Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?

[Wizzington]

As opposed to the 100% realistic pan-eurasian Empire of Jewish Baden?

 

[Wizzington]

Still on vacation. Just popped in to remind you guys that realism still isn't a meaningful argument. Development is meant to occur more in countries that do not expand. It was too extreme when every opm ended at 60+ dev but it's fine as it is now.

The Baden example was just to illustrate how selectively and arbitrarily people give a damn about realism (the end result of almost every country played by a competent player will be deeply unrealistic)... which is why it's not a meaningful argument. As I keep saying.

 

[Wizzington]

Due respect Wiz, I've been a loyal Paradox customer for a long time and spent a fair amount of money on games and expansions over several years. I'm just one player with one opinion, but to hear that realism is not a meaningful argument, is a bit of a slap in the face to all the players out there - and there are a lot of us - who value these games as immersive historical simulations as much as, if not more, than we do as competitive games.

I do acknowledge that the latest beta is an improvement on the first 1.13 system, but what can be still done is both unrealistic and implausible to the point where it is completely immersion-breaking for many of us. To hear that you don't personally value that aspect which many Paradox gamers have always loved about these simulations, and don't plan to consider it in your designs, is something that will make me reconsider interest in future projects and DLCs for this game.

Yes, some won't disagree with this post because they're happy with the implications of the development system, that's people's prerogative. Those who've known me know that I'm not a regular whinger and I don't criticise if I haven't thought something through.

There are still things you need to consider.

The primary one being that historically powerful cities should not be superceded by other cities unless there is a plausible in-game explanation as to why this has occured. The unlimited and uncapped dumping of monarch points is not an adequate explanation.

There are ways that you could re-invent this system, and adjust it on a number of levels, which would make it feel more organic, but if you don't have the will to do this, it will remain what it is - a system which takes away from the feeling of the game as being a credible alternative history simulator.

You are confusing realism with immersion/flavor.

Immersion/flavor is playing a WW2 shooter and using a mosin-nagant instead of a laser gun - this is important.

Realism is playing a WW2 shooter and having to spend 2 months in hospital everytime you get shot - stupid and detrimental to gameplay. Nobody actually wants a realistic game, which is why realism arguments are so selectively used.

 

[Wizzington]

The point remains though, whether we attach the term unrealistic, implausible, or immersion-breaking - it is none the less immersion breaking that minor one or two province nations can grow to development levels matching, and far exceeding, those capitals of the great empires of history. Simply because the mechanics allow the continuous dumping on monarch points with no soft cap matched to that province's context.

For you personally perhaps, but I've seen nothing to indicate this is the case for any significant number of players since the last tweaks (and from what I've seen AI empires develop their capitals a great deal, so maybe it's just you that are neglecting yours?)

 

[Wizzington]

I can't say for other players, but Ryukyu being more Developed than London, Paris, Beijing, and Constantinople in 1700 AD breaks immersion for me. If immersion was ever broken in the history of immersion-breaking, this breaks immersion.

It is also quite unrealistic, of course.

Show me screenshots of this in a game started in latest beta, because this sounds completely made up.

 

[Wizzington]

Why did you only show London and Moska, one of which starts with a 0 0 0 and one of which is Eastern?

 

[Wizzington]

I disagree. You cannot have immersion/flavor if immerson is broken by implementing unrealistc (=implausible) game elements. Example: World of Tanks is an arcade tank game, yet we dont we see pink flying tanks there, do we.

The development of provinces in EU doesnt need to be detailed to reach highly realistic level. But it needs to reflect reality in a plausible way.

World of Tanks has tons of unrealistic game elements.

 

[Wizzington]

Because they are the Capitals of the only 2 Countries which

(1) Are ranked in the top 5 in this game in 1582;

(2) Have expanded beyond their 1444 borders through something other than Events and Decisions;

(3) Have a Capital which has been Developed through something other than Events and Decisions.

Constantinople will always have at least 34 Development as the result of a Decision but very little above that since the cost is too prohibitive. I considered showing that redundant.

Beijing (surprise surprise!) hasn't Developed - the cost is just as prohibitive as Constantinople. Ming expanded a little but also had many rebellions and Dali declared independence.

Paris is taken by England (which you can see in my screenshot) and of course the English had not Developed it at all.

Toledo is at 25 Development and Castile hasn't really expanded except through inheriting Aragon. It also starts with Monarch/Heir just as bad as England's. Would this be a better example than London?

Next on list of large countries are a Hungary half-eaten by Ottomans and Emperor Bohemia who hasn't Cored or Annexed anything.

I hope you can see why I don't find these interesting enough to put on a screenshot. But if you like to see any of them I'd be glad to put them up.

OK, I'm going to run my own tests after the vacation but ultimately the whole point of this feature is to let countries that don't expand grow in power so I'm far from convinced there's an actual problem.