Bytro seems to be making a lot of changes that penalize "winning" and make the game even more difficult to play effectively. I'm beginning to wonder if some of these changes are not driven by some obtuse effort to force more GM usage to be won.
First the changes to revolt percentages which slow the game down and make it harder for anyone to actually go on the offensive. making what is arguably the worst part about the game (the waiting) even more interminable. Additionally this made the game feel even more grindy which is the number one reason I have heard people complain/stop playing over other than GM usage which obviously is a necessary evil to keep the lights on.
It also makes me wonder if anyone at Bytro is actually playing the game or doing any math before making these changes. I currently have provinces with 87 morale that are losing resources. It's often impossible to get your morale up to 100 in far flung provinces because if you're winning the game you often have multiple enemies and if you combine -30 for distance and -20 for wars you're in a deep hole morale wise and so the overall effect is to make expanding the economy more and more difficult.
-12% corruption? seriously? the distance penalty to morale is already creating this effect, corruption is just a redundant penalty that is ONLY penalizing people who are playing hard and trying to win. If you have 80 provinces all within a -8 to 10 morale penalty distance from your capital this will not harm you that much but if you're conquering land on other continents (which someone has to do if your coalition wants to actually end the game effectively) these penalties are destroying the ability of the people who are winning from growing. 70 morale break even point is pretty steep. 87 and still being underwater is ridiculous. Who is analyzing the math here? Is no one playing the game? You can't have -30 morale penalty (or worse -39 on 500 player maps) and apply this corruption penalty as aggressively. The morale penalty is an interesting twist to the game (very abstract and mostly nonsensical in a lot of cases because Boston doesn't have any higher morale than LA or San Francisco but corruption (which is a mechanic in many games) is already accounted for in the distance morale penalties. having both is redundant and the combined weight is oppressive in the worst possible context.
Is corruption and how to combat it even explained in the rules? Are you adding a "state capitol" or courthouse building? It feels like someone stole the corruption mechanic from civilization without actually understanding game design or the abstract concept of "distance morale penalty" you already have going on here.
Is the point to say "you must spend GM on morale or else winning will be so grindy you'll stop playing?" If that's the logic here just come out and say it so I can be done playing. Someone at bytro need to take a course in game balance and/or look up the term "unfun" in the context of game design. 90 morale as the new break even point? Sheesh, who is making these decisions?