Norway and province development after Common Sense

[GRFenrir]

After playing Norway for a while with the new expansion, I've come to realize that what was previously an uphill struggle is now a very punishing quagmire of economic misery. Plains and especially farmlands are now crucial to developing economically viable provinces, much more so than before. With temples giving a percentage bonus instead of a flat tax increase, and mountainous provinces being useless for development, you're stuck far behind any nation possessing Glorious Farmlands. You might be saying "well that's perfectly justified, Norway is mostly mountains anyway". What really strikes me as baffling though is how three of your four best provinces are now the following: Faroes, Shetland and Orkney, all of these being significantly more suited for development than the far more important regions on the mainland such as Bergenhus or Trøndelag. It seems arbitrary that because a province is mostly mountains, areas of farmlands within a given province are completely ignored. And while I don't expect Paradox to add a farmland percentage to every single province in the game, I still believe this current way of handling province development is far from optimal. As it stands now nations with plains and farmlands have too much of an advantage over others, in my opinion.

I also have to mention the average winter temperature of Tromsø is just below zero, yet somehow Hålogaland is arctic.

 

[Frungy78]

Doing a Norwegian Wood run now, and I agree that Norway is a lot tougher than pre-1.12. Start with like, 3-4 units? It's depressing how weak you are. And yes, Norway is mostly mountains in reality, isn't it? What did you expect?

I did the following to get started.
1. Restart until Lithuania, Novgorod and Teutonic Order rival Denmark. Lithuania immediately supports your independence, the other two need some relations help and hoping that the Danish army dies to Eric on Gotland. Build to force limit, and mothball your fleet.
2. Declare independence without Sweden's help. Sweden hates Denmark anyway, so won't even invade your territory. Sit back in Akershus and wait for your mainland allies to invade Sweden, with Lithuania doing the heavy lifting. Butter up Austria.
3. When Sweden's army is gone, take Skane and Dalaskogen in the peace, as well as independence. You can now add Skane and Akershus to the HRE assuming Austria likes you.
4. Ally Poland and Austria. Eat Novgorod and Teutonic Order and Livonian Order, but don't take Marienburg or Danzig (and don't give them to Poland either.)
5. Do whatever. Colonize Newfoundland at dip 7/2nd idea group, become HRE emperor, eat Russia, Scotland, whatever.

Once you take southern Scandanavia, you should have good development areas with accepted culture.

 

[Daema]

I think one of the big issues is the increasing cost of development. It makes sense as a balancing measure, but is a bit nonsensical in practice. Wealth was, and still is mostly, concentrated around main population centres. It shouldn't be more difficult to develop London or Paris from 20 to 21 base tax than somewhere like the Shetlands (with maybe 1% of the population) from 1 to 2. Ideally they'd bring population back, but failing that there should be a 'critical mass' cost reduction for developing provinces that are already very wealthy.

 

[Jeggred86]

I think the increased development cost of forests / mountains etc. should only be activated after a certain amount of development. The forested regions have clearings where you can expand. When they are full you have to cut down trees before you can build more industry. The mountains have valleys where you can build relative easy and when they are full you have to flatten the terrain or build on hillsides.
Lets say in forested areas the first 30 development are without penalty and on mountains it's 20.

 

[lolada]

After playing Norway for a while with the new expansion, I've come to realize that what was previously an uphill struggle is now a very punishing quagmire of economic misery. Plains and especially farmlands are now crucial to developing economically viable provinces, much more so than before. With temples giving a percentage bonus instead of a flat tax increase, and mountainous provinces being useless for development, you're stuck far behind any nation possessing Glorious Farmlands. You might be saying "well that's perfectly justified, Norway is mostly mountains anyway". What really strikes me as baffling though is how three of your four best provinces are now the following: Faroes, Shetland and Orkney, all of these being significantly more suited for development than the far more important regions on the mainland such as Bergenhus or Trøndelag. It seems arbitrary that because a province is mostly mountains, areas of farmlands within a given province are completely ignored. And while I don't expect Paradox to add a farmland percentage to every single province in the game, I still believe this current way of handling province development is far from optimal. As it stands now nations with plains and farmlands have too much of an advantage over others, in my opinion.

I also have to mention the average winter temperature of Tromsø is just below zero, yet somehow Hålogaland is arctic.

Valid remarks. There was a good idea to give development discounts to provinces around capital to be able to create developed core of the nation. I'd like to have option for example to select X provinces i want to mark as a core land. These land would not be penalized.

That would help for example in this case.

 

[SignedName]

Maybe this could be "fixed" by giving provinces "development roofs?" Faroes might have a development roof of 10, while Bergenhus has a development roof of 30, with development being less expensive for every point under the roof you are and more expensive for going through the roof. Maybe development efficiency later in game could raise this roof since the incremental cost of development is gone.

 

[lolada]

Maybe this could be "fixed" by giving provinces "development roofs?" Faroes might have a development roof of 10, while Bergenhus has a development roof of 30, with development being less expensive for every point under the roof you are and more expensive for going through the roof. Maybe development efficiency later in game could raise this roof since the incremental cost of development is gone.

This has some logic to it, but from what i could see people really dislike caps in the game. There are players that want to make Osel the best province in the world for example (hint DDRJake .

 

[lolada]

Here is my suggestion, go hit the dislike button : )

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-development-provinces-for-a-country.865562/

 

[Dr. B]

Yep, it is crazy now. All hail the mighty metropolis of Shetland Islands!!

(Start in mountains/forests? Got to go all Gengish Khan on your neighbours, no point in developing your home cores, sadly. The system could use some polish like suggested above.)

 

[Wizzington]

Agreed that having some frozen rocks in the ocean be the best development provinces is a bit weird. Will see what we can do about it.

 

[Metz]

Giving Scandinavia more provinces that are coastal based that aren't rocky maybe.

 

[CNightwing]

The trouble is that the terrain is really for determining combat modifiers, but the economic development of a province is somewhat independent of that because provinces aren't uniformly mountainous in reality, and cities get built in the non-mountainous bits. What limits the development in reality is quite complex - investment for sure, which is the player's decision, natural resources for rural areas vs. provision of goods for cities, technology.. the list goes on.

I would remove the current terrain-based cost penalties, they don't make sense. I would place a cap on the development of a province though, possibly different caps on the three forms of development. Base tax is limited by the growth of cities, which is really dependent on technology and accessibility - literally the number of surrounding friendly provinces could be used here to make cities had to develop on islands but easy in the HRE. Big jumps would be expected during the enlightenment when sanitation becomes a factor. Production is also highly dependent on technology, and much more so terrain. A provinces that produces copper wants to be mountainous, but a grain province does not, which makes things complex because trade goods are fixed factors. Possibly you could change the trade good produced by a province at the cost of some production development - that way you can try to eke the most out of every bit of land. Finally, military development really just adds manpower so I guess it depends on your population, which is best abstracted from the first two categories. Certainly military should be limited by tax and production, whereas I don't really feel the other two care about military, unless you see it as also keeping the peace, which makes some sense for the period prior to Victoria - got to keep bandits off the roads etc.

 

[BFTeixeira]

The trouble is that the terrain is really for determining combat modifiers, but the economic development of a province is somewhat independent of that because provinces aren't uniformly mountainous in reality, and cities get built in the non-mountainous bits. What limits the development in reality is quite complex - investment for sure, which is the player's decision, natural resources for rural areas vs. provision of goods for cities, technology.. the list goes on.

I would remove the current terrain-based cost penalties, they don't make sense. I would place a cap on the development of a province though, possibly different caps on the three forms of development. Base tax is limited by the growth of cities, which is really dependent on technology and accessibility - literally the number of surrounding friendly provinces could be used here to make cities had to develop on islands but easy in the HRE. Big jumps would be expected during the enlightenment when sanitation becomes a factor. Production is also highly dependent on technology, and much more so terrain. A provinces that produces copper wants to be mountainous, but a grain province does not, which makes things complex because trade goods are fixed factors. Possibly you could change the trade good produced by a province at the cost of some production development - that way you can try to eke the most out of every bit of land. Finally, military development really just adds manpower so I guess it depends on your population, which is best abstracted from the first two categories. Certainly military should be limited by tax and production, whereas I don't really feel the other two care about military, unless you see it as also keeping the peace, which makes some sense for the period prior to Victoria - got to keep bandits off the roads etc.

I think you nailed it!

 

[spinoza013]

frozen rocks in the ocean

Not quite.

 

[Wizzington]

Not quite.

Exaggeration, but yeah.

 

[Ravagers Prey]

Common sense was most likely a plot to further weaken Sweden's old enemy Norway. It makes so much sense now, with Norway too weak to defend themselves they have no other option but to join with Sweden...very clever.

 

[Incompetent]

Giving Scandinavia more provinces that are coastal based that aren't rocky maybe.

Look at a relief map of Norway. Apart from a small area in the south-east, it's practically the textbook description of 'rugged terrain'. It should be hard to develop.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Common sense was most likely a plot to further weaken Sweden's old enemy Norway. It makes so much sense now, with Norway too weak to defend themselves they have no other option but to join with Sweden...very clever.

Even if you don't have Common Sense, the 1.12 patch puts Norway in a even worst position, as they can't develop their provinces.

 

[Egil4950]

What I think is the problem with especially Norway, is that the natural resources it had during the time is badly presented and that how the area developed during the period is underrepresented. Provinces in Norway normally had a very spread out production with provinces like southern parts of Bergenhus centered around Stavanger actually had quite fertile lands to farm upon and a lot of fish on the coast while the northern parts, especially was mostly centered around fishing but also selling ice. Yes it sounds a bit ridicoulous, but they sold ice too to better preserve food. Great Britain and the Netherlands especially asked for this.
Another aspect of the game is that Norway does not have their natural resources like copper and SILVER presented. For example in 1623 there was found silver at Kongsberg (in game its in Akerhus). The mine were so profitable that it produced 10% of the national income of Denmark-Norway during the time it was operative under the kingdom of Denmark-Norway. Also, Norway did too have a lot of Copper mines that was very productive, but not as productive as that of Dalaskogen.

At last, another thing that makes this even look worse in my perspective is that during the timeperiod, what compromised the Kingdom of Norway (Norway + Iceland) actually surpassed Denmark breifly in population around 1800. Not lasting long though do to the catastrophy of the Napoleonic wars.

I could continue to rant about this until I have covered every corner and county of norway but Ill stop here.
What my points is that Norway is very badly represented when it comes to natural resources and how strong it actually was as a trading nation.

 

[Incompetent]

What I think is the problem with especially Norway, is that the natural resources it had during the time is badly presented and that how the area developed during the period is underrepresented. Provinces in Norway normally had a very spread out production with provinces like southern parts of Bergenhus centered around Stavanger actually had quite fertile lands to farm upon and a lot of fish on the coast while the northern parts, especially was mostly centered around fishing but also selling ice.

This is a good point. The way development works is kind of wonky when it comes to resources like fish. Having a giant wheat farm on a lump of rock in the middle of the ocean is obviously unrealistic, but that same lump of rock being a base for catching large quantities of fish is completely realistic - if anything, the more remote it is the better, as that means more uncontested waters to fish in.

With minerals, it's obviously highly dependent on the geology, and not just what the surface is like. If the minerals are near the surface, it's possibly easier to get at them on reasonably flat terrain than in high mountains (although even then, being able to dig horizontally into a hill is an advantage over digging downwards), but it's much, much easier to mine a near-surface deposit in the mountains than it is to dig a deep mine at sea level. In fact, even a deep mine in the mountains can be easier than a deep mine at sea level, because the sea level mine runs into huge problems with drainage.

I don't know a good way of modelling this though.

One thing I think should be changed is how trade power is calculated. Before, every coastal province had significant TP just for being coastal, so places like Norway were fairly influential in terms of trade. Now it seems to be mostly based on development and stacking buildings, which shuts poor coastal countries out of the loop. Maybe a combination of the two would be better, where every coastal province gets a flat amount of TP added to its TP from development?