If my game is province-development oriented, should I turn to constitutional monarchy as soon as it becomes available since it can help with the land-reform issue (-10% development cost) as soon as it becomes available since absolutism doesn't give any bonus on the development side?
For a development-oriented gameplay
- Thread starter byebytoad
- 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.
Honestly speaking I'd say no, as the constitutional monarchy does not have the Nobility estate, and that means you can't abuse the estates for extra monarch points and free generals. Also the Land-reform issue comes up at random so its somewhat less reliable than 50 - 150 Mil points and a 40 tradition general.
I'd much rather suggest abusing Economic and Quantity social policy for the extra dev cost reduction.
And while you think absolutism does not help your development, it helps it indirectly as having max absolutism helps you save monarch points in case you steal even only one or two provinces here or there and need to core it, and those points are what you you want to drop into your development.
I'd much rather suggest abusing Economic and Quantity social policy for the extra dev cost reduction.
And while you think absolutism does not help your development, it helps it indirectly as having max absolutism helps you save monarch points in case you steal even only one or two provinces here or there and need to core it, and those points are what you you want to drop into your development.
Thank you. I didn't even imagine I wouln't have the nobility estate.
So I guess there's no reason at all for going with the Constitutional monarchy
you give seats instead of having nobility, those provinces get a bonus and get no penalties on anything while giving it to nobles nerfs the income, bribing the MPs are a bit too costy, precious prestige, monarch points or army traditions. also theres a debate which gives a province a tax increase aside of the bonus
the general is nice in early game but the 20 incluence is alot for it, plus milking them for monarch points is costy and they tend to have beef with other estates lowering their loyalty (or giving them too much power), i honestly wouldnt mind not having them if you focus on economic prosperity, a loyal and powerful trader estate is much better for that
btw which game isnt development oriented, development turns into ducats or manpower, which can be further spent on getting more development
-85% is what you can "easily" get:
20 % from economic finisher
10 % from economic/quantity policy
10 % from state edict
20 % from university
10 % from loyal and influential burghers
10 % from prosperity
5 % from embracing renaissance
I don't think the extra 10 % its really needed, but could be if you have crappy terrain.
20 % from economic finisher
10 % from economic/quantity policy
10 % from state edict
20 % from university
10 % from loyal and influential burghers
10 % from prosperity
5 % from embracing renaissance
I don't think the extra 10 % its really needed, but could be if you have crappy terrain.
Last edited:
If you realy want to stack bonuses, you should also consider joining the HRE for the development modifier from the reform (the AI is almost certain to pass it without your help) and a religion with - development (the easiest is probably protestant).
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Development#Development_cost_modifiers
These are all the development modifiers in the game, you can check it out. And dont forget that your capital gets a pretty big discount to developing the more development your nation has overall, so developing it last could save you a lot of monarch points. Even better if youre playing a nation that has a decision to switch its capital, then you can do it twice.
The extra 5 % might not be worth the diplomatic penalties.
Well, if we are going to be practical... The cheapest way to get more development by far is to conquer provinces
They're not penalties for long as the Protestants usually have the edge this patch. These days I treat them more as an incentive to beat nations up (especially if Bohemia becomes emperor), which usually results in more land for me to develop.The extra 5 % might not be worth the diplomatic penalties.
Also, the Netherlands have a decision which gives -25% Development cost in Amsterdam. If you move your capital there you can get quite cheap development
play persia
get economic ideas
their goverment form allows you to reach very minimal devolpment cost
get economic ideas
their goverment form allows you to reach very minimal devolpment cost
Don’t forget the Protestant bonus and another 5% from the first Imperial reform
If playing tall, every "percent" is worthwhile because it stacks additively with the "current development" modifier, right? Whether it's worth the hassle/opportunity costs, however, is another question...
Yes. Most modifiers, including the development modifiers above, are additive. For development, the only one (I think...) that is multiplicative is the development efficiency, which pops up at ADM 17/23/27.
This would be useful, except for the fact that Holland is a marsh and has fish for a trade good. The modifier only gets Holland to same development cost as grasslands i.e. no discount or penalty.
If you're in that area, it's much better to take
EDIT: First, cloth+farmlands totals -15% dev. costs. Second, Antwerp is apparently now a glass province. There are a few other cloth+farmlands in the area though.
Last edited:
AFAIK the decision is limited to only Amsterdam/Holland
EDIT: Yup
https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Netherlands#Decisions
Sure, but I think you missed the point of my post. The Amsterdam decision only makes Holland as good as a grasslands province without cotton/cloth i.e. the -25% from the decision negates the +25% from the fact that Holland is a marsh (net 0%). So it's better than other terrain, but there are a number of other provinces in the Low Countries that have cloth+farmlands which give a net discount of -15% i.e. a better net discount and you don't have to spend ADM to get it. (note I did screw up b/c Antwerp is no longer a cloth province - edited to reflect above.)
Also, that decision isn't free - you have to pay 50 ADM to (essentially) turn Holland into a grassland. That means you have to develop 4 times to just break even (-25% on base cost of 50). If you're going to RP or play tall and develop Holland, it's probably worth it. If not, then it's almost certainly not worth it.
The 10% given by the economic/quantity policy is enticing, but I wouldn't waste an idea slot (quantity) just for the sake of getting that policy.
Counting that the policy itself costs about 120 mp per 10 years, I'd rather take an idea like innovative that gives me 10% on technology cost (so about 140 mp net saving in 10 years) that
also gives me other benefits (like 1 leader free-upkeep which also saves other mp).
Quantity is useless to me. Developing your provinces naturally increase both your income and your manpower (even more so counting that you have more building to squeeze even more both). Quantity might be useful in the first 50 years of the campaign, but usually during this period I give priority to other ideas. After that its usefulness starts to fade rapidly
I haven't played tall much, but I'd still rank Quantity > Innovative, probably even more so for tall play (though it's useful in wide as well). If your average autonomy is ~0% (b/c you have all states), that extra manpower and FL will give you even more troops, allowing you to take on bigger blobs / refill manpower faster / etc. Every idea in quantity (except for garrison size) is worthwhile - even in wide play where more troops => bigger targets/faster wars/more fronts. Many of the innovative ideas (prestige/inflation/WE reduction/+1 advisor) are "meh" unless you're doing some weird stacking strat. The -advisor cost idea got a boost recently with the +5 adivsors, though.
The -tech bonus is over-rated, I think. It saves 60*3 = 180 pts every ~13 years or 1.15 pts/month, with an absolute max of less than 60*3*29 techs = 5220, but effective lower than that (have to wait till ADM 5). And it costs 1200 before you even get the tech bonus. Plus, it's an admin group which means you won't be able to take it till probably your 3rd slot (after Econ for tall; assuming you're playing with group restrictions) or it has to compete with the other admin groups. Sure, quantity doesn't save you any MP, but it's other bonuses are worth it.
As for whether the policy is worth it or not, that's debatable. It saves 5 mana per development, so you have to develop 120/5=24 times in 10 years or 2.4 times a year to break even. Not sure what the development-pace is like in a tall game, but if you stack this with all the other modifiers, development should be pretty cheap, so you can develop a lot. Considering you probably also "stack" developing into bursts to take advantage of edicts/the burgers, I could easily see developing much more than 24 times in a 10 year period to make the policy worth it.
Quantity scales just fine with tall empires, especially thosr fueled by trade income. Also, you don’t really need any idea from admin groups except economic, so for excess mil points quantity is just OK as a point dump.
I'd say Quantity is especially good for a Tall empire as it lets you have extra manpower, but more importantly increases your force limit, and development-to-Force limit is somewhat small, and while I can argue that Offensive is equally good as it gives you guaranteed pips and discipline alongside the force limit. Also while you may think that -10% is not much, when you go past 25-30 development in your average province, you'll notice that the extra 10% helps considerably to save your points. and the policy cost can be further reduced by going ahead in tech enough that you can spend next few years point gain purely on development and ignore the tech so you get most bang for your buck, so to speak.