Mar 11 '16 at 9:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.