Premise:
There are a number of provinces representing very small or inhospitable territories in the map, and it would be highly implausible for them to ever support large cities, with only a few rare exceptions.
Development in these provinces should therefore be prohibitively costly.
Each province in the game should be assigned a 'development potential' number. This number could be as low as 1, or as high as 20, perhaps even more in certain provinces. It would represent the level of development that could reasonably be supported by the province's agriculture. A capital would function as an extra 3, 6, or 10 points respectively, depending on the country's rank. Other than the capital modifier, it would be fixed for each province.
Increasing development up to and including 'development potential' would cost 40 per, multiplied by development efficiency, and the economic idea cost reduction.
Terrain/climate/COT modifiers could then either be removed from the equation, or retained. Personally I'd keep the climate but integrate terrain and COT into the 'development potential' value.
Increasing development over the 'development potential' would cost the same, but added to that would be the same cost, multiplied by a development overextension factor. This factor could be (0.5 + (0.5 / DP)) * overextension amount.
Example 1: You're increasing base tax of Orkney Islands, potential development 1, actual development 3. The overextension amount would be 3 (new development 4 - potential 1).
You have a development efficiency of 25%. The cost would be (40 + 40 * (0.5 + (0.5/1)) * 3) * 0.75 = 120.
Example 2: You're increasing base tax of mid-game Paris, potential development 35 (25 + capital bonus), actual development 37
You have a development efficiency of 25%. The cost would be (40 + 40 * (0.5 + (0.5/35) * 3) * 0.75 = 76.
You could play around with those numbers a bit - a factor like (0.2 + (0.8 / DP)) * overextension would even further direct overextended development to the bigger cities. You could than compensate by adding a linear component (1 per development) to the total cost, ignoring development overextension.
Edit: I like the idea of making the overextension penalty exponential. And changing the numbers.
So the formula could become: (40 + 20 * (1.2 + (0.8 / (development potential) ) ^ (development overextension) ) * (development efficiency).
First example, increasing Orkney Islands development from 3 to 4 - cost would be 150.
Second example, increasing Paris development from 37 to 38 - cost would be 76.
Increasing Orkney Islands development from 6 to 7 - cost would be 1320.
Increasing Paris development from 39 to 40 - cost would be 106.
That's sorta where I'm going with this. If Orkney Islands were a capital OTOH you'd be able to develop quite a bit more than that.
There are a number of provinces representing very small or inhospitable territories in the map, and it would be highly implausible for them to ever support large cities, with only a few rare exceptions.
Development in these provinces should therefore be prohibitively costly.
Each province in the game should be assigned a 'development potential' number. This number could be as low as 1, or as high as 20, perhaps even more in certain provinces. It would represent the level of development that could reasonably be supported by the province's agriculture. A capital would function as an extra 3, 6, or 10 points respectively, depending on the country's rank. Other than the capital modifier, it would be fixed for each province.
Increasing development up to and including 'development potential' would cost 40 per, multiplied by development efficiency, and the economic idea cost reduction.
Terrain/climate/COT modifiers could then either be removed from the equation, or retained. Personally I'd keep the climate but integrate terrain and COT into the 'development potential' value.
Increasing development over the 'development potential' would cost the same, but added to that would be the same cost, multiplied by a development overextension factor. This factor could be (0.5 + (0.5 / DP)) * overextension amount.
Example 1: You're increasing base tax of Orkney Islands, potential development 1, actual development 3. The overextension amount would be 3 (new development 4 - potential 1).
You have a development efficiency of 25%. The cost would be (40 + 40 * (0.5 + (0.5/1)) * 3) * 0.75 = 120.
Example 2: You're increasing base tax of mid-game Paris, potential development 35 (25 + capital bonus), actual development 37
You have a development efficiency of 25%. The cost would be (40 + 40 * (0.5 + (0.5/35) * 3) * 0.75 = 76.
You could play around with those numbers a bit - a factor like (0.2 + (0.8 / DP)) * overextension would even further direct overextended development to the bigger cities. You could than compensate by adding a linear component (1 per development) to the total cost, ignoring development overextension.
Edit: I like the idea of making the overextension penalty exponential. And changing the numbers.
So the formula could become: (40 + 20 * (1.2 + (0.8 / (development potential) ) ^ (development overextension) ) * (development efficiency).
First example, increasing Orkney Islands development from 3 to 4 - cost would be 150.
Second example, increasing Paris development from 37 to 38 - cost would be 76.
Increasing Orkney Islands development from 6 to 7 - cost would be 1320.
Increasing Paris development from 39 to 40 - cost would be 106.
That's sorta where I'm going with this. If Orkney Islands were a capital OTOH you'd be able to develop quite a bit more than that.
Last edited:
- 2
Upvote
0