Are the provinces properly balanced?

[vfmikey]

So, I'm playing 1.12, no CS, as Poland. And there is this little thing that bugs me - the level of development for Warsaw. It starts as 8-8-4, on par with Siena, Palermo, Vienna, better than Sevilla etc. Basically - it's one of the richest provinces in the game, in 1444, which seems very highly unlikely because in 1500 it was inhabited by 6,5k people, while in Siena it was almost 10 times than!

But yeah, whatever. I can chew through that, by xix century the city got to the "8-8-4" development level.

But after incorporating the city it gets +2bt (10-8-4), and with a decision to move a capital there it gains furthermore 1bt and 1mp making it 11-8-5 making it one of top 10 provinces in the world. And probably it's still XVth century! How is it even remotely plausible?

Also the fact that Krakow is more developed than London, Budapest, Vienna and it's on par with Prague...

TL;DR nerf Kraków and Warsaw, remove terrible events for Warsaw.

Look at Lyon - it's 6-6-8. I lived in all of those three cities and I'm not going to believe for a second that Krakow and especially Warsaw was more developed in 1500s.





Sidenote: Is there a way to develop provinces? The wiki states that Paris is 10-10-8, and in my game AI France has it at 14-10-8 (1629) and I'm pretty sure one of my provinces has grown in manpower, but I'm not certain.

 

[Apolojuice]

Krakow sounds about right, but Warsaw was basically a farm. It was a compromise by Poland to move their capital towards the centre with Lithuanian component weighing so much in the east and Krakow being situated so much southwest, you could make a report.

 

[Wizzington]

It's not just about the city, but also the land the province encompasses.

 

[yerm]

It wasn't lowered enough. I would argue it should be cranked all the way down to the level of something like Berlin.

The city should have an inland center of trade modifier. It was in an ideal central location between Vilnius and Krakow, while along the Vistula for connecting with Danzig. CoT gives a development bonus which would help there, and its benefits would compensate for shafting the raw values of the province.

The move cap and beef city decisions come way too early. It absolutely needs to require owning Danzig for starters. The decision to beef it up (personal fief I think its called?) could use waiting for PLC formation, or perhaps be tied to electing a foreign monarch (assuming it is modeled after the Vasa improvements) or just a higher admin tech.

So, pummel it to like 4 5 3 or so, add an inland center of trade, and delay the movement of the cap there and the expansion to it as a personal fief. Profit.

It's not just about the city, but also the land the province encompasses.

The land was developed well after 1444, and was largely due to its ideal location between major cities. This is better modeled with things like farmlands terrain and a center of trade, allowing for development, rather than actual starting development.

 

[WeissRaben]

ecause in 1500 it was inhabited by 6,5k people, while in Siena it was almost 10 times than!

I'll point out that this is incorrect - Siena was (like the rest of Italy) hit hard by the Black Death, but even before that it had floated around the 50k mark; and it never got to 65k, not even in modern days, except for a brief touch in the Seventies before falling again (today, its population is 52k).

 

[Chamboozer]

It's not just about the city, but also the land the province encompasses.

According to Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland, Mazovia was one of the poorer regions of Poland.

"Mazowsze (Mazovia) on the middle Vistula has always been relatively backward. Gravelly soils, morainic deposits, and poor drainage have inhibited agriculture, leaving wide expanses of heath and scrubland. The province has no natural resources of note, and its poverty-stricken nobles and peasantry traditionally provided large numbers of emigrants and colonists. Its chief city, Warsaw, was raised to distinction for reasons of convenience, not achievement."

Krakow, on the other hand, should be rich indeed.

 

[hajutze]

As soon as you see how much development Lithuania has, everything stops making sense ...

 

[fridabina]

Perhaps moving the capital to Warsawa could give a bigger Development bonus, allowing for the province to be a bit poorer at the start of the game.

 

[Wizzington]

I'll have Trin look at this thread and see if he agrees.

 

[Oyubi]

Please don't nerf them too hard Wiz.

The thing is the new development system wouldn't allow a city to be great unless it starts strong. The speed at which improvements go up in cost is pohibitive to say the least and dumping mil points increases the cost of dumping dip and admin points in this version of the game. Mil is in abundance but admin in particular is still hard to come by for the first hundred years unless you roll good monarchs. That means even now the cities can't fully reflect the real 1444 condition because if they did you'd have a dirt poor europe with 1000000000000000000000 manpower by 1821. Poland in particular would suffer since they can get a lot of rubbish kings forced on them.

Seperating the 3 improvements and giving more events to cheapen development based on big factors such trade dominance, colonial dominance for your capital would allow europe to develop right but until then the big end game cities need an artificial leg up.

 

[Wizzington]

We're not going to nerf Warsaw into the ground because we don't just base development on 1444 but also what it became later, but a tweak may be in order.

 

[vfmikey]

Thanks!

I'll point out that this is incorrect - Siena was (like the rest of Italy) hit hard by the Black Death, but even before that it had floated around the 50k mark; and it never got to 65k, not even in modern days, except for a brief touch in the Seventies before falling again (today, its population is 52k).

Well, I said almost

I do realize I exaggerated a bit (lot). But you do see my point.

 

[zedyue]

Even though I really like the development system, I dislike how improving one increases the cost of the others - like oyubi said. I understand that developing land means it can't be developed by something else, but I wish the cost would go up LESS for the ones you aren't developing. I'm not claiming in any way that I know what I'm doing but it's pretty irritating that going from 2-3 base tax can cost either 60~ admin or >300 admin depending on how much the rest of the province is developed. I guess it's just not personally intuitive to me.

 

[WeissRaben]

Well, I said almost

I do realize I exaggerated a bit (lot). But you do see my point.

For 1444, "thrice" is a better fit.

 

[gucci]

I also started a Poland campaign, and was suprized how little diversity there was in starting development levels. I just though the further east you go the poor the provinces get. Most of Poland and luthiania are on par with the HRE.

 

[grommile]

The move cap and beef city decisions come way too early. It absolutely needs to require owning Danzig for starters.

That's... not much of a requirement. Obtaining Danzig is the capstone of Poland's early-game priorities anyway.

 

[justin6477]

Even though I really like the development system, I dislike how improving one increases the cost of the others - like oyubi said. I understand that developing land means it can't be developed by something else, but I wish the cost would go up LESS for the ones you aren't developing. I'm not claiming in any way that I know what I'm doing but it's pretty irritating that going from 2-3 base tax can cost either 60~ admin or >300 admin depending on how much the rest of the province is developed. I guess it's just not personally intuitive to me.

Agreed, but if the current systems stays as is, at the very least, we should be able to sort provinces by development cost. Since cost scales not with total development, but with input, it would be nice to easily discern which provinces are cheap and easy to invest in from the build menu.

 

[yerm]

We're not going to nerf Warsaw into the ground because we don't just base development on 1444 but also what it became later, but a tweak may be in order.

In this case the province gets a decision which increases its value later, its already implemented, so you could VERY easily shift all adjustments to it - if you reduce starting development by 10 total and increase the personal fief decision by that much (I know, I know, bear with me) you get the same "what it became later" end result.

My argument is that Warsaw was in a perfect location, not great soil or large populations, and therefore an inland center of trade is the perfect "buff" to make up for a development "nerf" to it. The fact that CoT makes development cheaper is icing, since it can potentially offset the early lack of numbers by having them potentially higher later on from development.

That's... not much of a requirement. Obtaining Danzig is the capstone of Poland's early-game priorities anyway.

Starters, sir, starters.

 

[talilu]

Paradox invests in Eastern Poland?

 

[Zagys]

Never mind Warsaw, look at Kiev.