Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?

[rrw77]

Looking beyond nation states, the world will become most developed in regions where there are multiple rulers. The greatest cities of the world will be cities with a ruler who doesn't own any other cities (OPMs). Cities which lie within large empires will be the least developed. The development of cities will not be impacted in anyway by how war-torn or peaceful they are. None of that makes sense and so the mechanic is broken.

What should cause cities to develop:

Good rulers
Times of prolonged peace and an absence of war (i.e. rulers who choose tall over wide, which I think is probably what the devs were trying to reward but have not achieved)
Economic prosperity
Trade centres or capitals of great empires

Some ideas since my last post:

Cost of development should be tied to the skill of your ruler. Your admin development cost should depend on the ADM of your ruler (say 0=+100%, 1=+50%, 2=+25%, 3=neutral, 4=-25%, 5=-50%, 6=-75%). Similarly for DIP and MIL.

Development should cost ducats not MP, but will be tied to the skills of your ruler by the above. Small countries have less ducats, but less provinces they need to develop, so this works. Small trade nations should be able to become rich and powerful. For balance any such change would probably need the creation of another use for MPs (e.g. ADM could be spent on a temporary modifier to tax, DIP on a temporary modifier to trade power, MIL on a temporary modifier to morale of armies)

Capitals should become cheaper to develop as your empire grows based on the number of provinces you have.

Trade centres should be cheaper to develop.

Development should cost +500% at war, and each month you spend at war should increase a modifier by say 2% to development cost, which should then decay during peace at something like -0.25% per month.

 

[zsImmortal]

somewhere in this topic somebody posted a picture of an OPM in africa that is 3 times more developed than the cities in europe. in the 1500's... also from 1.13

Just checked and I didn't see it. I saw an Ava that was well-developped (30ish dev, similar to the starting dev of Euro capitals) and it cost 100 MP a pop to develop. So overall, I don't see the problem.

 

[Kamiran]

One point of development in VickyII is to gain more money but the main point is to get industrial points because the only way to get industrial points is to build industries or capture provinces with industries.

The only reason why you need industrial power in Victoria 2 is to get secondary or great power status to get that tiny 0.25 more research and be able to colonize.
Main reason is still the gain of money.... and have low tax or your people to make them lucky.

With money comes military with military comes conquest with conquest comes money and this is called snowballing. One reason why the development system was created was to limit the power of military conquest. Development have become what coring is for conquest and builidings have become what military are for conquest.

Even with a lot of trade income as venice or as france you cant conquer 10 5/5/5 HRE provinces per year and core them, cause your monarch points will never reach the amount of admin power to pay the core cost. But with monarch power you can improve development and get more money, or reduce inflation, or increase stability level. What currency is now more worth?

 

[Kamiran]

What should cause cities to develop:

Good rulers
Times of prolonged peace and an absence of war (i.e. rulers who choose tall over wide, which I think is probably what the devs were trying to reward but have not achieved)
Economic prosperity
Trade centres or capitals of great empires

Some ideas since my last post:

Cost of development should be tied to the skill of your ruler. Your admin development cost should depend on the ADM of your ruler (say 0=+100%, 1=+50%, 2=+25%, 3=neutral, 4=-25%, 5=-50%, 6=-75%). Similarly for DIP and MIL.

Development should cost ducats not MP, but will be tied to the skills of your ruler by the above. Small countries have less ducats, but less provinces they need to develop, so this works. Small trade nations should be able to become rich and powerful. For balance any such change would probably need the creation of another use for MPs (e.g. ADM could be spent on a temporary modifier to tax, DIP on a temporary modifier to trade power, MIL on a temporary modifier to morale of armies)

Capitals should become cheaper to develop as your empire grows based on the number of provinces you have.

Trade centres should be cheaper to develop.

Development should cost +500% at war, and each month you spend at war should increase a modifier by say 2% to development cost, which should then decay during peace at something like -0.25% per month.

That is one of the best solutions ive seen till yet. The modifiers for ruler should be lower, especially those over 3 ( 0 = +60%, 1 = +40%, 2= +20%, 0 = 0%, 4 = -10%, 5 = -25%, 6 = -40%)
Cost of development could be around 80. One point in tax will increase tax income by 1 per year. If you have to pay 80 ducats for one tax improvement you need 80 years to feel the benefit. I think thats ok and minor nations will feel the difference.
Also cost reduction for capitol for more provinces is great idea. Trade centers already have cost reduction, and this should stay as it is.
Also cost reduction for years of peace is great idea.

I would suggest another option someone mentioned before. Make pillaging development as peace treaty option. You can select province you conquered and if enemy accept peace, you leech development from this province and these development is spread over your nation with your capitol as center. This would increase the options tall player have and make it more intresting.

 

[Mercain]

Well, i see only one solution to the problem, replace MP with Ducats, seems more logical and realistic. In real life, a province require money to develop, not some magical mana points your leader makes out of thin air and magicly the province is now more developed. This will result in small highly developed trade nations like Venice, Hansa, Genoa & etc. but will stop the spread of highly developed african or siberian nations.
Another idea is to add upkeep cost for each province, right now, having another province just gives you free Ducats and Manpower at the cost of Admin points for coring or Diplo points for annex. In order to maintain a province, you need to dump some money, seems logical and realistic right? so, for example, a 1 1 1 province would cost you something like 0.01 ducat, but a 10 10 10 would cost 1 ducat. This would also mean that nations will have to plan their expansion. This is good, will also limit blops forming too fast, like Ottomans, France and Commonwealth, it will stimulate people to play as trade republics. Possibilities are endless!

 

[Mauer]

Cost of development should be tied to the skill of your ruler. Your admin development cost should depend on the ADM of your ruler (say 0=+100%, 1=+50%, 2=+25%, 3=neutral, 4=-25%, 5=-50%, 6=-75%). Similarly for DIP and MIL.

Development should cost ducats not MP, but will be tied to the skills of your ruler by the above. Small countries have less ducats, but less provinces they need to develop, so this works. Small trade nations should be able to become rich and powerful. For balance any such change would probably need the creation of another use for MPs (e.g. ADM could be spent on a temporary modifier to tax, DIP on a temporary modifier to trade power, MIL on a temporary modifier to morale of armies)

Capitals should become cheaper to develop as your empire grows based on the number of provinces you have.

Trade centres should be cheaper to develop.

Development should cost +500% at war, and each month you spend at war should increase a modifier by say 2% to development cost, which should then decay during peace at something like -0.25% per month.

This would make lucky nations develop more, which is not a bad thing IMO. It would also make small but rich nations (particularly republics) more easy to develop than similarly small but poor minors.

 

[CNY10000]

Looking beyond nation states, the world will become most developed in regions where there are multiple rulers. The greatest cities of the world will be cities with a ruler who doesn't own any other cities (OPMs). Cities which lie within large empires will be the least developed. The development of cities will not be impacted in anyway by how war-torn or peaceful they are. None of that makes sense and so the mechanic is broken.

What should cause cities to develop:

Good rulers
Times of prolonged peace and an absence of war (i.e. rulers who choose tall over wide, which I think is probably what the devs were trying to reward but have not achieved)
Economic prosperity
Trade centres or capitals of great empires

Some ideas since my last post:

Cost of development should be tied to the skill of your ruler. Your admin development cost should depend on the ADM of your ruler (say 0=+100%, 1=+50%, 2=+25%, 3=neutral, 4=-25%, 5=-50%, 6=-75%). Similarly for DIP and MIL.

Development should cost ducats not MP, but will be tied to the skills of your ruler by the above. Small countries have less ducats, but less provinces they need to develop, so this works. Small trade nations should be able to become rich and powerful. For balance any such change would probably need the creation of another use for MPs (e.g. ADM could be spent on a temporary modifier to tax, DIP on a temporary modifier to trade power, MIL on a temporary modifier to morale of armies)

Capitals should become cheaper to develop as your empire grows based on the number of provinces you have.

Trade centres should be cheaper to develop.

Development should cost +500% at war, and each month you spend at war should increase a modifier by say 2% to development cost, which should then decay during peace at something like -0.25% per month.

The bonus/malus from rulers you give is too drastic. Ruler, as a random factor in EU4, already matters too much in EU4.

and I think war-penalty should be tied to WE instead. In the system you proposed, when Portugal spends two months to conquer a native, the development penalty remains there for 18 months for Portugal.

 

[Exiled_Noble99]

I'm OK with development as it is but paradox needs to add mechanics to reduce it. War, plague, emigration, and natural disasters should all have a role in reducing development of provinces. A country who neglects repair will suffer manpower, income, and production losses. After Lisbon was hit with an earthquake, it took money, political focus, and resources to get it back to its glory days. This would be awesome immertion and provide checks to unrestricted growth of provinces for countries who don't expand. A country who is large will not nearly feel the economic problems of an earthquake, but all nations should feel consequences of war, even if it doesn't result in loss of provinces.

IMO, loss of development due to bloody wars and looting could be the best check to expansion, rather then the huge AE right now. If I am a small minor in the HRE, it helps check me from declaring war to take a province due to my cities taking a toll. However, winning the war shouldnt result in the entire HRE hating you once you take 2 provinces. The weak state you could be left in will already make you vulnerable, plus further wars will reduce both your land development plus any land of potential enemies. If you truly are a threat, then the emperor should be the one who declares war to keep you down, not a super coalition of every german minor plus France and England.


So, what I would like to see in 1.14 is

- Reduced cost for development to allow for more fluctuations of development

-Many events that either add development such as immigration, or reduce it such as a flood.

- Greatly reduced AE for smaller nations (less then 300 development)

- Consequences of war (ie. Looting reduces base provincial development, manpower losses reduce manpower development, scorched earth reduces provincial development, but should increase attrition ALOT more etc)

There could even be a button to burn cities, but this should come at a relations penalty to several nations if performed on a major city. Maybe only let nomads use this button? There a lot of other things that could be added, I just don't want Romania having a population density of Paris when there is constant war of famine in the area.

 

[Tea Leaf]

I have only read the first few pages of replies so I agpoligise if this has already been said.

I was thinking about the problem with OPMs having a higher development at the end of the game than the capitals of global spanning empires. It occurred to me that is was strange that capitals don't have a modifier to slowly increase the three different development levels automatically (e.g. 0.05 per year). This capital development modifier could then be increase and decrease by various parameters such as: total number of provinces, number and size of colonial national and trade companies, if the capital has been sacked, average of non-overseas autonomy (the lower the better), events (great fires anyone?), ect.

This capital development modifier could also affect neighbouring provinces too, giving them a slow automatic development. This neighbouring capital province development modifier could be a flat out figure (e.g. 0.01) or a fraction of the capital modifier ( e.g. 50%). If the capital is coastal the neighbouring capital province development modifier could give a slight boast in trade power.

This leads me to my second idea which is return of national foci from EU3/Vicky 2. After a country grows past x amount of provinces (lets say 10) it gains a national focus, for example I'm playing France and I have 100 provinces I would have 10 national foci. These foci just give out a flat automatic modifier to development in a province plus a small neighbouring province development modifier (and trade power if coastal). They can be placed in any province you own including: the capital, colonies and in the provinces of colonial nations. After they have been placed they can only been moved after 25 years have gone by.

If a province is neighbouring two national foci it gets double the modifier, three triple, ect.

I'm sure there is some technical issues with the above ideas though.​

 

[rrw77]

The bonus/malus from rulers you give is too drastic. Ruler, as a random factor in EU4, already matters too much in EU4.

and I think war-penalty should be tied to WE instead. In the system you proposed, when Portugal spends two months to conquer a native, the development penalty remains there for 18 months for Portugal.

Thanks, yes WE is a better mechanic for this, that's a good call. The ruler scaling is the sort of thing you'd probably need to play test a bit to calibrate, but possibly my initial stab at it was too drastic.

 

[Kamiran]

I'm OK with development as it is but paradox needs to add mechanics to reduce it. War, plague, emigration, and natural disasters should all have a role in reducing development of provinces.

Many call for development decrease by war, but this will hit the player too hard cause in 98% of games you get to war to expand your nation. You cant defend all provinces at same time and I am pretty sure you will damn paradox if you lose 1 development in a well developed province worth 100 monarch power cause a 2000 minor nation army conquered it in one month....
Also this will not solve the problem when the minor nations is peaceful over 200 years.
Or do you want to declare war to walachei in middest of europe when you are playing an indian nation, only to decrease their development for no benefit to you?

After Lisbon was hit with an earthquake, it took money, political focus, and resources to get it back to its glory days.

Earthquakes destroys buildings which cost money... that is ok.... but not monarch power development.

Ive got this result with a 400 point nation designer county. Please look at my money.... Every province have a manufactury, all builings slots used, i built the panama channel, iam using lvl 3 advisors since 200 years. I have enough money to build a channel through whole africa... but i cant improve my 1/1/1 provinces cause i dont have enough monarch power.... that makes no sense.

 

[Exiled_Noble99]

Like I said before, development should be ALOT cheaper in monarch pts wise. Sadly you cant get rid of the monarch pt requirement because nations like Portugul would be able to create super territories from their 20 k treasurh you can have by 1650. Adding a money aspect is wise to prevent minors from growing super fast, but there should be a balance with monarch pts. If a minor stays peaceful for the entirety of the game, they should have very developed provinces. However, like I said before, natural disasters, disease, and people leaving the country from events should all keep that in check.



If the game economy wasn't so broke, development coming from money would be perfect. However, you can easily amass a gigantic treasury from 200 ducats a month you can achieve from trade.

The whole fort system is designed to prevent minors from taking provinces at will. If your nation is so big that you can't defend your borders then that is a consequence of getting big. Historically, armies had to split up to defend the borders in a two front war. In the game currently, you could hardly care if one front is being seiged down while you send your armies elsewhere. In reality, you should want to defend all bordors to prevent them from being razed, and really make you think about where your enemies are.You should defend your territory from multiple threats, and it should be a struggle of being a large empire.

 

[freedavebrown]

Development shouldn't just be click and done. You should invest the points to begin the development and start a multi year process that can be sped up (spending money for instance). Slowed down (disasters. Regency. Bad rulers. Etc). Or magnified (ideas maybe. Policies. Excellent rulers. Advisors)

 

[Beagá]

Some good ideas here.

I support the notion that war exhaustion should NOT be able to be decreased by magic button and that high WE should create chance for development to decrease, specially in occupied provinces.

That alone would help a lot in balancing the system. REMOVE the magic Reduce War Exhaustion button!

 

[Kamiran]

The whole fort system is designed to prevent minors from taking provinces at will. If your nation is so big that you can't defend your borders then that is a consequence of getting big. Historically, armies had to split up to defend the borders in a two front war. In the game currently, you could hardly care if one front is being seiged down while you send your armies elsewhere. In reality, you should want to defend all bordors to prevent them from being razed, and really make you think about where your enemies are.You should defend your territory from multiple threats, and it should be a struggle of being a large empire.

You could decrease the effect of looting and integrate a new mechanic, that decrease the development temporarely (the effect is greater the longer province is occupied/the army is on the province) and have to be repaired after the war with ducats (with a slider like colonismn, army, fleet).

That alone would help a lot in balancing the system. REMOVE the magic Reduce War Exhaustion button!

Ive never used this button. No need if you plan your war and dont get sieged.

 

[Beagá]

Wow really? Do you even play multiplayer or do risky stuff that gets you into big coalitions?

Go play MP or a hard start like Aq Koyunlu, then come here to brag, hmkay?

 

[Nuklearius]

Wow

 

[MrOobling]

I'm sorry if this has already been suggested but how about scaling monarch points?
The amount of monarch points a country gets and the tech cost, war exhaustion, stability cost, inflation reduction etc... scales along with the country's size. However, things like development cost, culture converting and possibly coring don't. This means that although larger nations spend the same proportion of their monarch points on tech, they also have more to spend on other things as well.

 

[Kamiran]

Wow really? Do you even play multiplayer or do risky stuff that gets you into big coalitions?

Go play MP or a hard start like Aq Koyunlu, then come here to brag, hmkay?

How do war exhaustion solve the problem, that never at war minor nations have high development?

And iam only allowed to talk about game issues when i can play as Aq Koyunlu? Poor argument.

 

[hashinshin]

I actually think war exhaustion should have a cooldown on use to prevent 50 year wars. There exists no war in history that was just 50 years of perpetual conflict. WW1 did that for like 4 years and it ruined Europe.

Please don't say the 100 years war, because they had constant truces and breaks in action.