Development cost

[aono]

Please, make development cost money in a new patch.

I know, we have Monarch Points mechanic, that something that require political will or administrative effort uses points. I like it. I can get why technology or peace treaties use points. It's something you put your government.
But development of province is something that should require money. What's province development? It's building new villages and cities, improving roads, raising castles. Something that's exactly requires money, not government.

Also it's good money sink, when player have many provinces; especially if make development costs, especially big development costs greatly.

 

[victimizer]

This would only mean that large empires can develop more since they're loaded. In reality, large empires were mostly detrimental to development.

The monarch point system is flawed, but at least it does something to represent the limits of state capacity. There is only so much one government can do develop a sprawling realm.

 

[Steph]

then make them cost some monarch points, and some ducats. Monarch poitns would limit over development of larger empire, and ducats would limit over develoment of the smaller nations.
That and require some time to develop one province before you can develop it again

 

[victimizer]

then make them cost some monarch points, and some ducats.

I think there should be a feature called "subsidize province", which would allow you to throw money at a province to lower development costs, but with a risk of introducing various negative modifiers that represent the downsides of clumsy state-lead development.

Like you might reduce development costs by 10 points after throwing money at a province for some years. How easily you'd get the reduced development event would be dynamically determined ... that is, depending on the situation, you might get negative results or positive results from subsidies. Eventually you'd start getting more and more negative events if you keep subsidizing a province for too long and too generously. Withdrawing the subsidies could provoke revolts or instability.

 

[aono]

This would only mean that large empires can develop more since they're loaded. In reality, large empires were mostly detrimental to development.

Wait, what? In reallity large empires erected great cities. London became LONDON as a capital of rich country. Russian Empire bulit cities in Siberia.
So yes, you collect richies -> you build your land. To enforce laws, modernize or create decent centralization system you need to have administrative efficiency, but not to build one more city, one more farm, one more mine, one more garrison. That was the way big empires did it!

 

[Closet Skeleton]

and ducats would limit over develoment of the smaller nations.

You're greatly underestimating the wealth of smaller nations.

Bank of Frankfurt doesn't care what you tie development to.

The AI sucks at money management. Tying development to cash will return us to the EU3 days when the player nation was always invincible because only humans could work out the economic system.

 

[Wizzington]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

 

[aono]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

What's the problem with OP Scotland who create metropolitan Shetlands? They do exactly that - develop when they can't expand.
I got your point, and I believed it's the case, so I don't said it before. But I saw in DD today that quite logical consequences of that system are counted as something worth fixed.

 

[CheesySnake]

What's the problem with OP Scotland who create metropolitan Shetlands? They do exactly that - develop when they can't expand.
I got your point, and I believed it's the case, so I don't said it before. But I saw in DD today that quite logical consequences of that system are counted as something worth fixed.

I've never seen AI Scotland (or even Great Britain) take the Shetland islands when I've been playing. Surely you mean the Western Isles?

 

[mursolini]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

Can it at least make more sense? Land-locked one-province minors that become the most developed provinces are appalling. Cash requirements would ensure that it`s the minors that rely on trade and sea access that can capitalise on development most, like Hanza, Venice, Nederlands, not Wallahia, and Georgia.

Trade republics already have little to do with their cash.

 

[lolada]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

Have to agree with this. Even if it makes sense that development costs gold it would be counterproductive in current state of EU4.

EU4 development still lacks something, its just click quickly few times, maaaaaybe build a building once and forget about province for a long time. I kind of like much more CK2 system with more building choices and no building slots. You can there build buildings all the time to get some benefits, its more immersive. Player can tailor provinces to produce more cavalry or heavy infantry for example. Some buildings are also nation specific - something like unique buildings for Hussars. They do have tech per province system which is quite specific that simulates development.

 

[aono]

I've never seen AI Scotland (or even Great Britain) take the Shetland islands when I've been playing. Surely you mean the Western Isles?

We're also looking at ways to address the situation where for example, Scotland ends up exiled on the Shetland Isles and turns them into an implausible sprawling metropolis, so stay tuned.

 

[Darkath]

What's the problem with OP Scotland who create metropolitan Shetlands? They do exactly that - develop when they can't expand.
I got your point, and I believed it's the case, so I don't said it before. But I saw in DD today that quite logical consequences of that system are counted as something worth fixed.

The problem IMO is that development has no hard ceiling you can magically develop forever as long as your monarch is producing Mana, even if the only holding you have is a godforsaken island where it's too cold for anything to grow on it (excepted sheeps and ponies)

Development max level should be tied with respective tech levels and the terrain. May be even the prosperity of the trade zone.

 

[victimizer]

Wait, what? In reallity large empires erected great cities. London became LONDON as a capital of rich country. Russian Empire bulit cities in Siberia.

Yet, the parts of the world that grew the richest were not ruled by huge empires. Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan and even England were ruled by local administrations with relatively small jurisdictions.

The parts of the world which were consolidated under larger empires turned out underdeveloped: e.g. China, the Middle East, India, Latin America and Russia.

So yes, if you actually look at the world, large early modern empires brought with them catastrophic poverty and destruction. All of them failed to industrialize, for the most part.

 

[aono]

EU4 developments still lacks something, its just click quickly few times, maaaaaybe build a building once and forget about province for a long time. I kind of like much more CK2 system with more building choices and no building slots. You can there build buildings all the time to get some benefits, its more immersive. Player can tailor provinces to produce more cavalry or heavy infantry for example. Some buildings are also nation specific - something like unique buildings for Hussars. They do have tech per province system which is quite specific that simulates development.

To be honest I don't like it. It's normal for CK2, where you have your personal domain and plays as character (I know how it's realized in CK2 perfectly, trust me ). But it's just not good for state-based gameplay. Central authority don't give an order to build a room for your crossbowmen!
To be honest I don't even like that we build churches in EU4. State scale starts with cathedrals.

The problem IMO is that development has no hard ceiling you can magically develop forever as long as your monarch is producing Mana, even if the only holding you have is a godforsaken island where it's too cold for anything to grow on it (excepted sheeps and ponies)

Yup. Also you haven't many ways to spent that mana on that island, so it will be definitly the main thing to do.

Yet, the parts of the world that grew the richest were not ruled by huge empires. Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan and even England were ruled by local administrations with relatively small jurisdictions.

They were richest, That's the point.
When your country is rich, it builds new cities and roads, expands its plains and mines, creates trade privileges. When you're broke, no matter are you small or big, your land became wasteland.
There is no any magic thing "if you're small you're rich!". Early modern empires just had another ways to spend money - you know, to raise armies, to hire mercenaries and advisers, to build exploration ships...

All of them failed to industrialize, for the most part.

Current system definitly not about industrialization.
But if you want to put industrialization here... First country that had industrialization was Britain. The biggest colonial empire for that time. France? Colonial empire. Germany? Started industrialization only after Bismark.

 

[victimizer]

There is no any magic thing "if you're small you're rich!"

Yes there is. Literally.

We are talking about a time when there was a complete lack of communications and monitoring technology. Large states were largely incapable of monitoring their officials, who could engage in any amount of robbery and graft without the capital knowing about it or being capable of limiting their abuses in any way. States with small territories could provide better administration and legal protection for their citizens.

edit: I made a suggestion on how to model this in EU4, not long ago

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/government-range-feature.879452/

The lack of communications technology some times lead to situations where generals and governors would illegally declare war on another country, hoping to win the war before the distant capital found out (and of course, if they won, it was alright).

First country that had industrialization was Britain. The biggest colonial empire for that time.

They had colonial subjects. It was not a unified jurisdiction. They never pretended to run things centrally from London.

Started industrialization only after Bismark

Nonsense. In any case, by Bismark's time they had communications technology that allowed for more effective centralization.

 

[Wizzington]

What's the problem with OP Scotland who create metropolitan Shetlands? They do exactly that - develop when they can't expand.
I got your point, and I believed it's the case, so I don't said it before. But I saw in DD today that quite logical consequences of that system are counted as something worth fixed.

Implausibility / immersion breaking. It's fine if an imperial free city gets built up to ridiculous levels since that's at least plausible, but Shetland as a sprawling metropolis is something anyone will recognize as patently ridiculous. It's not a huge issue, but it is an issue.

 

[RyanX]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

How about 10% of the development cost being covered by ducats? So if the next development cost 50 points, it would now only cost 45 points and 5 ducats?

 

[BrokenSky]

Development is not going to change from a pure monarch point cost, period. It'd have far too much bleed-over with buildings and would defeat the entire point of letting small countries develop when they can't expand.

I once saw a suggestion before CS was released where developing low development provinces cost money + MP, but the money cost reduces as the development grows and the MP goes up. This means that tall (sharp) empires are better at developing already developed provinces, while wide empires are better at developing undeveloped provinces. If the money cost has tailed off to nothing by development 15 then it'd be fine for OPMs and other small but tall nations. The overlap with buildings thing is a fair point though.

 

[Darkath]

It is important to note that development is a process that depends on a variety of factors, not just on political will. Which is the case in game atm.

Monarch points were created, rightfully so, as a way to abstract the limited political power a monarch had, to remove the clunky "magistrate" system and replace money in lot of instances like tech development.

The issue is when they become the only currency, that you can spend infinitely on something with no hard caps.

The tech system is not perfect but it works somewhat because even if you hoard mana, the increasing tech cost makes it impossible for you to get crazy tech levels just because you don't spend your MP on other things. It ought to be the same for development. Even if you have nothing else to spend your "Political will" on, you must be limited by something else to prevent you from going crazy and creating the Shetland Neo-Venice