How will monarch costs for developing large territories be balanced?

[dherve10]

Because development is tied to monarch points, tags with few provinces seem likely have an average development much higher than tags with many territories. Have the devs mentioned how this will be handled?

Are there ways for the provinces to increase their own development through events and such? Perhaps larger territories could have provinces independently develop at a higher rate?

 

[Wizzington]

There's no advantage to being large when it comes to development other than the fact that cost for developing a province increases each time you do it.

This is entirely according to design.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Basically larger nations will have the individual provinces less developed, but their nation as a whole will have more development put into it.

 

[Thrac]

This brings new strategys in to the horizont .... have 1-2 subjects that will develope the land for you and you keep your MP for your own provinces

 

[Denkt]

Basically larger nations will have the individual provinces less developed, but their nation as a whole will have more development put into it.

No all nations will focus their development on a few core provinces, all around development is a big waste because how buildings work.

 

[Heinrikr]

Since smaller countries would have more monarch points per province (since monarch points are gained per country, not province), wouldn't that lead to areas with many small countries, like HRE, being unrealistically and unhistorically well developed? Is this really per design? This does not make sense to me.

 

[Korashy]

This brings new strategys in to the horizont .... have 1-2 subjects that will develope the land for you and you keep your MP for your own provinces

Which then cost you to integrate. Unless you are intentionally staying small you will reach a point (usually after 50-100 years) where development is meaningless (because your economy can already support everything you'd need to smack around everyone else).

 

[Seelensturm]

No all nations will focus their development on a few core provinces, all around development is a big waste because how buildings work.

Could you explain?

 

[yerm]

There's no advantage to being large when it comes to development other than the fact that cost for developing a province increases each time you do it.

This is entirely according to design.

On the contrary, the "advantage" (to a province) is if the owner is small.

Take 3 nations. For arguments sake, they all have exactly the same MPs available to them, and are all the same tech group.

Nation 1 is a 4PM, always will be, and nobody bothers them.

Nation 2 is a 4PM too, but is conquering, and is averaging about a new province per decade give or take.

Nation 3 is a large major power with 12 starting provinces who takes multiple new territories every few years and is feeding vassals which are then integrated.

How will development pan out?

Well, Nation 1 has tons and tons of excess monarch points, and only a whopping 4 provinces to funnel them into. They aren't coring, they aren't annexing, and they aren't spreading the love around much - those 4 regions should expect to become incredibly wealthy, with tons and tons of points inefficiently boosting their development.

Nation 2 is going to develop each province less than nation 1. It has to spend monarch points to core new land, and it is slowly increasing the number of lands with development to be put into them. It is probably still developing, but not as much as nation 1 per individual province, since it will want to put some into new land which costs less, since costs increase each time you develop. Due to efficiency rules it may end up with more total development, but individual provinces themselves will not be as developed as an individual province of the 4PM Nation 1.

Nation 3 won't be developing much if at all. Maybe just manpower, and even then, it's liable to spread it all over the place. It needs its dip points for annexing and its admin for coring; what's left for territories, and out of whatever is, why would it go repeatedly into the same place when it can be spread in smaller amounts across a large area?


To put it another way, if 2 nations each have 10k lifetime mp to use for development, the one with less provinces will develop those provinces more than the one with more provinces on a per province basis. Since monarch points are largely independent of nation size, the less provinces a nation has the more it will develop each individual one, with advisors merely helping level this slightly but not liable to fix the imbalance.

 

[Thrac]

Which then cost you to integrate. Unless you are intentionally staying small you will reach a point (usually after 50-100 years) where development is meaningless (because your economy can already support everything you'd need to smack around everyone else).

The best example that i got in mind is the British Islands... why conquer Scotland and Ireland as England... when you can just keep them as vassals and profit more? Just for the red color on the map?

 

[Ixal]

Could you explain?

All buildings now give a %bonus (except the forcelimit ones) so they provide a higher bonus in well developed provinces. Thats why even large empires will likely have a few very well developed provinces.

 

[yerm]

The best example that i got in mind is the British Islands... why conquer Scotland and Ireland as England... when you can just keep them as vassals and profit more? Just for the red color on the map?

I get what you are saying, but coy side argument, Scotland is free cores when you form GB so keeping them around to feed and feed and feed is already the strong play!

 

[Denkt]

All buildings now give a %bonus (except the forcelimit ones) so they provide a higher bonus in well developed provinces. Thats why even large empires will likely have a few very well developed provinces.

Even the force limit buildings should give % modifiers, as buildings and development are dependent on each other a few super provinces may be worth much more then their weight in development.

 

[dherve10]

There's no advantage to being large when it comes to development other than the fact that cost for developing a province increases each time you do it.

This is entirely according to design.

I wouldn't expect an advantage for being large, but it seems right now that the monarch point constraint makes being large a disadvantage. It would be nice if there were some way to simulate provinces developing independently of the tag's direct control.

 

[Denkt]

I wouldn't expect an advantage for being large, but it seems right now that the monarch point constraint makes being large a disadvantage. It would be nice if there were some way to simulate provinces developing independently of the tag's direct control.

Random events, large is still stronger and conquest is very cheap in monarch points but the difference is that smaller nations will be relevant for much longer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

On the contrary, the "advantage" (to a province) is if the owner is small.

Take 3 nations. For arguments sake, they all have exactly the same MPs available to them, and are all the same tech group.

Nation 1 is a 4PM, always will be, and nobody bothers them.

Nation 2 is a 4PM too, but is conquering, and is averaging about a new province per decade give or take.

Nation 3 is a large major power with 12 starting provinces who takes multiple new territories every few years and is feeding vassals which are then integrated.

How will development pan out?

Well, Nation 1 has tons and tons of excess monarch points, and only a whopping 4 provinces to funnel them into. They aren't coring, they aren't annexing, and they aren't spreading the love around much - those 4 regions should expect to become incredibly wealthy, with tons and tons of points inefficiently boosting their development.

Nation 2 is going to develop each province less than nation 1. It has to spend monarch points to core new land, and it is slowly increasing the number of lands with development to be put into them. It is probably still developing, but not as much as nation 1 per individual province, since it will want to put some into new land which costs less, since costs increase each time you develop. Due to efficiency rules it may end up with more total development, but individual provinces themselves will not be as developed as an individual province of the 4PM Nation 1.

Nation 3 won't be developing much if at all. Maybe just manpower, and even then, it's liable to spread it all over the place. It needs its dip points for annexing and its admin for coring; what's left for territories, and out of whatever is, why would it go repeatedly into the same place when it can be spread in smaller amounts across a large area?


To put it another way, if 2 nations each have 10k lifetime mp to use for development, the one with less provinces will develop those provinces more than the one with more provinces on a per province basis. Since monarch points are largely independent of nation size, the less provinces a nation has the more it will develop each individual one, with advisors merely helping level this slightly but not liable to fix the imbalance.

This game is fundamentally imbalanced and has to be. If anything, the advantage of having a sprawling empire was too large. I would rather see fluid diminishing return stuff like this rather than heavy-handed nonsense concepts like wars being worth less because reasons. This one makes some historical/gameplay sense, unlike a mechanic named after something from history that never functioned like it does.

Granted, there are some mistakes in 1.12 also, but the concept that it's harder to develop/administer sprawling territories makes sense and should check the utility of it. To me the big downside here is that development doesn't hold the same engagement as war (you don't have the same number of decision points/engagement), which alongside some other rule changes has a big chance to hurt the game's pacing.

 

[riadach]

The best example that i got in mind is the British Islands... why conquer Scotland and Ireland as England... when you can just keep them as vassals and profit more? Just for the red color on the map?

I'm thinking the same as an opm in Ireland. Now, rather than rush conquering the other provinces, you can rush vassalise them. Invest all your extra mp into developing your own little province or two.

There are other advantages. You have a +6 bonus being independent, but your vassal opms only get +2, means you should be able to keep ahead of liberty desire, and have a big enough for to resist a neighbour's invasion. You can spend prestige then to keep your vassal's liberty desire in check, or you can push your dynasty on them hoping for a personal union where ld isn't cumulative. Furthermore, you get to keep their capital forts, for free, which you wouldn't get if you annexe them completely. You could even keep Ulster as a march, fund and develop its fort to keep the strait of Mull under control. to help against any land advance.

Things are getting interesting alright.

 

[Had a dad]

This game is fundamentally imbalanced and has to be. If anything, the advantage of having a sprawling empire was too large. I would rather see fluid diminishing return stuff like this rather than heavy-handed nonsense concepts like wars being worth less because reasons.

It will be interesting to see how the changes effect gameplay, as I just did rum master achievement, and I wonder if it will be harder to have the massive empire needed for that achievement.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Which then cost you to integrate. Unless you are intentionally staying small you will reach a point (usually after 50-100 years) where development is meaningless (because your economy can already support everything you'd need to smack around everyone else).

But it's cheaper to core a developed province (10admin per development, and I'm assuming diplomatic integration will be similar) vs developing it yourself (50+ admin per development, before modifiers). Add on that your vassals get their own supply of monarch points and having your subjects develop land for you could be a very a profitable use of some diplomatic relation slots. Or hell, don't even vassalise them straight-away; just (as England, for example) warn all four Irish minors and let them grow tall for you to harvest later.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It will be interesting to see how the changes effect gameplay, as I just did rum master achievement, and I wonder if it will be harder to have the massive empire needed for that achievement.

Yeah, so much is changing in this patch that it'll easily be the largest alteration to gameplay of any patch/expansion in EU IV thus far. There's some stuff I can predict because I've put a lot of time in but it's impossible to judge it in its entirety because of the sheer number of altered factors and how much tuning them can impact pacing to be slower or faster. I suspect/except we'll be getting some hotfix patches and numbers tweaking on a lot of the new stuff too, I don't see how that can possibly be avoided in this case, should be interesting regardless.