Doesn't Development end... very unrealistic?

[BrokenSky]

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.

I think the idea isn't that these countries being tall is unrealistic, its that that type of country who ends up being the tallest is unrealistic. Ultimately these cities are gonna have a really hard time importing the resources needed for further growth beyond a certain point, in a way which allowed London or Ancient Rome to grow to such high development. Basically I think that beyond a certain size, development costs should increase dramatically, based on the amount of food resources available to import (fish, wheat etc?) or something? I dunno. But some kind of extra cost based on your nations food supply vs demand would be good. If you exceed it, then developing anything anywhere is more expensive (but admin tech which increase production - scythe I'm think of for example - raise the upper limit on sustainable development). Something like that?

 

[Nuklearius]

I

 

[Nuklearius]

I

 

[Bavarian Steve]

Just an idea:
You should be able to assign local rulers to groups of provinces (around 5-8) These rulers have an adm/dip/mil-value, and the points they get should get invested into the provinces in their areas. Of course the better their stats are, the more expensive the rulers should be (similar to the advisor system). It would add a new internal management mechanic that this game really needs in peace time.

Like with my idea, you would also have to implement something like what LikeNothing suggested to keep small nations viable.

 

[Nuklearius]

Like

 

[zsImmortal]

People wanted a mechanic that allowed 'expansion' in a peaceful way. They got it. Now they don't like it because the AI is using it. And if we're using the 'realism' argument, there's just way too much stuff that would need to be changed just based on that.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

They could get one free (bad) base ruler assigned to their only one or two provinces.

the thing that I like about the development system is the fact that it has made Small nations viable to play and keep small all game long. I think the best way to keep them viable would be to have them all proclaim guarantees on each other in a region and make it not cost a diplo relation.

 

[BurnT]

Well, if this is ur argument, why then not giving each country the same amount of starting troops and gold? Why not giving each province the same starting development?

See the issue?

Isn't there a game-mode that already does that? See - all good Kidding, of course - but you're exxagerating quite a bit. There's a difference if something evolves "badly" or starts out that way.

Maybe my intentions weren't clear: I'd rather see unhistorical overdeveloped cities than changes that favor wide vs tall even more. Most of the proposed changes - especially tying development to gold - would favor going wide, because expansion also increases your income and thus the abilty to develop lands (a.k.a. snowballing). I'm not a big fan of hard-caps (the idea I mentioned at the end of my post) but at least it would allow a medium-sized power to compete with big powers (because all their provinces would be capped out) while disallowing the more ridicoulus 100+-dev (or whatever number you want to put there) OPMs. I just like the ability of a different play-style - being able to stay (relatively) small and still become a powerhouse rather than the old "grow-or-die" ...

That being said, I believe that development is the wrong way to manage tall vs. wide - there were other reasons why countries did or could not expand more than they historcally did. Or why Empires imploded. But that's not or poorly modeled ingame ...

 

[Bavarian Steve]

If development were tied to population growth however, you could implement a daunting and fearful plague system that spreads out from it's epicenter. It could be very fun and challenging to have to deal with it instead of paying 40 ducats to have no effects

 

[Nuklearius]

Isn

 

[Nuklearius]

If

 

[net.split]

One consideration is that Development doesn't necessarily need to be considered as relative city size. There's not an actual population value tied to the city; rather, the values only represent some specific gains you get from the province into your national resources.

For instance, Base Tax doesn't necessarily mean you have a gigantic population you're taxing. It could mean that you have a wealthier population, or you're eliminating local corruption and waste. Improving Production could just mean upgrading local infrastructure and production methods to keep them up-to-date with advancing technology.

Military is a bit trickier because this does actually improve your Manpower pool. By how much depends on a lot of factors, but the base is +250 per point. So 10 points of development (for an average 30-development province) only translates to 2,500 soldiers. Double that with building modifiers to 5,000 and assume that this is 5% of the total province's population and you're only looking at a total province population of 100,000 people. That's not even just in the primary city of the province; it's the whole area. Of course it's not a precise calculation because Manpower recovers at a static amount regardless of how high or low it is, so it's not really a good estimator of population. Since the numbers are so low regardless, it's probably more accurately a representation of how many local troops you're able to recruit, train, and outfit.

Total development also gives some other values, like trade power, force limits, and supply, but these are even more abstract and ultimately unhelpful for use to estimate a single city's size.

At any rate, to me all of this suggests Development levels should in some manner be limited to technology, since that's mostly what's being reflected here. In a way this is already true since they draw from the same resource pool as technological advancements. However, it's kind of a clumsy relationship right now; if you're spending your MPs keeping up with tech you're not developing at all; if you let your tech lapse you can develop really high. This is a bit counter-intuitive. It's rather tricky to fix under the current paradigm of improving development only being available to DLC owners.

 

[Nuklearius]

One

 

[Bavarian Steve]

One consideration is that Development doesn't necessarily need to be considered as relative city size. There's not an actual population value tied to the city; rather, the values only represent some specific gains you get from the province into your national resources.

For instance, Base Tax doesn't necessarily mean you have a gigantic population you're taxing. It could mean that you have a wealthier population, or you're eliminating local corruption and waste. Improving Production could just mean upgrading local infrastructure and production methods to keep them up-to-date with advancing technology.

Military is a bit trickier because this does actually improve your Manpower pool. By how much depends on a lot of factors, but the base is +250 per point. So 10 points of development (for an average 30-development province) only translates to 2,500 soldiers. Double that with building modifiers to 5,000 and assume that this is 5% of the total province's population and you're only looking at a total province population of 100,000 people. That's not even just in the primary city of the province; it's the whole area. Of course it's not a precise calculation because Manpower recovers at a static amount regardless of how high or low it is, so it's not really a good estimator of population. Since the numbers are so low regardless, it's probably more accurately a representation of how many local troops you're able to recruit, train, and outfit.

Total development also gives some other values, like trade power, force limits, and supply, but these are even more abstract and ultimately unhelpful for use to estimate a single city's size.

At any rate, to me all of this suggests Development levels should in some manner be limited to technology, since that's mostly what's being reflected here. In a way this is already true since they draw from the same resource pool as technological advancements. However, it's kind of a clumsy relationship right now; if you're spending your MPs keeping up with tech you're not developing at all; if you let your tech lapse you can develop really high. This is a bit counter-intuitive. It's rather tricky to fix under the current paradigm of improving development only being available to DLC owners.

The conundrum exists because development is currently tied to a finite resource that improves... well development in a different way (technology). Because these two forms of development draw from the same pool, the choice of one handicaps the other, which presents as illogical. Also, higher population does also increase base tax and production levels, if not rates

 

[BurnT]

But having the Spanish Empire exploit their colonys to build up their home region sounds a bit more plausible than some mana-points. Historically going "wide" did not limit development at home, but thats exactly what happens right now ingame.

I'm not arguing realism - you're right of course. But it's used to allow for tall play (Wiz: "Development is meant to occur more in countries that do not expand.") rather than going wide - for gameplay-purposes it's either "small & tall" or "wide & low", and I for one don't mind bending realism if it favors gameplay

And don't forget the larger armys bigger nations have to pay upkeep for or the higher province count, or fort upkeep...

Your total expense rise too, but so will your net-win - the more you expand, the more you have left over each month, even if you increase your army and navy and hire better advisers. You really want to tell me, that after expansion you make a less surplus compared to before? I tend to be richer after a war

 

[Bavarian Steve]

People wanted a mechanic that allowed 'expansion' in a peaceful way. They got it. Now they don't like it because the AI is using it. And if we're using the 'realism' argument, there's just way too much stuff that would need to be changed just based on that.

This isn't what this topic is about. It's about the fact that it seems like a good idea, that could be great. That's all. If you notice, those of us discussing this are not calling for its abolition, but ways for it to make sense for small and large nations alike that keep small nations viable but not illogical.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'll support diminishing development the day you support diminishing expansions. The United States of Eurasia that pop up from time to time are more, more unrealistic than some minors having development 30 (more or less 100,000 inhabitants, based on Milan at game start) in 1800.

 

[Bavarian Steve]

Perhaps the tall vs wide idea would have been better implemented in a way that didn't force development to create the balance.

 

[Nuklearius]

Your

 

[zsImmortal]

This isn't what this topic is about. It's about the fact that it seems like a good idea, that could be great. That's all. If you notice, those of us discussing this are not calling for its abolition, but ways for it to make sense for small and large nations alike that keep small nations viable but not illogical.

Except the game is meant to be illogical with some hints of historical realism. They don't want to add development just to be a point sink for Western europeans hitting the MP cap, they wanted to make it relevant. If you make it so that it is just as effective for small nations than for big nations, what's the point of doing anything else than just expanding? So it either allows small nations to 'expand' or it's a point sink for people who can afford sinking points.