Meaning it was almost free in lower dev levels... right?
- 2
+5 cost per development needs to go.
- Thread starter hashinshin
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm at loss for words that 96% people wanted this change. Imagine if Wiz left the development cost increase to 1% as suggested in the OP. I would have had 400-development capital and 120 development in every province! lol
I thought this game wasn't Sim-City.
- 2
- 2
This have proved to be false, mainly because this don't take account for all reductions that exist.
- 2
Wiz said "we usually manage to find some valid feedback". But this whole thread isn't valid at all. I hope that he can manage to find valid feedback everytime.
- 1
What needed to go are whiners, not a reasonable restriction in the game. PROVED.
Last edited:
- 1
Somebody should run a full game to see how developed provinces will be at the end.
How is that 400% modifier working? If the base is 50 points and you add all +/- modifiers then you should have -145% + 400% = 255% costs, so cost should be 50 * 2,55 = 127,5 points..
Personally I feel the development system is a great change from the static system we had before. As for the +5 increment I felt it did make the "grow high" style of gameplay inferior to the "grow wide" style.
That being said, there should be some limit to growth, not just because a province having 200 development is pretty ridiculous, imagine the AE and MP cost of taking that province in war *shivvers*
I would like to see a cap depending on terrain that determines how high you can improve that province, a farmland could end up higher than a forested area etc. Makes sence to me, what do you guys think?
That being said, there should be some limit to growth, not just because a province having 200 development is pretty ridiculous, imagine the AE and MP cost of taking that province in war *shivvers*
I would like to see a cap depending on terrain that determines how high you can improve that province, a farmland could end up higher than a forested area etc. Makes sence to me, what do you guys think?
- 3
It's a little bit disconcerting. In truth I doubt the AI will ever develop to those kinds of levels but based on what I saw in 1.12, I wouldn't be surprised if it occasionally exceeded 80-100 in a few places. Meanwhile, cities of the likes of Paris, Wien, London, Prague, and Istanbul will remain at less than half, because the AI is spending points elsewhere. Exactly the opposite of what could happen IRL.
Some people seem to think this sort of thing is okay, like they probably wouldn't care if Norway was converting to Sunni every game, the Aztecs conquering the HRE, and Circassia colonising Canada in 1470. Because what these mechanics will potentially create makes about as much sense as those anomalies would.
Don't get me wrong, I like development in principle, but I'm really worried about how Europe is going to look. We do need soft caps of some sort and a still smarter formula. Europe is going to look pretty ridiculous otherwise. Playing 'tall' and developing a group of provinces as opposed to wide blobbing is great as a principle, but at what cost to historical plausibility when you put no restraints on it?
- 4
I wonder how much reduction modifiers you can get with a RotW nation, compared to a european nation, or a HRE nation?
On the bright side because we have a 1.13 beta, we're all going to get a chance to play with the new mechanics and offer some considered feedback on what we see, and maybe there will be tweaks (and hopefully the tweaks won't be the sledgehammer when a scalpel might well serve the purpose). I intend to take full advantage.
Is it really more ridiculous than many of the other things you can do in this game? Just take a glance though the "post your empire" thread for starters.
There is no fixed cost outside of monarch points to development, so it is going to be used by nations who have spare monarch points. For an AI, there are always an excess of non-admin monarch points. Almost all AI are not vassal feeding and using their dip. They aren't even fighting a typical human's volume of wars, and often ending many in white peace, so even that small dip use isn't as present. Military points for a western nation become overabundant for everyone, and AI are no exception. So, the result is that each nation WILL develop, and since development cost doesn't scale up, the bottleneck is now how many individual nations there are to develop their land. One nation on 20 provinces will develop less total than 5 nations on 4 each.
If you want "historical" development there needs to be a cost that is burdensome for small powers to overcome in order to heavily develop so that a nation needs to go wide in some way in order to go overly tall. This will crush the fun of a lot of tall play in the name of history though. It also can become counterintuitive - spending 1k gold to raise your base tax from 77 to 78 doesn't make sense when the return on investment will never come close to 1k gold. Since monarch power is built around per person and not scaled at all with size, this seems to be an insurmountable problem, and the result is just going to be a HRE full of Londons.
- 1
- 1
Well they just need to balance it a bit better maybe, gonna have that soon enough.
No. A human player can do some quite astonishing things with time and focus - and that's OK. But if the AI is consistently - game after game - doing things that are totally implausible, it will change the EU4 experience for me, and not in a good way. That said, I'll observe a few 1.13 runs and see what I think.
Development is a good and fun system. People posting in this thread that it should be nerfed or removed are presumably the same people who play a game like Shovel Knight and say "It doesn't even have good graphics!! I thought this was a PS4 game!!"
- 4