Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?

[Jens Z]

World of Tanks has tons of unrealistic game elements.

Of course it has. Just like EU. The point is limiting these elements to keep immersion.

 

[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.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

Since you are around Wiz, (and hopefully getting paid to deal with us) I need to say that I do like (not that my opinion really matters) the idea of a development system. But I think that the majority of the issues that keep getting mentioned because of this development system, come into play because they are tied to a variable that cannot scale to size or wealth of a nation (two things that tend to affect development), ie monarch points. Now on the surface, the current system makes smaller nations much more playable and does slow down blobbing. However it also creates situations where it seems to be penalizing larger nations like BBB, England, etc. even if they do not expand from their day 1 borders, because generally monarch point growth is static for all nations (obviously ruler stats vary but overtime tend not to be too wildly different between governments of the same type), but the amount of provinces is very different for all nations.

 

[Nuklearius]

good

 

[Zaelot]

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.

I think development need some tweking to avoid absurd megalopolis in walchalla, asia etc.

The overall idea of development is pretty cool, but finding provinces ultra-developed 100 or 150 years in the game everywhere ruins the immersion a little.

People just thinks development needs a bit more love

 

[Bavarian Steve]

which ones do you mean? I can get a good income with most of the western nations

Well for starters, Bavaria is slow to get their economy off the ground. I'm not saying it isn't possible to eventually get it going, but if you start the game allowing development based on gold, a nation that takes time to get going, will be at a disadvantage . Edit from here on... or even more stark, Ansbach, because they have crappy incomes, and almost no way to expand easily.

 

[kamyon]

Gelre and Wallachia become very rich in all of my games, not much "history changing" there.

Is the rich Wallachia at constant war with Ottomans and Hungary or does the overdeveloped Gelre continuously face attacks from Dutch duchies, France, Habsburgs and Burgundy? If not this is the ahistorical element you are looking for, not the system which enables them to develop and prosper during their times of long peace.

 

[Salje]

Developing could use a monetary component, yeah. While developing OPM custom nation in the northern Siberia to became the most developed province in game(while being horribly behind in tech) has its charm, realistically speaking it couldn't really have happened.
Of course you could "fix" that problem with some sort of artificial caps in the development, but where would be fun in that?
Monetary component would be a lot prettier solution, a poor province in the middle of the nowhere could still develop, but without the divine assistance of the Console Commands that development would be a bit more balanced. Also it gives a interesting strategic decision, "Do I spend all my money in the development, making me more vulnerable to the enemies who will want this newly developed province?".

 

[Bavarian Steve]

which ones do you mean? I can get a good income with most of the western nations

I do like your idea premise for having the development system not being tied to monarch points. But because gold is easier to come by for some nations than others, it solves some problems, but creates new ones. Instead of monarch points, or gold, or any system that is already established and used, they need a new currency type that does not affect an already established part of the game. This way there are not built in biases to the system. At first glance Monarch points seems like that, but its not because of country size being so varied and monarch point gain being so static. Now I am not advocating for creating a system that allows large countries to be unstoppable forces. I prefer playing smaller countries. But if they had a currency for development that scaled on a reverse exponential curve, it would allow smaller nations to develop their provinces greatly still, but it would also allow nations like spain, france, england, etc to have a few cities in their empires that actually keep pace with the Wallachia's of the world.

 

[LikeNothing]

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.

Thank you!

I fully appreciate the goal of let countries that don't expand grow in power more than most. I've advocated an increased base FL and Merc Pool on this forum months before you implemented them in game. However the idea of Development changes far more than that - it changes the map itself, permanently and monotonically.

Historically small nations have competed against larger ones through diplomacy, trade, financial power, espionage, mercenaries, and so on. All of these, compared to "building a megacity which is too much of a hassle to integrate", are (A) more realistic/immersive; (B) much easier to balance because they are not permanent effects; (C) already have good implementations in game (since EU3 at least) to build upon.

For example, besides the FL/Base Income/Merc Pool adjustments, you could:

(1) Make Guarantees cost no Diplomatic Relations and provide more benefits, so that larger nations will Guarantee smaller ones more often;

(2) Allow and encourage small nations to Guarantee each other, representing a form of Defensive Alliance, or even something more intricate like the Native Federation mechanic;

(3) Allow smaller nations to Request Guarantee from larger nations;

(4) Bring back the income bonus from Capital province;

(5) Make base Merc costs and maintenance start lower (IMO they should start at the same cost as regular troops) but scale up faster, so that small nations can Merc up easily without too much cost;

(6) Make the AE from Espionage actions of small nations minimal;

(7) Make Loan Size depend less on monthly Income, for example by setting a minimum Base Loan Size that scales up in time like Advisor Costs;

The possibilities are myriad.

 

[Nuklearius]

I

 

[Bavarian Steve]

Thank you!

I fully appreciate the goal of let countries that don't expand grow in power more than most. I've advocated an increased base FL and Merc Pool on this forum months before you implemented them in game. However the idea of Development changes far more than that - it changes the map itself, permanently and monotonically.

Historically small nations have competed against larger ones through diplomacy, trade, financial power, espionage, mercenaries, and so on. All of these, compared to "building a megacity which is too large to conquer", are (A) more realistic/immersive; (B) much easier to balance because they are not permanent effects; (C) already have good implementations in game (since EU3 at least) to build upon.

For example, besides the FL/Base Income/Merc Pool adjustments I suggested earlier, you could:

(1) Make Guarantees cost no Diplomatic Relations and provide more benefits, so that larger nations will Guarantee smaller ones more often;

(2) Allow and encourage small nations to Guarantee each other, representing a form of Defensive Alliance, or even something more intricate like the Native Federation mechanic;

(3) Bring back the income bonus from Capital province;

(4) Make base Merc costs and maintenance start lower (IMO they should start at the same cost as regular troops) but scale up faster, so that small nations can Merc up easily without too much cost;

(5) Make the AE from Espionage actions of small nations minimal;

The possibilities are myriad.

Those are great ideas for keeping smaller nations around if they do make development more balanced, especially number 2

 

[Nuklearius]

Those

 

[Bavarian Steve]

Don't forget that smaller nations have a rather high income relative to their provinces. And Crusader Kings 2 uses a money system too

but that income fades once you reach a certain size and reappears when you become larger. The reason? small-mid size countries have provinces that are not as valuable as their capital but they have larger armies (which are needed to survive the even bigger fish) because of forcelimits scaling up at a different rate than income. EDIT FROM HERE ON...This is especially obvious for nations who have no trade income early. The nations who are dependent on taxes to begin the game are obvious examples. These small-mid size nations who are weak at trade don't get their economies going until they have taken rich provinces from neighbors, which requires them to be played with their force limits full. Not for the wars to take the lands, but to handle coaltions and opprotunistic rivals.

 

[Nuklearius]

but

 

[Bavarian Steve]

If there were a way to encourage population growth in the provinces, that could easily a type of development. Kind of like in Civ games the more civilians you have, the more workers you get. Here, however, you could have there be provincial population benchmarks that as each province passes, you get to decide how to spend your development point.

 

[Panzerschiffe]

Defensive alliances... I would really like to see that ingame, I mean we even have defensive attitude so why not? It would be a really cool feature especially since you won't get called into OPM wars anymore

Rival system would throw a wrench into that idea. It's a good idea though but it doesn't seem possible with the AI and the way it rivals.

 

[Nuklearius]

If

 

[oblio-]

I think development need some tweking to avoid absurd megalopolis in walchalla.

As far as I know we never worshiped the Norse gods

 

[Bavarian Steve]

I honestly think a new currency is needed for development, because the current ones have such huge biases already to certain nations. Development points lets call them. They are generic and can be used to develop any of the 3 categories. They could be earned doing tons of different actions that relate to admin/taxes... or diplomacy/trade.... or military actions.... By doing this you give all nations a chance to earn the same amount of Development points. But then you also apply a multiplier to each point earned based on country size. If you are a small nation, 1 development point times a multiplier of 1...If you are a mid size nation, apply a multiplier of 2. If you are a large nation, use a multiplier of 3. that way, small nations, usually OPM's still have their uber developed province, a mid size nation will then have two uber developed cities, a large nation would then get 3 uber developed cities. IMO, this idea, combined with what LikeNothing posted above keeps small nations viable, and alive, while also allowing large nations to simulate real life... IE a few great cities with expanses of not so valuable land in between.