Title. In general, I think the game is in a much improved state relative to 1.2, and I'm having a good time. However, I think a core gameplay problem is pretty clear, in that major powers tend to be far too stable relative to historical performance, leading to grindy repeat wars to bite off chunk after chunk of major powers and a lack of dynamism in the map. In one sense this makes some early game playthroughs too hard, as certain powers will just be these obdurate powerhouses you have to grind against for forever, but in another sense, this makes lategame too easy, as once you outrgrow france/spain/hungary there's basically nobody who can fight you. In a game where Hungary or the Mamluks collapse, the Ottomans would be far far stronger in the late game than any power currently is.
This is also a historical simulation problem. If we look at powers like Bohemia and the Mamluks, they're some of the most consistently powerful factions in the game despite both getting wrecked fairly early on in the time period covered by the game. Historically, these powers fell to disease and infighting as much as to outside powers.
Why does this happen? Well in the first place, rebels are weak, only having a few levies scattered in a small number of locations. I think they should be able to hire mercs with their money.
Another problem is that the death of large numbers of pops just doesn't matter for the empire, and is potentially even a positive. So in 1.4 there's talk of sending a bunch of plagues at the mamluks in Egypt (which was historical) but I question what this will really do. You'll have a lower RGO cap and it will be harder to promote people, but this isn't a huge issue for the mamluks. You'll have fewer levies, but the problem is actually their absurd wealth, not their raw levies.
My opinion: Losing a large amount of pops to disease OR war should impact stability via some mechanism. Marginal economic losses don't reflect reality here. People who are dying will have little to lose and will be more prone to revolting, and a plague or a costly war can easily be taken as wrath from god, or a loss of the 'mandate of heaven.' The stability hit also creates the potential for a negative cycle with lower estate satisfaction cap, which also means more chances for revolts.
Imagine a situation where the mamluks take lots of land with separatism, but lose lots of troops, and then face multiple revolts in which lots of people die, leading to a vicious cycle of revolts that the ottomans can capitalize on to expand quickly. Imagine killing a ton of frenchmen in a big war, resulting in a huge amount of instability that wrecks them and causes them to cease being such a strong power (but leading to Castille or England rapidly expanding.) That's the kind of dynamic we should have.
A big part of why 1.3 feels so much better is that battles are much more consequential due to the changes to warscore and war exhaustion, and this would reinforce that trend. (OFC, having a great combat AI would also help a lot but I'm trying to be realistic)
Additionally, this would make stability a more scarce resource, when in the next patch a lot of things that cost stability are no longer going to cost stability but "political power". This means that keeping low stability to get positive stability decay would be more risky than it currently is. That risk in turn would force people to play more strategically, and would be a good thing.
