Development Diary #20 - National Focus
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
Nope, POPs are not your national culture even as your citizenship policy changes.
Even later in the game when techs are developed? Portugal can't have many regions... or are you saying the goal is to make sure max national focus points never exceed internal regions for most states population sizes?
Our current aim to to have a country like Sweden say (with 6 states) to have a maximum of 3 national focus points. That is our baseline and the we will test and balance from that.
Not even by cheating through static modifiers?
You'll have probably conquered half the world if you like using those tactics.
Can National Foci overlap?
Eg: Can I spend a Focus point to increase army recruitment in Wales, and another point to increase consumer spending in Wales?
If yes, then problems like Portugal having spare points becomes very very unlikely. If no, I can understand it being necessary for gaming reasons, but I don't think it implausible that some governments focussed on one geographical area to the exclusion of others.
Eg: Can I spend a Focus point to increase army recruitment in Wales, and another point to increase consumer spending in Wales?
If yes, then problems like Portugal having spare points becomes very very unlikely. If no, I can understand it being necessary for gaming reasons, but I don't think it implausible that some governments focussed on one geographical area to the exclusion of others.
The DD itself said that you can only have one focus active in a state, ie. you can only focus on one thing per state at a time. So either army promotion or consumer goods industries at a time, but of course you can first encourage army promotion to get it decent, and then start encouraging consumer goods industries.
A maximum of 1 point per two (more or less fully national POP-inhabited) states sounds like a decent amount. You shouldn't be able to have a focus on half your states active at the same time as you're colonising another 1-3 states. You will still be able to focus on 1 or 2 things at home and 1 or 2 places abroad even as Sweden... And only 1 point for almost all nations at the start sounds good too (eg. GB should probably be an exception, maybe USA too, Germany and Italy should probably have a base of 2 or more as well).
A maximum of 1 point per two (more or less fully national POP-inhabited) states sounds like a decent amount. You shouldn't be able to have a focus on half your states active at the same time as you're colonising another 1-3 states. You will still be able to focus on 1 or 2 things at home and 1 or 2 places abroad even as Sweden... And only 1 point for almost all nations at the start sounds good too (eg. GB should probably be an exception, maybe USA too, Germany and Italy should probably have a base of 2 or more as well).
Well, yes, once Lincoln got working it was okay. But I was referring to his predecessor, Buchanan, and the administrations before him, who had zero influence at all. I meant those, not the Lincoln administation. (Whose party would enjoy strong support in the north, once the democrat-voting Dixie POPs have seceded.) The period of 1855-1860 was when federal power in the US was pretty much at an all time low. Buchanan was so weak, he did not even try to avoid the secession of the southern states. Within the game, you would probably try to lower Dixie MIL to avoid secession, right? Having an ineffectual government would mean nothing you try works, and secession eventually happens, maybe triggered by a MIL increase following the victory of a republican candidate...
Okay, I see the problem with the AI.
But then what is the exciting aspect about national focus? Where does it feed back to the other activities of you, the player?
You mention that it does its work steadily and slowly (by encouraging migration, industry building etc over a longer time span). To me it sounds like the way you use the focus is very straightforward, and there is little variation in the way you, the player, use it. In other words, what is the strategy? Is the feedback from using a focus always positive? Or can a "focus project" (like the encouragement of industry or trade or crime fighting) ever backfire in some way?
I haven't played EU:HTTT so I don't know exactly how it works there. But a game mechanic which only has positive effects sounds very bland and boring, to be honest. I would have expected that focus is something like an investment, your government invests money and sweat and tears, and expects to see a payoff in the form of beneficial effects later on. Not an always positive game action that comes with no strings attached.
I like the idea that you can decide, as a government, to speed up certain things or create incentives for economic or social action in certain region. But it should come at a cost, should it not? Otherwise it's just a freebie...
Check out the table at the bottom of this Wiki article: Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States
It shows, in color, how historians ranked the presidents of the USA. Red is a bad (ineffective) president, green is a good (effective) president. Lincoln is the only effective president between Polk (1849) and Cleveland (1885). He was preceded by Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, ranked by all historians as some of the worst presidents of all time. His successors, Johnson and Grant, likewise don't seem to have enjoyed much praise for effectiveness. You have to wonder, shouldn't the game model the "effectiveness" of the government in some way, too?
It shows, in color, how historians ranked the presidents of the USA. Red is a bad (ineffective) president, green is a good (effective) president. Lincoln is the only effective president between Polk (1849) and Cleveland (1885). He was preceded by Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, ranked by all historians as some of the worst presidents of all time. His successors, Johnson and Grant, likewise don't seem to have enjoyed much praise for effectiveness. You have to wonder, shouldn't the game model the "effectiveness" of the government in some way, too?
The effectiveness of the government is how good the player playing it is (or maybe you're hamstringed by the political party in power, they have the wrong issues, and you, the illuminati, are hindered by it).
It's not "just a freebie", the point is to give the player a way to nudge the direction his nation takes while avoiding the crazy immigration in Vicky, and enabling the player to do some stuff like having the midwest actually receive immigration, that wasn't possible in Vicky. Also, a way to influence POP promotion without having the player do manual promotion. The cost of national focus is the opportunity cost of not using it somewhere.
Do you put a lot of time and effort into first claiming colonies, then trying to get a bureaucracy running there? Meanwhile, you're lagging behind in key industries at home since you're not encouraging them (and capis will probably still get into some sillyness when left on their own), you're not getting immigration, promotion to industrial POPs (clerks&craftsmen) is slow, your military is left weak due to lack of military POPs, you're not getting much immigration to boost your population, and capis are building railroads all over the place instead of focusing on key industrial areas or provinces with valuable RGOs.
Or you can boost immigration but just get loads of poor farmers, who you don't have that much use for, you'll have to train them to do something else later. Meanwhile, you're not getting any colonisation done, and are risking the availability of some goods not found in your homeland, as well as not getting prestige from colonisation.
It should be very much a balancing act, you put national focuses on one or a couple of areas, but if you focus on that area too much for too long, you're left weak elsewhere, and overall.
It's not "just a freebie", the point is to give the player a way to nudge the direction his nation takes while avoiding the crazy immigration in Vicky, and enabling the player to do some stuff like having the midwest actually receive immigration, that wasn't possible in Vicky. Also, a way to influence POP promotion without having the player do manual promotion. The cost of national focus is the opportunity cost of not using it somewhere.
Do you put a lot of time and effort into first claiming colonies, then trying to get a bureaucracy running there? Meanwhile, you're lagging behind in key industries at home since you're not encouraging them (and capis will probably still get into some sillyness when left on their own), you're not getting immigration, promotion to industrial POPs (clerks&craftsmen) is slow, your military is left weak due to lack of military POPs, you're not getting much immigration to boost your population, and capis are building railroads all over the place instead of focusing on key industrial areas or provinces with valuable RGOs.
Or you can boost immigration but just get loads of poor farmers, who you don't have that much use for, you'll have to train them to do something else later. Meanwhile, you're not getting any colonisation done, and are risking the availability of some goods not found in your homeland, as well as not getting prestige from colonisation.
It should be very much a balancing act, you put national focuses on one or a couple of areas, but if you focus on that area too much for too long, you're left weak elsewhere, and overall.
Will you be able to have foci's if you're an 'uncivilized' country?
I hope so, I do want it to be fun and worth it to play an unciv, and not just China either.
Check out the table at the bottom of this Wiki article: Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States
It shows, in color, how historians ranked the presidents of the USA. Red is a bad (ineffective) president, green is a good (effective) president. Lincoln is the only effective president between Polk (1849) and Cleveland (1885). He was preceded by Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, ranked by all historians as some of the worst presidents of all time. His successors, Johnson and Grant, likewise don't seem to have enjoyed much praise for effectiveness. You have to wonder, shouldn't the game model the "effectiveness" of the government in some way, too?
That seems to me more like personal opinions and based on my knowledge of certain good and bad presidents there, I wouldn't consider it any good. Every problem with such surveys is what I would call "figure-skating issue." There is no way to be objective and have some scietific way of positive and not normative ranking. It all too much depends on personal feelings of those responsible.
I agree, some say good US Presidents are merely the ones that manage to not get involved in any wars. Others may see that as a bad thing.
For me, a quiet President is a good President, nobody died on this mans watch. If you want an exciting game of Vicky however... you probably want a series of bad mofoing Presidents.
I thought I read that every country will have at least 1 focus point. Tho I wonder how huge unciv countries-china- will work.
To put it another way, one cannot measure presidents without first deciding which ideology to use as the primary criterion. If you evaluated a presidency based on its constitutionality (i.e. staying within the constitutional bounds of executive power, preventing the federal government from arrogating power that belongs to the states), you would get certain results. If you evaluated a presidency based on its effectiveness in advancing American raison d'etat, you would get another set of results. If you evaluated a presidency on its effectiveness at securing protection and entitlements for the poor and minorities, you would get yet a different set of results.
Exactly. I have seen several attempts to do the same for Prime Ministers - check whether the top one is Attlee or Churchill / Thatcher, and you can more or less predict the rest of the sequence without reading on.
I'd like techs (maybe some in every category) being able to increase / add national focus points by making the required nat'l pop size smaller... So say Sweden in 1836 has 3 focus points with 6 states while in 1920 it would have 4 due to pop growth but instead has 6 due to techs.
I do also hope uncivs with big pop sizes like China and to a lesser extent Japan and Persia have plenty of points but then they also have plenty of national states to do stuff with and since they can't colonize unless in the top 16 that will limit them from absolute domination...
I do also hope uncivs with big pop sizes like China and to a lesser extent Japan and Persia have plenty of points but then they also have plenty of national states to do stuff with and since they can't colonize unless in the top 16 that will limit them from absolute domination...
I'm assuming that assimilating PoPs will increase the points then?
(Though from what you've said this will be rather difficult to achieve....)