Thanks, it was fortifications in particular that were making me wonder about this.Lysimachos wrote:1) the Army, Architectures and Urban Infrastractures, Religious Buildings, Commercial Structures, Barracks and Siege Trains are national (id est an abstraction) and consequently don't suffer destruction if a specific province is lost.
Fortifications and Fleets pertain to a single province and are destroyed if this one is conquered.
Unless I'm misreading the rules, I don't think that's right.Lysimachos wrote:The difference is that VPs are not going to disappear with a defeat in battle, as it happens with stability levels that are subject to decrease in that case.
So, if ever, buildings which allow the earnings of VPs are better than Fiscal Measures that, on their part, are much more manageable, costing less and being accessible also to player with smaller incomes.
Firstly, lost battles are stated to cost VPs as well as Stability, and lost provinces cost further VPs. As such, VPs do disappear with defeats in battle as much if not more than stability.
Secondly, even if that weren't the case, the fact that you can lose stability from battles doesn't make it less valuable than VPs (and in fact makes it more valuable because of the costs of low stability).
For example, if I started with 4 Stability, used Tax Exemptions to raise it to 8, and then through defeats lost 4 stability, I would end up back on 4 (worth 4VPs at the end of the game). In contrast, if I started with 4 Stability, upgraded to a Temple Complex to raise to 6 Stability and +2VPs, then through defeats lost 4 Stability, I would end up on 2 Stability with +2 VPs (worth a total of 4VPs at the end of the game). In terms of VPs, the second scenario ends up the same as the first. But it also ends up 2 stability points down and in the "danger threshold" which is a lot worse.
As such, I can't see an instance where VPs are more valuable than Stability, since each Stability Point is worth a VP anyway but also moves you away from the low-stability threshold. It's not a game-breaker by any means but religious buildings on these grounds does seem to be weaker than tax exemptions.