Persian and QQ provinces are not rich, they have a bit better development and much more valuable trade goods like spice, silk and dyes. Developing them is also painful.
Last edited:
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.
Persian and QQ provinces are not rich, they have a bit better development and much more valuable trade goods like spice, silk and dyes. Developing them is also painful.
That small island is easier to develop than many provinces 10 times its size with 5 times more arable land. Those many provinces are spread out amongst many nations in the game. For you to characterize this as a single nation or single example is inaccurate.
As for what Hamburg has to do with it, think about it for awhile in context. Or don't, like I said, I feel no reason to convince you. I'll probably come around to this later.
I never said you don't think it should be fixed, I never implied you didn't think it should be fixed, I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that I was assuming anything other than the exact point I was quoting and disagreeing with. I'm not even sure how you read my post in that context and reach the conclusion that you've reached.
That's nice, I disagree, you've provided no reason for me to share your belief and so I remain unconvinced. I believe that assigning a province a terrain type based on a majority of the terrain works fine for military engagements which could happen anywhere within the terrain.. I believe that assigning a province a terrain type for determining attrition is fine since armies are large, supply lines are long, and if you're there under hostile circumstances, you're probably not parked in a city with supplies coming in.
However, when it comes to placing people, when it comes to people choosing to live somewhere, they don't pick a random section of the province, they pick the best section of the province, the most livable land, the most productive highland, the flood plains between the stretches of desert, or the coastline.
It's an imperfect system, I don't have a solution to the problems, but I'm not going to pretend like its problems are minor, and I'm not going to keep placing bandaid after bandaid on provinces as people notice them and complain is superior to wider development of this new system based on new information. Now, instead I'm going to hope the developers move forward and come up with something better, even if that something better looks like what they once used.
Edit: So, while I was thinking about this I came up with a reasonably cheap solution. Every province has a city identified in its description. For a province like Hamburg that city is Hamburg, for most though it's either the largest city or the administrative center, for Akershus I'm pretty sure it's Oslo. When you move your trade port, you move it to that city. When you move your capital, you move it to that city.
So give each province two terrain indicators. One for the province at large, this one is used for any military activities and is simply the most prevalent terrain feature. Then give one for the province's largest city, this one is used for domestic calculations. Mountainous regions where 90% of the population lives on the coast, can still be considered mountainous when a hostile army marches in, but it gets treated like coastline when someone develops it.
Last edited:
- 3
It would be utter railroading. Why, in other geo-political situation other province would not be developed? Why Center of trade should not appear in other province? Of course we could define "almost wastelands" but otherwise any mountainous/desert/jungle should have the same chance. Are there any rivers? is it coastal? if yes majority of those downtrodden provinces should have chance to improve (the only exception which comes to my mind is central Arabia, maybe northern siberia and non-coastal Amazonia.
- 2
Being from Norway, and Paradox' Swedish... There are too few provinces imo. Yes, trying hard not to.. Well Scandinavians know what I'm trying not to do..
- 1
This is what I was going to suggest. Maybe not farmland, but coastal or something better than mountains.
Uh, yeah. It's inside the Arctic Circle. Having the ground frozen for five months out of the year is pretty much what I imagine when I see the provincial modifier, too.
Adding more provinces doesn't solve the mountains problem. This would affect not only Norway but other mountain heavy areas. It could only impact performance in a bad way.
IF Paradox went for realism they could put some more wastelands in mountains of Europe and other parts of the world. Splat some oddly shaped habitable provinces inside those wastelands here and there, connect them to the rest of the world with mountain passes ( ---- like strait crossing etc.). This would get rid of mountain modifier from combat probably but introduce something new like tight pass etc. Thermopiles = 300.
If winter temperatures is the standard, then a ton of Russian provinces should also be considered arctic.
- 2
Yep. The west coast of Norway isn't especially cold in winter because it gets hit with the full force of the Gulf Stream. For instance, winter temperatures in Trondheim are similar to those in Prague. Even Hammerfest is warmer in winter than say Moscow.
On the other hand, summer temperatures are pretty low in northern Norway - lower than anything you'd see in the Northern Hemisphere outside the arctic circle, I think.
Last edited:
- 2
This is such a good solution, yet almost nobody in this thread seems to have taken up on it, rather trying to introduce bloated and convoluted mechanics. This is quite good. Maybe splitting some of the provinces might also be a good idea, I don't know, but this makes perfect sense. As long as you haven't developed a province (any province), it will have spaces where you could develop normally. Naturally, mountainous provinces run out of space more quickly than grasslands and that's where the softcap sets in. As soon as x dev is hit, mountainous regions areh it with harsh dev penalties. Forest areas can be developed easily a bit longer and when the penalty hits, it's not as hard as for mountains. Again, this makes perfect sense. Jeggred86 nailed it, imho.
- 9
Actually the rest of the province has much to gain from having a great trading city. It would be an excellent destination for their products, boosting the economy and influence the wealth available for further investments. One example would be Porto Wine, which was traded from Porto, but was (and still is) produced far upstream the Douro river.
About population i totally agree, but i don't see development tied to population. Maybe population can be affected by development, but not the other way around.
I agree.
However I would propose to consider adding "hospitable area" modifier, which would slightly influence both %cost and cap.
I mean it is obvious that not all deserts are equal, not mountains, jungles etc. are equal. Some mountains are higher (ok, tibet got arctic modifier, and some might have arid modifier) , others are lower with higher amount of "better" valleys, some deserts have oasis, maybe access to river/lake, some areas have access to easy transportation (river, coast).
Regarding mountains - I do not really know why some people fixate on the amount of arable land there. What people "develop" in mountains is not grain production but extraction of mineral resources and then processing it (smelters etc.). In that case all you need to develop land is cheap and easy transportation to import food stuff and export metals, stones etc. And there is enough place to build houses in valleys.
Thinking further about development modifiers we already have something like what I have proposed implemented but working always in opposite direction, as a malus - e.g. we also have tropical modifier. Lets consider non tropical jungle - how many jungles are not tropical? significant minority I think. They are already privileged, since they do not get hit with tropical modifier. If climate is not tropical that means that jungle is basically just different kind forest. Why non-tropical jungle has +35% cost (vs. +15/+20 for European forest) - lower cost would be more reasonable (say forest+5%). Stacked with 15% from tropical, most jungles gives whooping +50% right now.
So the current setup is that many provinces are penalized doubly: (much too heavily) based on terrain and on top of that they are hit with climate modifier.
Introduction of softcaps (for cheap development) and reduction of unreasonably high terrain modifieres (and/or addition of one additional modifier to differentiate better and worse terrain - either small bonus or small malus) would fix most of issues IMO.
- 1
Still, you must remember that most of the people not living in the cities lived in farmlands, alongside rivers upstream to the cities, at the coast or alongside important landbased traderoutes
Honestly, with the way they have chosen limitations over freedom, this is like going from the old to the new total war games with extreme building limits, PTSD all over again.
Paradox, please don't go down this dark and limiting path.
Paradox, please don't go down this dark and limiting path.
- 1
I think you have to be Norwegian to say that, the areas of Norway that is best suited for farming would be the worst of the worst farming land in the rest of Europe.
Without being able to find anything on google, I doubt Norway was even able to feed itself on it own farming land before the industrial revolution.
Do you have any data to support that claim? Or are you just assuming?
Not according to Paradox. The problem with building limitation now is that the buildings are already balanced. If you build a workshop in a wealthy province like Paris, it proportionally increases the production of Paris, like a big workshop with many workers, if you make it in Hammerfest, it increases production a little, because there are fewer hands to do the work and less base production. The cost is already balanced because the price of the workshops in the two places are the same. Basically, the old system was good with the exception of the monarch point cost. We don't need to go Rome 2 Total war on the cities and make it impossible to have a church and a dock in a norwegian province unless you invest a bestial amount of monarch points.