Norway and province development after Common Sense

[Jeggred86]

New trade good: ICE
I will take mine with chocolate flavor please

A bit off topic: It would be cool to combine available trade goods and increase the value. You have a province with ice (or salt) and fish? You can make fish more valuable by preserving it. You have dyes and cloth? Colorful clothing is worth more. That would improve the less desirable trade goods.

 

[GRFenrir]

Thanks for a lot of constructive responses. The problem isn't necessarily that the provinces are linked to terrain types(although this isn't optimal, I assume reworking this system from scratch would be a ton of work), but the balance between terrain types. Maybe a halfway measure could be to add a "coastal mountains" province type, with lower development cost than mountains, and reduce the development malus from terrain across the board. Norway is after all very rich in fish, and thus not that dependent on farmlands, which I feel could be more closely represented in a different terrain type than the mountains of Himalaya. I also really like the idea about a fixed development "roof" for provinces, this could fix the issue with farmland provinces easily being built up to development level 40 with the same amount of resources you spend getting mountains a couple of levels increased. I'd also suggest that temples, barracks and workshops give a small flat increase to the development level of a province to even things out a little bit.

And it was never my intention to insult our friends out in the North Sea, their lovely islands are actually warmer than anywhere in mainland Scandinavia in winter. Please don't make those provinces frozen.

 

[Tacticus101]

In fairness, Norway did have a very small population at the start of the game (of which quite a large proportion was in Iceland) and did really struggle whenever it wanted independence.

I also think Norway will get buffs in any expansion to the development system, there have been plenty of suggestions that increase development passively over time and from factors like peace, trade goods (fish, grain etc) and technology, all of which will benefit them in the long term.

That said, there should be changes to mountains to account for the differences between mountains on the coast or tropical mountains and places like the Alps. Cuzco (inca capital) suffers from the same issue, in the game it is modelled as mountains making development prohibitive, whilst historically it was a large city and its climate is actually more hospitable than many others. There needs to be more expansion to the terrain system since it has soo much effect on development now.

 

[perhje]

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.

Espesially for large provinces like the norwegian ones it is quite weird, you wont build up the poor areas of Bergenshus and Trøndelag, which are the areas that fills the most of the province, you would rather develop the cities and the areas around. the region Trøndelag has more farmland(but not better i beleive) than the Lübeck province, but since the rest of the province is mountain(mostly), hills, highlands, forest, coastal etc it doesn't matter. All the norwegian cities except those in Eidsiva are actually coastal and mostly thats how they are connected in the EU4-timeline. Eidsiva was connected to mostly Trøndelag(cobbermines in late period) and Akershus. Maybe a percentage of different terrains where you have limited of each terrain type to develop on could make this weird thing a little bit fixed.

 

[myrsl0ken]

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.

Brace for the incomming Faroes, Shetland and Orkney nerf!

In all seriousness, the issue seems to be that terrain is defined after how it matters for warfare but is then applied to development. And development follows a different logic where seemingly minor parts of the terrain (mostly good soils for agriculture) are disproportionally important. This also affects the northern german forests and the alps, that are horrible to fight in (as in forests and mountains) but still have alot of potential to develop (as in having river vallys that definitely can support cities and large populations).

 

[TheRingisHot]

Maybe add 'fjord' terrain with a nice new terrain pic?

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Ideally a less regional solution.

 

[ZZMitch]

Maybe some sort of modifier like "Fertile Valleys" or something like that that offsets the increased development cost of certain mountainous provinces.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Maybe some sort of modifier like "Fertile Valleys" or something like that that offsets the increased development cost of certain mountainous provinces.

I think that's trying to heal a broken leg with a band aid. This also affects the number of building slots, so it doesn't seem that a mere modifier can solve the problem.

 

[zdlugasz]

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.

The issue is the overwhelming +50% modifier (or +35% for jungles). If +5 will go as you implied in "+5 has to go" thread, than terrain modifiers will be completely (ahistorically and game-breakingly - is there such a word?) overwhelming.
(e.g. only after 50 levels of development in farmlands it will be more profitable to develop mountains)

 

[jebates]

We shouldn't be able to develop provinces that are arctic. Well, ones that aren't trade centers, anyway (looking at you, Arkhangelsk). Mountains should give constrained buildings, but shouldn't cost more than farmlands to develop. Capitals should offer an additional building slot.

 

[Basterbane]

This bothered me for a bit. Why would forests and hills be harder to settle than plains. Maybe it would be possible to divide development of a province into 3 sub categories with unique bonuses and penalties (boosting tax cost 20 admin mp, but boosting production cost 40 dip. cause province has no infrastructure or goods giving cost reduction). For example grain (trade good) + farmlands (terrain type) would reduce the cost of tax increasing development.

This might be good opportunity to introduce new trade goods and find new application for old ones. Instead of having end products in a province it would be better to fill everything with raw materials. For example have hill or any other pasture like province produce sheep or other kinds of livestock. Different types of plants to make fabric etc. Maybe allow the option to change goods produced in a province based on technology. If province can produce grain then it should support some other crops used to produce fabric. Maybe some buildings could add 2nd good produced to a province. Having Grain depot in cotton producing province could generate both grain and cotton (possible with crop rotation technology).
Make max manpower factor in food resources generated too so that there is need to keep some grain, fish or cattle provinces. Hell manpower could also be a development resource.
End products would be generated by manufactures (like Factories in Victoria 2 ^_^ ).

Provinces with forests should be easy to develop. You have supply of construction materials already. Potash or charcoal ash could be used as fertilizer (probably too early in game time frame?). Some raw materials and end goods could be unlocked with technology.

Introduce buildings like water and wind mills. Windmills would be great on hills but also help with marshlands development. Watermills would give some production bonus in provinces with rivers and grain provinces to generate flour.

Creating some easy and simple "industrialization" mechanic in EU4 would probably tie it better with Victoria 3 where old manufactures are upgraded to proper factories (uncivs could rely on manufactures and local artisans instead of getting goods starved).
Having simple economy system in Eu4 with manufactures and deeper development system could be used to generate monarch points or create new development points (capitalism mana).

Another thing that bothered me since DDRJake teaser of English Monarchy in India and Sarig Yogir game. Development penalties to native population. Why would hordes get penalized to develop steppes. Sure steppes potential is not great aside for some pastures but its still there. There are nations that settled in jungle / tropical areas. They also get shafted even when this is where they live for generations. Some global development modifier - we have 75% jungle provinces in our nation so now we know how to deal with them. Something similar to accepted cultures but you cant forget how to work types of terrain if it gets too low % of total provinces.



Did not expect it would turn into long post

 

[BFTeixeira]

We shouldn't be able to develop provinces that are arctic. Well, ones that aren't trade centers, anyway (looking at you, Arkhangelsk). Mountains should give constrained buildings, but shouldn't cost more than farmlands to develop. Capitals should offer an additional building slot.

Why mountains should give constrained buildings? The issue here is that they're using something thought out for combat modifiers, and applied it to province development. It makes no sense.

 

[FieldMedic]

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.

I usually take those frozen rocks as England! Thanks Norway

 

[Tacticus101]

Why mountains should give constrained buildings? The issue here is that they're using something thought out for combat modifiers, and applied it to province development. It makes no sense.

Because there is less space to build on mountains than a big flat grassland.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Because there is less space to build on mountains than a big flat grassland.

Like stated before, a mountainous province, doesn't mean it hasn't room for buildings and expansion. Just like most grasslands provinces don't have any kind of hills, mountains, or even forests.

 

[zezeb]

Now be with me I haven't read all posts in this thread but why not make the production of fish uneffected by terrain types such as mountains as you do not fish in the mountains, you fish in the sea, rivers and lakes etc.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Now be with me I haven't read all posts in this thread but why not make the production of fish uneffected by terrain types such as mountains as you do not fish in the mountains, you fish in the sea, rivers and lakes etc.

Well... i fail to see where your post relates to the thread...

 

[Frungy78]

Are people seriously asking why mountains should be harder to develop? They're mountains! You try building farms and towns on a mountain. It's really difficult! Where are easy places to build farms and towns? Why, grasslands and plains! It's common sense.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Are people seriously asking why mountains should be harder to develop? They're mountains! You try building farms and towns on a mountain. It's really difficult! Where are easy places to build farms and towns? Why, grasslands and plains! It's common sense.

Have you read the posts in the thread?