Would be cool if unrest, war exhaustion, pillaging etc could lead to economic deterioration or depopulation. But I can also see this being hard to balance. What do you think?
- 9
Can provinces lose development?
- Thread starter Junuxx
- 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.
As development is a paid feature, it cannot be implemented in the base game. So if it is not included in Common Sense, it will probably never happen (or maybe if development is included in another expansion, as national focus for example). It's a good idea though.
- 3
- 1
I don't think development can be lost, but the new looting system means that provinces take several months to return to fill strength after being freed from occupation, which is similar in effect.
This is completely different. You don't need the development system to enjoy the game. Even if you don't buy CS, the gaming experience will be improved significantly.
My comment was not against the DLC policy of Paradox. I find it great: you don't have to buy the DLC you are not interested in. The only problem is it creates many 'dead ends' where it is not interesting for Paradox to develop more paid features. For example, we won't see any significant improvement of random new world, elective monarchy, or trade companies, because it would require you to own a previous expansion.
I know that they recently introduce some features in several DLC to mitigate this problem, like national focus or privateering, but they can't do this for bigger features, or otherwise people will feel like paying twice for the same thing.
So the more DLCs, the more dead ends. That's the price to pay to get this great system of non-dependency.
- 3
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Well, there are a few events that lower development. I think humanism has an event that lowers base manpower in a random province. And there is the "migration to capital" event where you lose 1 BT in a random prov.
It could happen as in Vic2 : with high w.e. an occupied province can get an event that drops the fort or railroad level. Make it possible only occassionally and give an opinion malus of the occupier to all countries within the same culture group for example.
- 1
Unless you want to play in Cental Asia, Arabia or subsaharan Africa. But we will see soon.
Gold Provinces lose production if they get above 10 and have a successful 'dice roll' at the turn of the month (year?)
This CAN happen in the base game without the expansion, but wiz said no gold provinces start at 10 production so you'd need a lot of luck to have that particular bad luck
This CAN happen in the base game without the expansion, but wiz said no gold provinces start at 10 production so you'd need a lot of luck to have that particular bad luck
Development is extreamly expansive so no you will not lose it in war, other side effects of war is bad enought.
Development is not a paid feature. Development is just the sum of base tax, base production, and base manpower in a province. CS is only required if you want to spend MP to instantly increase one of these values. There are already a large number of events that both increase and decrease "development" (base tax and base manpower, currently). Discussions of paid/free features and DLC are not relevant to this topic.
On topic, I don't think punishing the losers of wars even further would be a good thing.
- 1
I meant the possibility to increase development. I don't think it would be possible to introduce lots of events reducing development if some players are not able to increase it. So CS features are relevant to the topic. The events existing now are not happening very often, they are not disrupting the balance.
I think this may better stimulate many historical post-war situations, such as after the 30 year's war, in which Germany, once one of the most developed places in Europe, if not the world, burned to the ground. I don't think war exhaustion alone, even all the way to max, could really simulate what happened there.
However this is a game and players would just use wars to destroy any enemy country completely for the rest of the game.
That's pretty historically correct though. You want to fight on enemy land, nopt your own.
Not saying I necessarily think it should be implemented but I do think historical correctness is an incentive of it's own.
With CS your provinces will be occupied quite frequently giving you war exhuastion. Also looting and occupation of your provinces will cost you money so here you got reasons to keep the war at your enemy without creating a system that allow you to completely destoyer the loser.
- 1
Well the way you would fix that, if you are going for a system where warfare can destroy the development of counties, is to make it a slow and painful process to deplete the development of a province. In other words if you park yourself in a country looking to annihilate their development it will cost you huge amounts of manpower due to attrition, lots of war exhaustion due to your brutal occupations, and money too due to the upkeep of your troops(after all the loot is gone). As I would assume you start effecting development once the loot is depleted. It would also take years and years to get that development down any significant degree. With rebel armies opposed to your occupations rising up in the process. Perhaps even rebel opportunists at home.
That's how I would do it. Make is costly for both sides. Simply a bit more costly for the nation that is losing its development.
- 1
As long as they balance events that lower development with events that raise development, I don't see an issue. This is how base tax events are handled now.