Government Reforms: A Math Problem

[Waffle Knight]

It doesn't.

"Exponentially" is not just a buzzword for "a lot"; it has a very precise meaning which does not apply to the cost function for successive government reform tiers.

If the correct word is relevent enough to point out, then please state what the word should be at the very least.

My meaning was that each succesive tiers cost scales out of proportion for no tangible gameplay benefit.

 

[grommile]

If the correct word is relevent enough to point out, then please state what the word should be at the very least.

The cost increase is linear. Each step costs 50 more than the one before it - 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, etc.

 

[gia257]

I fully agree, but I would also argue that the main problem here is that you can trade reform progress for GC. Most of all runs are monarchies, and they finish their government reforms first and can then just dump everything into GC.

I still think that advisors should somehow influence that whole system, for the simple reason that those are the guys that run (and thus reform) the government. It would also give the player some more control over their reform progress gain. Currently the only thing you can really do is not make your situation worse than it already is.

And I also think we should avoid making the rich even richer, so higher level advisors = faster movement through your reforms should be thrown into the trash can.

gc is diminishing, wouldnt matter

you can wc without using the button anyway

 

[RAID186]

Really what we need is for less progress losses when changing government forms. It's painful to see that Monarchies, which really should be struggling more than they are, will often fill their whole tree and remain stable while the more progressive Republics struggle to get to the end of their trees unless they -started- as one.

Theocracies are in the middle, they didn't really do all that well historically but they do also lack the ability to really get the most out of their reforms.

Republics, and Democracies, by design are messy and hard to change/reform. I agree it sucks and should change for gameplay reasons, but that logic is flawed.

 

[petertju]

Is it that benifical to actually switch government? It really isn't a mechanic that I use a lot.

 

[Zohtun]

Is it that benifical to actually switch government? It really isn't a mechanic that I use a lot.

If you're a tribe, yes.

If not....depends what you're changing to and why.

 

[DanielGrandi]

If you're a tribe, yes.

If not....depends what you're changing to and why.

At my present game, I'm playing as Yao (a tribe) and so far I don't see any reason to change government (tribes get -15 core creation cost from government reforms)

I would also like to present my 2 cents as a new player:

If you had asked me two weeks ago, what government I consider the best, I would have said Republic without a second thought. Then, I started to consider the gov point generation, tiers and such.
Still using a Republic as an example, it just takes way too long to get that +20 absolutism from the last tier, even with the bonus from republican tradition, which made me scrap the idea of trying a WC with a Republic (which is a pity, because I love how well you can control monarch points with Republics)

 

[Titanius Puffin]

One solution could be a 'neighbouring tech' multiplier for 'backward' governments.

If you reform your government, and are suddenly surrounded by countries with more government reforms than you, then you get a multiplier to generating your own govt reform points. This could simulate a country/state looking abroad and seeing other governments taking a more active role in their societies.

Would this work from a gameplay perspective? Could it be over-exploited?

 

[Emoneh]

i for one am exponentially upset that each reform costs linearly more than the last

 

[Titanius Puffin]

i for one am exponentially upset that each reform costs linearly more than the last

There are decreasing marginal returns on this kind of humour,
=p

 

[newtlord]

Note that the total amount of points spent may be considered to increase exponentially.

 

[Jorlaan]

Although I just remembered another issue with reforms that I didn't mention in my original post: New World natives simply gain no reforms until they stop being primitives. Which probably makes sense for the small migratory tribes, but does the Mesoamericans and Andeans, and even some of the more organized North American entities like the Haudenosaunee, a disservice.

There are MANY things about the way First Nations work in the Americas that do them massive "disservice" but despite years of suggestions and complaints I think we can assume the devs don't WANT to do them justice.
CoP was the very first expansion for the game and it's glaring flaws have been resoundingly ignored ever since.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

Note that the total amount of points spent may be considered to increase exponentially.

Uh, no, no, it isn't. The total points spent increase "quadratically". The formula is [total points] =[rank]^2*25+[rank]*25

Summing the impact of any linear function cannot get an exponential function.

I think that Paradox really hates true exponential functions, as exponentials take more processing power than the functions they like to use.

 

[Ruian]

At my present game, I'm playing as Yao (a tribe) and so far I don't see any reason to change government (tribes get -15 core creation cost from government reforms)

I would also like to present my 2 cents as a new player:

If you had asked me two weeks ago, what government I consider the best, I would have said Republic without a second thought. Then, I started to consider the gov point generation, tiers and such.
Still using a Republic as an example, it just takes way too long to get that +20 absolutism from the last tier, even with the bonus from republican tradition, which made me scrap the idea of trying a WC with a Republic (which is a pity, because I love how well you can control monarch points with Republics)

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that you want to do something insane like start as a tribe and become a horde as quickly as possible. Crazy, I know. If such an insane person were to exist, that might be a reason you'd want to get points quickly. I doubt they do though.

 

[DanielGrandi]

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that you want to do something insane like start as a tribe and become a horde as quickly as possible. Crazy, I know. If such an insane person were to exist, that might be a reason you'd want to get points quickly. I doubt they do though.

I never argued that changing governments as a tribe isn't useful, I said that to me, it wasn't. Nor did I argue that there shouldn't be a faster way to generate government points.