I think what the author of the thread is hoping for is something like this
- 1
Norway and province development after Common Sense
- Thread starter GRFenrir
- 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.
Historically Norway was piss poor but had potential, just happened that all profits were siphoned away to Sweden or Denmark, making development hard (similar happened in East Poland due to the pretty colonial governing of the place by Russians)
- 2
- 2
You asked why mountains should give constrained building (they don't btw, Farmlands just get a bonus); the answer is that mountains are harder to build on. That was your question and it has a simple answer, the issue of terrain simplification is a separate issue.
The suggestion that provinces with the terrain "mountains" had other terrain, like valleys, forests, even plains, is entirely true. In the same way as plains, farmlands, etc all had forests and hills in them. However, the current system has simplified the terrain into one type per province, when the change was made it benefited gameplay. Reversing that change and having split province terrain, particularly with all the new (and suggested) terrain types would require a huge overhaul of the system. It would have to be applied to EVERY province, not just the Norwegian provinces that are being complained about (some people don't seem to appreciate this). Reworking terrain to factor in the different terrain makeups in every province is not a feasible option.
- 1
If we had a cap-based system, rather than penalty-based, then terrain would not matter in this context. If your province made fish, the limit on how much you could develop production would be diplo-tech based: better ships, more fish.
That's not the only answer. Keep simplified terrain for combat. Just don't impose penalties on development because of that terrain. If you want to differentiate the ability for different provinces to develop economically, use other factors. Maybe you have to introduce a new factor, maybe not, depends how simple you want to make it, but we're not arguing to get rid of the simple terrain system that affects combat.
- 2
No, people are asking why a small island is easier to develop than a province 10 times its size with easily 5 times the amount of arable land. Treating the entirety of Akershus or Trondelag as mountains is an imperfect solution that is far from the common sense generalizations that you've made.
- 2
Well... they made a new province development system built on the terrain assigned to each province, so they should have detected that issue. And obviously, having detected the issue they should apply any given solution to every province. Applying a totally new system tied to a feature designed just for combat modifiers, is cutting corners.
- 3
A Cap based system is both unhistorical and defeats the point of being able to go tall. Cities like Constantinople (and that's the City, not factoring in the rest of the province) grew huge way ahead of much of the rest of the world, either the cap would have to be high enough to allow cities like that (at which point it becomes meaningless for most of the world) or would unhistorically (and bad gameplay) constrain expansion. That's even assuming you can justify the system in the first place.
In addition, it would maintain exactly the same unfair system, just with a different cause. Produce fish or grain? great, you can grow more than the province that produces salt, you don't have any provinces that produce grain? sucks for you, cant grow tall. How would that solve anything?
How do you simulate the genuine historical effect of terrain on city growth, maintain the simplified terrain system and factor in the fact that provinces actually consist of multiple terrain types at the same time? It is not feasible to try to change the terrain system (which WAS what was being suggested).
Now, adding passive development growth (or loss) as a result of different factors like rivers, peace, technology, trade goods, wealth and war is a way to go, it is what I have been suggesting in this and other similar threads. But beyond a few possible tweaks, the terrain system should not be changed and that was the issue I was responding to.
- 1
I think it would be easy enough to apply a development cost reduction to select provinces that were historically important or well developed despite poor terrain. Not every mountainous, tropical, arctic or desert area was like the surface of the moon.
Still not addressing mountain provinces being treated as sheer cliffs equivalent to the Himalayas? The Andean states are awful to play now.
- 2
A tiny and minor issue caused by a specific set of circumstances, that of Norway being almost entirely mountains whilst holding provinces that are coastline. Every mechanic has a questionable example you can find.
Though I will point out, some people were actually asking why mountains are harder to develop, so his post was accurate.
Its not really an issue most of the time. The big talked about nation in every thread has been Norway, I think it is the only common example from all the threads complaining about the development system. One country suffering should not require a complete rework.
And anyway, they used the existing terrain feature, one NOT just used for combat, it also governs supply, attrition and defensiveness. Reworking the entire system for a change that for the most part works roughly historically is not a good use of time.
It wouldn't be the first unhistorical feature of the game. But i agree with you here.
Where was suggested that the terrain system should be changed? Also, what should be changed is that terrain shouldn't have an effect on development, but rather communication lines. Historically you have urban centers develop more rapidly near the sea or great rivers, not in great plains, or grasslands (if that was the case, Portugal should have some huge cities in Alentejo).
- 1
Ok, you're right that it's not just for combat. But it's for other subjects... all related to armies.
Same problem is with Caucasus region: developing poor mountain provinces is a pain in 1.12.
A few people in the thread have suggested changes to the terrain system, one even specifically talked about using the percentage terrain system.
I agree with you though, there should be a passive development system where cities get bonus's from things like being on rivers or on the coast.
One thing I will note though is that provinces are more than just the city, they represent the entire province in societies that were much more rural then now. A province with a river might have a large trading city on the river, but the rest of the province wouldn't gain much. The urban populations were only a few percent of the total population (I think the largest was 30ish% by the end of the timeframe) in most places at the start of the game. Farmlands are better terrain for population because, even though there would be less large cities, the Rural farming population would be much larger. The opposite could be said of Mountainous provinces; whilst there would be valleys or plains with large(er) cities on, if a large proportion of the region is mountainous it will result in a much smaller population compared to a Farmland for example.
- 2
In context his post wasn't accurate, it required reading a question out of context from a person whose multiple posts indicates a far more nuanced position. Given you made the same mistake yourself though, I can understand you leaping to his defense.
As far as whether this issue is tiny and minor, I don't think so, the developer who is looking into this doesn't seem to think so either. I respect that you think so, but since I disagree with your reasons, your justifications fall apart when looking at Hamburg, and I seem to be more likely to get my way than you, I don't have to press the issue or convince you.
My only fear is that the developer will treat this as a one nation issue, put a 'fertile valleys' bandaid on it and miss the opportunity to develop a more rewarding and interesting system for terrain management. Development as an EU4 concept is, after all, in its developmental infancy, it's a good addition to the game but far from perfect and any opportunity should be taken to find a way to improve it. Even if some players think it's got a good use of time.
- 1
Can we maybe proliferate 'arid' designations for 'bad' mountain provinces like the Himalayas or northern Norway and affix development or building restrictions to that modifier so that 'good' mountain provinces like Switzerland and Norway's capital can develop normally?
It is a small issue that a small island is easier to develop than a province 10 times its size and with 5 times the arable land because only one specific example nation really suffers from that issue to the extent we are talking about, mainly because Norway's provinces are almost all mountains and large. Im not sure any other country really suffers from this (what has Hamburg got to do with it?). I also don't know what province size has to do with it, you cant give a province buffs to development cost due to how large it is on the map.
I don't know why you assume I don't want the developer to fix it, If you read my posts (ie, have some context) I have already argued in favour of adjusting mountain province around the world to account for differences between say the Alps/Himalayas and Mountains near the coast/tropical mountains. That is exactly what Wiz seems to be about to do.
What I don't want is any rework of the terrain system, they should add coastal mountains (and maybe tropical mountains) and leave it at that, addressing the other development issues through other means.
That is exactly what they should do. Going backwards to where every province was a complicated mess of percentage terrains is not the way forwards and will not improve the game. There are a few examples of wrongly implemented terrain like in Norway or Peru, they should be fixed with terrain changes or modifiers, they were mountainous but they had other aspects that made them good to settle.
If you want them to develop a more indepth system of terrain management then come up with one, because they already removed the complicated terrain system they had.
- 2
Why not just split the mountainous provinces in question into two separate provinces - a small farmland province, and a mountain province?
- 2