Development: Dynamic and Mana-based

[Darth.]

So there was a recent threads made talking about how the "push button - get reward" nature of upgrading CoTs isn't ideal.

This is what I replied to it:

I agree fully with the OP. But Paradox wants to provide instant gratification to its players because most of its player base are casuals rather than min-maxers and hardcore RP players. And I agree with that too. It's just common business sense. It would also make EU4 far more complicated and leave stuff like trade and development upto luck.

That being said, implementing a system of dynamic development while keeping the current development method by button would solve both issues. It allows you, the government, to invest in developing a province, and also accounts for natural development by the passage of time.

So that got me thinking. What if the style of development introduced in Common Sense was kept but also had dynamic development.

Provinces around CoTs and estuaries and possibly even ports have a percentage chance of gaining diplo dev to represent the rise of cities due to trade.

Provinces with devastation that get invaded regularly, around forts, and on borders with rivals/threatening countries have a chance of gaining mil development to represent fortifications.

Provinces around the capital, in states with prosperity, provinces around a province with dev higher than 30, have a chance of gaining adm dev to represent the bureaucracy around the capital and large cities.

These modifiers are separate so a province can have 0.3% chance of dip dev, a 0.4% chance of mil dev, and a 0.5% chance of adm dev at the same time. (Numbers are random). Once a province is developed by dynamic development in any category, it cannot be dynamically developed in any category until a certain number of years have passed.

Note: Everything italicized in this post is something that I'm unsure about the feasibility of.

 

[Van Kasten]

I like your idea, but I have something to say:
•manpower should not increase in devastated provinces. Fort ones are good though, maybe also farmlands (more farmers to draft or to conscript).
•prosperity and devastation should influence this rate of development A LOT. If a province has 100% devastation it has the maximum rate (to be defined) to lose development (all categories alike). Provinces with no devastation should have the normal rates and provinces with prosperity should have this rate doubled (maybe this bonus can also be scaled?).
•a system of cooldowns (or low rates) to keep the usefulness of developing instantly.

In fact, the solution you proposed is simple and elegant, but can also be scaled or modded.

 

[aono]

Actually, I'd make system even easier. Development should rise with buildings - if you have "diplomacy building", it would rise Production, Tax for administrative, Manpower for military. And that's all.

 

[Van Kasten]

Actually, I'd make system even easier. Development should rise with buildings - if you have "diplomacy building", it would rise Production, Tax for administrative, Manpower for military. And that's all.

But the building s are placed by the player in the best provinces for those buildings. So only a few provinces will develop and usually those would be high development provinces or high value provinces. This will create crap provinces and fantastic provinces only.

 

[aono]

But the building s are placed by the player in the best provinces for those buildings. So only a few provinces will develop and usually those would be high development provinces or high value provinces. This will create crap provinces and fantastic provinces only.

I'm not sure. At least as I play I'm trying to fill any building slot possible. Just in case - I don't mean some "special" buildings, but things like marketplaces, barracks and temples.
And I'm trying to put buildings that correspond situation in province, as I'm not my own enemy.

 

[Van Kasten]

I'm not sure. At least as I play I'm trying to fill any building slot possible. Just in case - I don't mean some "special" buildings, but things like marketplaces, barracks and temples.
And I'm trying to put buildings that correspond situation in province, as I'm not my own enemy.

Yes of course, that’s what players do. But the problem remains. Developed provinces will improve more than not developed ones. And they will have more building slots to fill and to generate even more development.

 

[aono]

Yes of course, that’s what players do. But the problem remains. Developed provinces will improve more than not developed ones. And they will have more building slots to fill and to generate even more development.

Well... yes, that's how it works?
I mean, what would take more development - rich capital in the middle of big realm, or it's icelandic possesions?

 

[Van Kasten]

Well... yes, that's how it works?
I mean, what would take more development - rich capital in the middle of big realm, or it's icelandic possesions?

Provinces around CoTs and estuaries and possibly even ports have a percentage chance of gaining diplo dev to represent the rise of cities due to trade.

Provinces around the capital, in states with prosperity, provinces around a province with dev higher than 30, have a chance of gaining adm dev to represent the bureaucracy around the capital and large cities.

With a bit of terrain and climate modifiers, it was all counted.

 

[Darth.]

manpower should not increase in devastated provinces.

Actually I included devastated provinces to account for those patriotic citizens looking to avenge their lost family members or just get revenge for that invasion of their country that would join the local militias and enroll/be conscripted into police forces and the army and stuff which would then lead to the construction of military forts, keeps, etc. That kind of thing.

 

[aono]

With a bit of terrain and climate modifiers, it was all counted.

Yes, I just feel this system little overcomplicated. A lot of different cases, with player supposed to remember them when he is planning something - or it would be things that just invisibly happens, not very good either. And I don't understand why would Trade Center in the middle of nothing would gain a lot of development.
System about building is simple. Provinces where there is no buildings will not growth (buildings would represent specialization of settlement). If you have 0 building slots, that means people can't live there normally (and therefore you can use Dharma mechanic of raising development with colonists). If you have any building slots, you'll start to tick development there - with modifiers and things like this. Maybe it would be even better to put gradual rising like institution (for development, of course), and allow player to issue edicts (something like "Promote Development") and set focuses by MP (I hate system with development instant growth for paying MP and strive to destroy it).

So if you want to raise production in a long shot, you'll build marketplaces, manufactures, workshops, docks and shipyards; for taxes you would build temples and courthouses; for manpower - barracks and camps. Forts don't raise anything (it's logical - infrastructure is spent on defense, not on local growth). University should give universal growth modifier. As it seems, production would have a big boost (5 buildings, with tax and manpower - 2 every), but again, it's logical - to the end of game time-frame majority of European (at least) development was Production (and that's what we call Industrial Revolution, after all).
In the end, idea behind it is player is investing in infrastructure (paying gold) to gain development. I feel it logical.

 

[KRBLACK]

So there was a recent threads made talking about how the "push button - get reward" nature of upgrading CoTs isn't ideal.

This is what I replied to it:


So that got me thinking. What if the style of development introduced in Common Sense was kept but also had dynamic development.

Provinces around CoTs and estuaries and possibly even ports have a percentage chance of gaining diplo dev to represent the rise of cities due to trade.

Provinces with devastation that get invaded regularly, around forts, and on borders with rivals/threatening countries have a chance of gaining mil development to represent fortifications.

Provinces around the capital, in states with prosperity, provinces around a province with dev higher than 30, have a chance of gaining adm dev to represent the bureaucracy around the capital and large cities.

These modifiers are separate so a province can have 0.3% chance of dip dev, a 0.4% chance of mil dev, and a 0.5% chance of adm dev at the same time. (Numbers are random). Once a province is developed by dynamic development in any category, it cannot be dynamically developed in any category until a certain number of years have passed.

Note: Everything italicized in this post is something that I'm unsure about the feasibility of.

Very good suggestion. It solves the problem of stagnant development in the process. I mean 15th century london does not equal 18th century london in terms of development (or so I think).

 

[Van Kasten]

Yes, I just feel this system little overcomplicated. A lot of different cases, with player supposed to remember them when he is planning something - or it would be things that just invisibly happens, not very good either. And I don't understand why would Trade Center in the middle of nothing would gain a lot of development.

It will not gain a lot of development, just a modest yearly chance (very modest). Centers of Trade are not random provinces “in the modelle do nothing”. Plus, with the Center of Trade tiers announces in the new dev diary the adjustments of that modest chance will be more accurate.

It has more or less the same modifiers as development by monarch points. Players will learn it and get it right, trust me.

In the end, idea behind it is player is investing in infrastructure (paying gold) to gain development. I feel it logical.

The logic behind buildings is that you invest a certain sum to gain more. And it is already a good investment. A small help in playing tall. What we are talking about here is a small process on the background that will contribute to make the world more “alive” and will improve the feeling of “depth” to the game.

 

[aono]

It will not gain a lot of development, just a modest yearly chance (very modest). Centers of Trade are not random provinces “in the modelle do nothing”.

Problem is, as they're simple static province modifier, they quite sometimes are.
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/images/d/d3/Trade_center_map.png
Why would american in the middle of the continent, or polar one on the north of Eurasia, or that one in the middle of Africa, growth by itself, until there would not investments there?

What we are talking about here is a small process on the background that will contribute to make the world more “alive” and will improve the feeling of “depth” to the game.

Yes - highly developed provinces became more developed, wasteland stays wasteland.
Take a little center of trade in the middle of Siberia. Why would it growth until nobody invest there, and there is no any cities to notice? 18th century London was very different from 15th century, but Siberian depths or American central plains didn't change a lot with centuries.

 

[Van Kasten]

18th century London was very different from 15th century, but Siberian depths or American central plains didn't change a lot with centuries.

Of course!
That’s why instant development exist. The player will priviledge London more than Siberia.
Then: the CoT in Siberia would be in Severe Winter Climate, lowering the chance of getting development.
Overall result: combining this two methods, when the CoT in Siberia grows by 1 dev, London will have grown by at least 10.
Do non forget that with the next patch there will be more minor centers of trade all over Europe and rich areas of the world.

 

[cristofolmc]

Like the idea, but I dont think only trade centers should influence this, as they are not dynamic it would be too detemrinistic. They should all have a base chance. Say 1%. Now, basically everything in game would affect how that chance increases or decreseas. Absolutism, having a burgher estate in that province, having edicts, having policies, having trade/economic ideas, the worth of the trade node those provinces are in (it's not the same being a city in northen Africa than Seville, Genoa or London or Amsterdam. Those nodes have a lot more wealth, a lot more wealth means more rapid development, that is, higher chance), prestige, mercantilism, prosperity, stability, devastation, and to sum up anything you can think of that can be in real life influential to the development of a country. That would allowe huge differences on the development level base on all the players decisions and policies, just like in real life.

Sadly, @DDRJake said they liked how the lame immersion breaking development system currently work. But I do hope they come around and just like they've reworked goverment or trade companies or trade centers for this update/DLC, they will bring something like this to the development system in the future.

 

[Van Kasten]

Like the idea, but I dont think only trade centers should influence this, as they are not dynamic it would be too detemrinistic. They should all have a base chance. Say 1%. Now, basically everything in game would affect how that chance increases or decreseas. Absolutism, having a burgher estate in that province, having edicts, having policies, having trade/economic ideas, the worth of the trade node those provinces are in (it's not the same being a city in northen Africa than Seville, Genoa or London or Amsterdam. Those nodes have a lot more wealth, a lot more wealth means more rapid development, that is, higher chance), prestige, mercantilism, prosperity, stability, devastation, and to sum up anything you can think of that can be in real life influential to the development of a country. That would allowe huge differences on the development level base on all the players decisions and policies, just like in real life.

This is a very good point!
Although 1% base is too much: it mean 1 dev every 100 years, in each category. So between 9 and 12 dev for each province would occur. I think that having 1% yearly chance of dev in a province should mean that you are doing it right (minmaximg could give you maximum 1,5 or something like that). Remember that this feature would be a background one, invisible to most players but still present to make your choices feel more impactful.

 

[cetvrtak]

I like this idea. In EU3 they had a system with population that increased depending on various factors, e. g. a level 10 Trade Center would give 20% yearly population increase.

I don't think that it should be linked to buildings at all. Building system is faulty as is. Many of the building types shouldn't be built at all (e. g. Courthouse), while others take decades or even centuries to pay off.

 

[Darth.]

Bumping this because development will be a free feature in 1.28 and I want my suggestion considered :>

 

[Furuderikas]

In regards to trade centers it'd work well and make sense, in my opinion, for the development chance to surrounding provinces to increase depending on the level of the center.

 

[Van Kasten]

Bumping this because development will be a free feature in 1.28 and I want my suggestion considered :>

That’s right!

Now that Development is free, it is open to any kind of rework. It would be very disappointing is the dev team would not change anything or add a couple of bonuses/buttons.

PS: I did not remember this thread so it was nice to re-discover it