Yes, and I edited my post to note that X would be average -maximum- manpower of all tags. So, you'd have to be big, peaceful, and not in the middle of a military build-up to see the full benefit.
Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?
- Thread starter Krajzen
- 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.
Yes, and I edited my post to note that X would be average -maximum- manpower of all tags. So, you'd have to be big, peaceful, and not in the middle of a military build-up to see the full benefit.
Do you mean, at 50% of your maximum manpower you have 0% modifier and every 5000 above that, the cost is reduced by 2%? It sounds nice, makes development more attractive to bigger nations.
BUT...
If you play the game as big conquerer, you will always use your manpower for conquest and be penalized by this mechanic, using development evel less.
Or you will play the game tall, always with maximum manpower but with a low general maximum of your pool, so the cost reduction will be small.
A modifier in this way will have no big influence to gameplay, only for a player that conquer in the first half of the game and than spend all their effort into development. The modifier have only a minor influence to small nations or OPM (the major problem we are talking about), and non-western nations will still not use the development system.
In my opinion the payment with monarch points is the problem. Paying development with ducats would make sense, but snowballing effect would ruin the game balance.
Development should be linked with the general power of a nation (and not magic generated by random ruler) that dont scale that hard like trade income or production do.
I see only manpower as a good solution for this, time based for balance and realismn, and with increasing cost for a soft cap for OPM and minor nations.
Maybe we could tie development to the trade region its positioned in.
For example development would be a lot cheaper around the adriatic under the venetian trade node than in the balkans around ragusa.
So the provinces under the richer trade node would have cheaper development while those around crappy nodes would have more expensive development,that way the nations around the wealthy nodes(historically rich ones) would be the most developed.
For example development would be a lot cheaper around the adriatic under the venetian trade node than in the balkans around ragusa.
So the provinces under the richer trade node would have cheaper development while those around crappy nodes would have more expensive development,that way the nations around the wealthy nodes(historically rich ones) would be the most developed.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
I have 2 proposals on how to add alternate methods of development to help large empires use the new mechanic.
A: Completing the economic idea group unlocks three new policies. Each policy gives a discount for development costs in its respective category, and at the end of every year you get an event (or something similar) giving a chance for each province to gain one development in that catagory with, for example, higher base-tax lowering the chance of improving base-tax. This system would happen with each monarch point type and would be a good way of slowly developing a large empire over a large amount of time.
B: Once you reach the empire government rank, you get a decision to spend a very large amount of money to improve the capital, and only the capital, with a maximum potential capped by your total development. For example, as Byzantium you could spend X years of income to upgrade your capital's total development to Y% of your current total development. This would incentivize expansion, as adding more land would improve the power of this decision, while allowing your capital to become the envy of the world if you build an empire that makes Rome look small.
A: Completing the economic idea group unlocks three new policies. Each policy gives a discount for development costs in its respective category, and at the end of every year you get an event (or something similar) giving a chance for each province to gain one development in that catagory with, for example, higher base-tax lowering the chance of improving base-tax. This system would happen with each monarch point type and would be a good way of slowly developing a large empire over a large amount of time.
B: Once you reach the empire government rank, you get a decision to spend a very large amount of money to improve the capital, and only the capital, with a maximum potential capped by your total development. For example, as Byzantium you could spend X years of income to upgrade your capital's total development to Y% of your current total development. This would incentivize expansion, as adding more land would improve the power of this decision, while allowing your capital to become the envy of the world if you build an empire that makes Rome look small.
- 3
The probability of the event firing would be pretty small right? MTTH/province/development type being, say, 10 years for a 1/1/1 province? Also putting this in as a free update feature might help with that thing were people are annoyed by the building system overhaul being balanced assuming you had common sense, but being mandatory whether you had it or not?
Why not add a ducat cost to developments? This way small and poor minors will have limited developments towards the end game.
It's quite simple, really.
It's quite simple, really.
- 1
No that's not what I mean at all. Read my post.
The X has nothing to do with your max manpower - it has to do with your manpower relative to other countries. It's the average manpower of all countries.
So a small peaceful country will always have expensive development, by virtue of being small, especially as the world consolidates. A large, constantly conquering nation won't get a bonus, either, but it's unlikely to get much of a penalty, because of it's large pool. But large somewhat peaceful countries will get huge bonuses.
Last edited:
the funny thing, is taht barracks would decrease development cost when we use manpower in the calculation 
.
.- 2
Your right. Its only an adjustment thing. You could increase the general manpower generation and decrease the effect of military buildings. Or decrease general manpower generation and increase it by technology in steps. Also quantity ideas have to be a bit adjusted (decrease manpower generation from 50% to 20%). But these are only balancing things.
But we are talking about the general issues of development:
1. western OPM are spamming incredible amount of monrach points in development
2. Aggressiv playing nations with lot of coring and diplo annexing will not spend their rare monarch points towards development
3. development effect for big nations is insignificant
4. technology penalty is eating every excess monarch points from non-western nations, making development for non-western nations a complety useless game mechanic
All this could be solved, if you use a time period and an increasing manpower payment instead of monarch points.
Your proposal annihilates the point of development. The mechanic is designed to make playing tall by developing an alternative to spending Monarch Points on war taxes, leaders, treaties, war exhaustion, and coring. Converting development to an entirely manpower-based metric makes it so that the only valid play-strategy is as a military-focused, quantity based conqueror, who spends manpower on manpower development in provinces, so he has more manpower to spend on manpower development. That's a totally circular system that would make taking Quantity and Aristocratic as your first and third idea groups as Moscow a simple way to quickly become the most per-capita developed country in the world, regardless of whether the quantity boosts have to be gutted, because they would also become the most powerful economic boosts in the game.
Current manpower relative to the average maximum manpower of all nations is a good discount value for development, that will allow wider nations to get a little taller and catch up, after they let their manpower recover, while slowing down the development of minors as nations consolidate and remove minor powers from the calculation.
Using only manpower (or only money) as development currency would make playing wide the only way to play tall.
- 3
- 1
Your already spending money to build tax and production improvements and manufacturies to get more money. Why you didnt complain about this circular system?
When you conquer with your soldiers provinces and integrate them, you have even more soldiers to conquer more. Why you didnt complain about this curcular system?
With a lot of MP you can unlock more ideas and technology to safe MP (-25% coring cost, +25% administration efficience, etc). Why you didnt complain about this curcular system?
The real world is in most cases a circular system, you invest something and get more of it. Thats capitalismn. Iam sorry if you want communismn or something else but this is reality and I dont know why you dont want this global rule of economic NOT in this game.
Quantity idea group is even without any changes too powerful, but paradox is changing and balancing a lot and i dont see any problem in changing some ideagroups to fit the new system. Why not reducing the +50% manpower to +20% and switch it to administrative or innovative idea groups? Improving the weaker and rarely taken idea groups?
Possible changes would be also to reduce the manpower gain per mil-lvl from 250 to 200 and integrate +10% to manpower gain by technology in two or three steps. This would also reduce the effect of barracks and training fields.
Then take 5000 manpower that is needed for 1 development, over 4 years, with 200 more every point above 10, and lose 25% of that manpower, when the development is finished.
That is 9000 manpower for upgrading a province from lvl 30 to 31, effectivly loosing 2250 manpower, 2 full troops.
And with the new mechanic, you cant develop military dev every time. You have to develop adm or dip too (one dev cant be higher then the two other together).
All I want ist to go away from this illogical, magic monarch power system. If you plan your wars well, you never need war taxes, war exhaustion and rararely diplomatic points for treaties. 50 Points for a conquistator, discoverer or general lasts for 5-30 years. That you have to pay "coring" cost for provinces is also never seen in any other strategy game, but ok.
Do you know what I think? Paradox dont integrated a development system for a NEW AWESOME playstyle. The only intention was, to give new options for monarch points wasting.
I would like to point back to my proposal regarding trade regions that seems to have been buried under previoud posts.
If we link the development costs to the wealth of its trade region then we could get an accurate development across the globe with wealthy regions producting wealthy provinces.
It would also give players incentive to try to dominate trade in their region and stop it from flowing to their rivals.
So under such a system all provinces would have a base development cost that would be decreased depending on how wealthy their trade region is.
Lets take an example of a nation under several trade regions like croatia.
Croatia would have the cheapest development in its provinces under the venetian trade region,it would also have a nice discount in its province under the wiena trade region,on the other hand its provinces under the ragusa trade region would be a lot more expensive to develop and would simulate those regions being fairly underdeveloped historically.
Under such a system wallachia could never become new york because its ragusan trade node wouldnt give it any meaningful discount while on the other hand the ottomans would easily develop into a regional superpower on account of owning constantinople which is valuable.
In the end the most developed nations in the world would be the ones around the most valuable trade nodes,that would encompass the historic great powers like england,france,spain,portugal,netherlands etc.
It seems to me like the easiest way to simulate realistic development without resorting to manpower or cash spam.
And before people start saying its to deterministic remember that most crappy trade nodes are in fairly crappy places to begin with,i dont think its hard to imagine why bosnia would have a lot less development potential than belgium.
If we link the development costs to the wealth of its trade region then we could get an accurate development across the globe with wealthy regions producting wealthy provinces.
It would also give players incentive to try to dominate trade in their region and stop it from flowing to their rivals.
So under such a system all provinces would have a base development cost that would be decreased depending on how wealthy their trade region is.
Lets take an example of a nation under several trade regions like croatia.
Croatia would have the cheapest development in its provinces under the venetian trade region,it would also have a nice discount in its province under the wiena trade region,on the other hand its provinces under the ragusa trade region would be a lot more expensive to develop and would simulate those regions being fairly underdeveloped historically.
Under such a system wallachia could never become new york because its ragusan trade node wouldnt give it any meaningful discount while on the other hand the ottomans would easily develop into a regional superpower on account of owning constantinople which is valuable.
In the end the most developed nations in the world would be the ones around the most valuable trade nodes,that would encompass the historic great powers like england,france,spain,portugal,netherlands etc.
It seems to me like the easiest way to simulate realistic development without resorting to manpower or cash spam.
And before people start saying its to deterministic remember that most crappy trade nodes are in fairly crappy places to begin with,i dont think its hard to imagine why bosnia would have a lot less development potential than belgium.
- 2
Kamiran, I love underlining the same question over and over as a rhetorical device, but if you can't see the logical differences between using manpower, a thing that full regenerates over the course of ten years, to buy manpower, which actually influences the gross # of itself recovered per month, and the other things you mentioned, I don't think I can help you.
This is a false equivalency: I cannot buy money with money. If I take out a loan to pay off a loan, I take a loss, for example. In fact, the primary determinant of income is base tax and base production (development) added to trade. More to directly debunking your point, over something like an 80-year time frame, I can increase my income by a tiny percentage by investing in a temple that will make me money. This also costs me a building slot, which is another finite resource. So, in several generations, my investment pays off, and I'm still down a building slot. Manpower buying manpower, if priced to allow for half the current rate of AI development growth, will pay for itself in much less than 10 years, with no associated extra costs.
I can't buy soldiers with soldiers. I -can- use soldiers and casus belli and diplomacy and strategy and tactics to acquire land which will have manpower development and base tax and production and raise forcelimits which will give me the resources to pay for the maintenance of the soldiers I can add to my army. This is called a multi-variable system; it's different from a one-variable system.
What you're proposing is Economics in a world where robots have only one job: building other robots. Thus, all of the labor is the capital and all of it builds the labor-capital which, without diminishing returns or natural decay (in fact, it naturally grows!), then produces more labor-capital. I don't know how you think that's the real world, but I think you should refrain from making grandiose statements without admitting the flaws of your own proposal.
This is a false equivalency: I cannot buy money with money. If I take out a loan to pay off a loan, I take a loss, for example. In fact, the primary determinant of income is base tax and base production (development) added to trade. More to directly debunking your point, over something like an 80-year time frame, I can increase my income by a tiny percentage by investing in a temple that will make me money. This also costs me a building slot, which is another finite resource. So, in several generations, my investment pays off, and I'm still down a building slot. Manpower buying manpower, if priced to allow for half the current rate of AI development growth, will pay for itself in much less than 10 years, with no associated extra costs.
This is a false equivalency: soldiers do not purchase soldiers. Soldiers, as you know, cost manpower and money. Under your system, manpower development would be paid for by manpower, which would recover at a rate determined by manpower development. This is a one-variable equation.
I can't buy soldiers with soldiers. I -can- use soldiers and casus belli and diplomacy and strategy and tactics to acquire land which will have manpower development and base tax and production and raise forcelimits which will give me the resources to pay for the maintenance of the soldiers I can add to my army. This is called a multi-variable system; it's different from a one-variable system.
This is a false equivalency: there are other associated costs. The amount of Monarch Points I spend up front, and the limited amount of idea slots/church powers/etc mean that I both need to give up other potential bonuses and that the savings will be worthless unless one gets them early. EDIT: You, yourself, later called the MP-saving idea groups (admin and inno) "weak," and suggest we strengthen them by applying bonuses to your system there. So their "weak" bonuses are not as strong as the "strong" manpower bonus you hope to give them - even without implementing your system!
This is utter nonsense: I'm an economist. Capitalist economics, even in the simplest possible model, considers at least the inputs of labor and capital. These two inputs combine to create both all other goods, and additional capital. However, that capital is subject to diminishing returns, and the original stock decays over time. Labor is usually considered as exogenously determined, but more complicated models consider the multitude of different goods produced, and whether or not they are luxuries versus necessities for labor (population) growth. So, we have a system with multiple inputs, natural decay rates of the means of production, and dynamically adjusted diminishing returns.
What you're proposing is Economics in a world where robots have only one job: building other robots. Thus, all of the labor is the capital and all of it builds the labor-capital which, without diminishing returns or natural decay (in fact, it naturally grows!), then produces more labor-capital. I don't know how you think that's the real world, but I think you should refrain from making grandiose statements without admitting the flaws of your own proposal.
Oh, I gotcha. So all we have to do to implement your system is to change everything.
All you seem to want is equality for super-wide empires, which is the exact opposite of the mechanics goal. I get that you don't think Paradox was attempting to introduce a new playstyle, but I'm going to believe the intentions of Paradox as mentioned in the dev diaries over they spent hours coding a way to waste their primary system for advancement within the game. Just my opinion, though.
Last edited:
What's the over/under of the development level in Zanzibar with such rules
The zanzibar area trade node is slightly more valuable than yemens and fairly more valuable than ethiopias.
Given that yemen is a desert and ethiopia is mountain desert i think this would realistically reflect the development posibilities,the whole place still cant compete with most european nodes so no danger of Kilwa turning into Paris.
Now with proper tech and merchant placement a capable state in the east african coast would rival development costs in europe,but the tech is the deciding factor.
As in history nations had two possibilities when facing european powers,either live long enough to adapt and survive or be whiped out,if Kilwa survived european contact in 1 piece it would be reasonably developed,so the system seems fair all around.
Last edited:
I was implying the opposite, that in player hands Zanzibar would be one of the least expensive, most developed locations in the world.
- 1
Emphasis on "in player hands".
We are like a hivemind ruling our nation,anything we rule will be awsome.
But historically those nations always had the potential,the thing that set them back was the lack of the right mindset and knowledge to expand on what they had.
We could give napoleon a tribe of indians and he would probably drive the british out of canada,the problem is getting that knowledge.
If the AI nations survive long enough and westernise(eke drop all the old baggage tying them down) there is no reason why they wouldnt develope easily under favorable circumstances,thats why i feel the trade node system is the most reasonable since it favors areas that already have a degree of potential,its just up to the nations to make use of it.
We are like a hivemind ruling our nation,anything we rule will be awsome.
But historically those nations always had the potential,the thing that set them back was the lack of the right mindset and knowledge to expand on what they had.
We could give napoleon a tribe of indians and he would probably drive the british out of canada,the problem is getting that knowledge.
If the AI nations survive long enough and westernise(eke drop all the old baggage tying them down) there is no reason why they wouldnt develope easily under favorable circumstances,thats why i feel the trade node system is the most reasonable since it favors areas that already have a degree of potential,its just up to the nations to make use of it.
Of course, that brings up the issue that is the trade node system. Even if you had a rich western-tech japan that conquered all of china and colonized the entire western seaboard, you still have horrible trade. There are also several "quirks" of the trade node system that would !@#$ over large empires attempting to develop their far flung colonies. Linking the system to trade:
- Limits the biggest cities to Europe. Since trade only flows one way, you can have trade go from America to Europe but not Europe to America, you lock the largest cities to a specific continent no matter how advanced other continents become. If I pull of the Meiji Restoration in 1600, I want to be able to be on par with Europe eventually but this system would keep me further behind for daring not to choose Europe.
- A second issue is that trade flow subtracts wealth from one region to add it to the next. If I control all of modern day Russia, trade will automatically be subtracted from one region, most likely all of the node, until it hits the novgorod trade node. That means I will gain a bonus of 0 in all of Siberia, since it flows directly to Moscow.
- Currently, gold is the black sheep of trade goods. It should increase trade value by quite a lot, but instead it has its own eldritch systems. Production efficiency doesn't even affect gold income! So if you happen to get very lucky and get a entire trade node full of gold, your local trade value is exactly zero. Most likely to happen to Australia ATM, due to it's small province count.
- Going from zero to one base production would cost 7.5 diplo points
- Going from one to two base production would cost 14.5 diplo points, almost doubling at first for a raise in 7 diplo points.
- Going from two to three diplo points would cost 21 diplo points. This is a raise in 6.5 diplo points. Each time you buy a point in base production, the cost raises by 0.5 points less.
- eventually, two purchases have the same cost. The fifteenth and sixteenth purchases both cost 60 diplo points
- After that, cost decreases by 0.5 per point of production development.
- Eventually, at the 31st point of production development, it costs nothing to buy development
- Here's the second most broken part: at the 31nd point of production, you would gain 8 diplo points. the rate of gain increases by 0.5 per base production, so 32 gives 16.5, 33 gives 25.5, ect. The Clausewitz engine interprets a negative cost as a gain, as shown when a enterprising player used the native council's maintenance discount to pay negative maintenance. He was gaining money per soldier.
- The most broken part is that this gain of points can apply to all types of development, with a 3% cost increase per non-diplo type. Once I start gaining points per point, I can endlessly spam base production until I decide to purchase one point of base tax/manpower. If I wait long enough, I will fill my admin/mil mana cap buy increasing production.
EDIT 1: I just realized another problem. Since trade flows downstream, you could buy one point of production cross of all of Siberia, have it all flow to the Novgorod trade node, and get the same discount. Eventually, developing moscow would cause you to gain points
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
So in short the nations with the most historical development would be the ones that were the most developed?
If thats the case then it would work a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
If thats the case then it would work a hell of a lot better than what we have now.