Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?

[frolix42]

Another strong post by @Krajzen.

Increasing development is strongly skewed in favor of smaller AI nations. This is frustrating for the player, who more than the AI, expands through conquest for no other reason than that is what they are used to. And it's more cost efficient. And they might not own CS. Etc...

Irrationality clearly exists in development cost. Paradox needs to make development more attractive for "wide" nations, without nerfing the "tall" nations. And finally, without making the game worse for those, who for whatever reason, never bought Common Sense.

 

[Wizzington]

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

 

[Linvega]

Another strong post by @Krajzen.

Increasing development is strongly skewed in favor of smaller AI nations. This is frustrating for the player, who more than the AI, expands through conquest for no other reason than that is what they are used to. And it's more cost efficient. And they might not own CS. Etc...

Irrationality clearly exists in development cost. Paradox needs to make development more attractive for "wide" nations, without nerfing the "tall" nations. And finally, without making the game worse for those, who for whatever reason, never bought Common Sense.

A cooldown would naturally make expanding better when developing because otherwise you might get stuck with a whole nation on cooldown.
I wouldn't do anything past that though since playing wide already is better than playing tall. Any buff to it will just make playing tall even less viable. Just see it like this: Expanding is wide nations "thing" while developing tall nations "thing". Though we then still have the problem that developing isn't really interesting; We need more peace-time mechanics!

 

[Linvega]

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

Let's look at it another way: Is poor ROTW nations and OPMs developing like crazy every single game really working as intended ?
I don't mind unlikely things happening here and there, but something that happens as reliably as this seems not good to me.
I like the notion of developing enabling tall play, so I really want it to be implemented well.
Simply adding an increasing ducat cost (and maybe tying ducat cost instead of MP to terrain) and/or cooldown would limit this to more reasonable levels, while still enabling tall play with rich, medium sized countries like Hansa or Netherlands.

 

[MiniaAr]

Why not pay MP to start development and then have development done during a peiod of time and costing money as expenses. This would be the abstraction of the monarch/leader deciding to develop a place and then having the cost to actually implement the Policy with an impact on the budget?

 

[IcyBlizzard]

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

Proof pls.

 

[Woifee]

I thought the community asked for a way to grow tall instead wide. The logical result are OPMs or other minors with crazy development.

And the game is all about unrealistic results. Unification of the HRE for Instance, Japan colonizing California, Incas conquing Brasil...

 

[frolix42]

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

Apples to Oranges. This very unusual thing, Jewish Baden WC could theoretically happen, but I've never seen it in one of my games and I doubt I ever will. This thread is about a mechanic doing unrealistic things every single game.

Does EU4 take place in an alternate universe where small nations almost always develop into massive metropolises? Even though it can't be perfectly realistic, I'd rather EU4 try to mimic to real world as much as reasonably possible.

After all, every unrealistic thing in Paradox Games is unrealistic for a reason. I don't see the gameplay reason for the AI constructing giant metropolises.

 

[Arrowfiend]

The way I think would work well is to have the monarch point cost be a set value (like 10) just like buildings used to be while there should be a scaling cost in gold as you get to higher development. That way you still have something to sink your monarch points into, but only if you have the money.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Let's look at it another way: Is poor ROTW nations and OPMs developing like crazy every single game really working as intended ?
I don't mind unlikely things happening here and there, but something that happens as reliably as this seems not good to me.
I like the notion of developing enabling tall play, so I really want it to be implemented well.
Simply adding an increasing ducat cost (and maybe tying ducat cost instead of MP to terrain) and/or cooldown would limit this to more reasonable levels, while still enabling tall play with rich, medium sized countries like Hansa or Netherlands.

This sounds like a good improvement but I often see opms swimming in cash too, they have less to aim for so tend to have a lot by the mid to late game, if this were to be a thing there would likely need to be something else an opm can spend it's money on or something everyone can spend money on but affecting small nations more.

 

[HerrStarr]

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

Go back to the beach!
You have to be rested for the next expansion.

 

[HerrStarr]

Invert cost for buildings and developement is a bad idea?
I mean, 100 adm points to build a temple, ducats for develope

 

[kemazon]

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

Yo Wiz ! Welcome back mate, hope them vacations were best they could be for your Scandinaviass.an

 

[CNY10000]

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

You are messing up with "realistic strategy" and "realistic result". This is a game where player has the chance to input their decision and change the "result". Unrealistic result cannot be the reason for the game to ignore the reality completely. "Unrealistic result" is exactly what is supposed to be seen in a GAME. "Unrealistic Strategy", however, is not supposed to be in EU4. And, of course, you can argue that there is a handful of unrealistic strategy in EU4, but that is why EU4 still needs improvement.

It is not a realistically valid stragety to stay in a few provinces and develop the nation with automatically spawned mana, automatically rolled rulers, and automatically fired events. The strategy for being tall is to manage the society and the economy, which should not be hard for a large nation so long as all provinces in the nation are integrated well and managed well.


And the current development mechanism clearly awards "being small", which is equivalent to penalize "being large". However, a large nation should, in the worst case scenario, be able to avoid being penalized by giving up some provinces to become smaller.
But now, for a large nation:
Giving up some territory? No, this is surely not the optimal way to play.
Holding all territory? Then get penalized by development mechanism that highly favors small nation.

 

[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.

 

[LikeNothing]

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

Huh. I didn't realize that the AIs do this regularly without player intervention.

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)...

That's it, isn't it?

It is selective but not arbitrary at all. The player wants to be the one who breaks realism, but at the same time wants the AIs to adhere as much as possible to realism.

This is no contradiction, but an essential logical connection. The player breaking realism in an otherwise realistic setting gives them a sense of achievement. If AIs also do this regularly on their own, the player's sense of achievement is gone.

The realism of the setting (of which AI behavior is a major part) is one of the particular appeals of Paradox grand strategy games, and what distinguishes it from games such as Civilization, IMO. Why play on an Earth map? Why mark the events and scenarios in historical dates? Why even name the various AI nations after real historical polities? It is all there to give the player the chance to do something extraordinary in a realistic setting. Without the realism, there would be nothing extraordinary.

It seems, with your recent addition of Custom Nations and now this design of Development Costs leading to fantasy metropolises in the obscure corners of the world, you are beginning to forget what distinguishes your games, which are also historical simulation laboratories, from games which are just games.

 

[artemis667]

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 will 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.

 

[Pigeoncount]

Here's a gamey idea that will kind of solve this, make there be a development cap on individual provinces based on overall province count. A OPM can invest in their one province, but after a while, they will simply be unable to put more points in it. The only way I can think of to justify this in realism terms is that your country is too small for further improvements to matter, as there is not a high enough population for them to take advantage of you making a state of the art administration in the province, or there are not enough bodies to draft, or there are not enough product being made for your trade power to expand. After ten or so provinces, you break past the overall cap, and can spend as much as you want on any province.

 

[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.

 

[QDI]

And the current development mechanism clearly awards "being small", which is equivalent to penalize "being large". However, a large nation should, in the worst case scenario, be able to avoid being penalized by giving up some provinces to become smaller.

How does the development mechanism awards "being small"? Developping a province has constant returns (Going from 3 to 4 means the same as going from 10 to 11) but its cost increases fast. Consequently, it is better to develop two undevelopped provinces (2*50 MP) than 1 highly developped province (100 MP).

A big country has many provinces and can spread development among them. An OPM will soon find itself paying a huge amount of MP for 1 base tax.

Even buildings (only +60% tax) do not reverse the conclusion.