Provincial 'flavor' modifiers

[durbal]

I brought this up in another thread, but I figured it deserved its own thread since it's a general design problem. Specifically, the flavor modifiers (like Skane fish market) that have been added need to be rethought so that they can work with existing game systems.

The problem is that these provincial modifers are better represented through existing game systems. The Skane market, for example, should be represented by having a higher development in Skane. If you want to make it disappear via trigger then create an event that lowers the development. The issue is that existing game systems that rely on seeing provincial power via development (coring costs, AE, PU inheritance, AI estimation of strength, development costs, etc.) can't see these modifiers. If this method of differentiating provinces were applied throughout the game it would be very chaotic for the systems that use development in their calculations.

So please devs, change the method you differentiate provinces with flavor elements. They need to be done via event triggers that tie directly to development. If you want to create the Skane market for example, increase Skane's starting dev and just put the cosmetic modifier on the province. When the market is removed in the 16th century, have an event remove it, lower development of Skane, and change its trade good to grain. Likewise for the copper mine in Sweden and the other provincial modifiers that exist. The effect is the same, but game systems can actually function properly this way.

 

[yerm]

I suppose a compromise would be for these modifiers to simply be buffs to the base mechanic. The spice island modifier could be +15 (or whatever) production rather than +3 goods produced. Ideally they can choose when this gets applied, eg to province warscore value, and not map it to areas that they don't want it on like rebel size or further development costs.

 

[Markusmiless]

So please devs, change the method you differentiate provinces with flavor elements. They need to be done via event triggers that tie directly to development. If you want to create the Skane market for example, increase Skane's starting dev and just put the cosmetic modifier on the province. When the market is removed in the 16th century, have an event remove it, lower development of Skane, and change its trade good to grain. Likewise for the copper mine in Sweden and the other provincial modifiers that exist. The effect is the same, but game systems can actually function properly this way.

Now that it's been added which is a welcome change, development covers a lot but this is a very specific thing and let's say you play as Denmark and is about to reach Empire rank, just need roughly 5~ development and decide to develop Skane when the event happens thus making you lose around 50-200 dip points if you spent it on production or just plain lose quite around the same amount of monarch points in another category without gaining much development.
That would be sorta annoying wouldn't it?

I would say that for example the Copper mines of Sweden is pretty nearby and there I could agree, it should be development as apparently from what I've read the Copper from there was sold over all of Europe so it should make sense it has high Production meanwhile considering the subject change (0.25 per development) it wouldn't be too bad with higher development to make The Kalmar union less stable.

Meanwhile something like the Skåne Market, having it lose development would be like saying that suddenly the infrastructure became worse in Skane rather than having the fish be lost so something like that modifier should probably stay (which could be disputable but still) until that point and actually affect the province.

 

[Ironside121]

I'm curious...

How do they not currently work with game systems?

 

[Trin Tragula]

The point of these are exactly that they differ from development. Abundance of a natural resource is not the same as a more developed province and every province in the world is not the same (mechanically one of the notable effects Is that if you want to develop Potosi or Dalaskogen the power you pay is not the same as if we had just boosted development).
They are there for the exceptional cases (potosi dwarfs any other silver mine in the game and the copper mountain produced 2/3 of the world supply of copper at times) and if you ask me they make the map more alive

You could argue they should have higher war score cost (same for cot and similar modifiers I suppose) however but I don't think changing it all to direct development would be the best way to solve that

 

[durbal]

How do these differ much at all?

If anything it would be better represented by development since it SHOULD add trade value if it produced 2/3 of Europe's copper.

If you want to keep the cosmetic flavor I understand it -- put a tag on it with a description but don't circumvent development. The Skane Market and Kopparberger (and many others) function fine and work with the development system already in place.

Imagine if Paris were a 1/1/1 province with a bunch of these tags on it adding income and stuff. It's not a massive problem (at least now) but why not be consistent and avoid future design problems?

I'm curious...

How do they not currently work with game systems?

They're hidden development. The AI, AE, coring costs, Great Powers, building limit, and everything that uses development in their calculations can't see them. A province with a copper mine that produced 2/3 of the world's copper becomes functionally equivalent to any bog standard 5-dev (1/2/2) province to these calculations even though it produces goods as if it were a 30-dev (1/27/2) province. This makes a 30-dev equivalent province then generate AE as if it were 5-dev, costs as much as a 50-dev province (50 admin) to fully core, etc. even though it has the functional development of Paris. Imagine coring Paris for 50 admin.

 

[Ironside121]

They're hidden development. The AI, AE, coring costs, Great Powers, building limit, and everything that uses development in their calculations can't see them. A province with a copper mine that produced 2/3 of the world's copper and generates income becomes functionally equivalent to any bog standard 5-dev (1/2/2) province to these calculations even though it produces goods as if it were a 30-dev (1/27/2) province.

So you honestly think that Dalaskogen, a realistically undeveloped province should cost 300 admin points base to core? Producing a vast amount of goods does not automatically make it a bustling economic center.

 

[Markusmiless]

Okay let me ask you this instead:
If Skane instead of the Skåne Market get development to production, why does a market increase ship building speed?
Because that is another thing production does that from what I know the Skåne Market doesn't so what sense would it be that a fish market allows you to build boats faster, what do you bribe people with fish?
In my eyes that doesn't really make much sense.

 

[durbal]

Okay let me ask you this instead:
If Skane instead of the Skåne Market get development to production, why does a market increase ship building speed?
Because that is another thing production does that from what I know the Skåne Market doesn't so what sense would it be that a fish market allows you to build boats faster, what do you bribe people with fish?
In my eyes that doesn't really make much sense.

Development is an abstraction. That doesn't mean the game's systems should be broken.

So you honestly think that Dalaskogen, a realistically undeveloped province should cost 300 admin points base to core? Producing a vast amount of goods does not automatically make it a bustling economic center.

Then it shouldn't generate as much income as it does either. You can't have it both ways.

Why not just make all provinces have flavor modifiers? Make Rome a 3/2/2 with a modifier for the Vatican raising its tax income by +5.

 

[bbqftw]

I don't think its necessarily bad that certain province true value are much different than others.

 

[hwoosh]

If anything it would be better represented by development since it SHOULD add trade value if it produced 2/3 of Europe's copper.

There's no functional difference; you're laboring under a misconception. Trade value is calculated off goods produced. Each base production contributes .2 goods produced. The "trade value" you're seeing in that tooltip isn't something separate from the trade value contributed by the goods produced, it's just calculated and listed there for convenience's sake. You can see that this is the case at a glance by Dalaskogen's enormous 27 trade value.

 

[durbal]

There's no functional difference; you're laboring under a misconception. Trade value is calculated off goods produced. Each base production contributes .2 goods produced. The "trade value" you're seeing in that tooltip isn't something separate from the trade value contributed by the goods produced, it's just calculated and listed there for convenience's sake. You can see that this is the case at a glance by Dalaskogen's enormous 27 trade value.

Yeah, I just came here to edit my post when I realized I typed that.

Regardless, if anything it just further goes to show why development should be used instead.

 

[crysanja]

I realy would like to see thouse modifiers on alot of provinces.
They dont need to be so strong everywhere, but some provinces were special for some reason.

I would like to see more triggered modifieres too.

 

[Markusmiless]

But wouldn't that also be the case for a lot of province events?
Those that increases a province temporary with a modifier should instead get improved development.

What about Lisboa?
Should Lisboa have higher production value even though I could take a guess it was no more developed than it's neighboring cities, just larger/wealthier (which should be taxes right)?
Of course I'm no expert on Portugese cities so feel free to correct that statement.

 

[durbal]

Some people think the Kalmar Union is too stable. But of course it is -- Sweden has 30+ dev hidden in these modifiers between the copper mine and Skane market that doesn't contribute to LD.

The programmer in me cringes when I see these modifiers scattered about because they're a nightmare to keep track of and can introduce bugs -- calculations and changes to things affecting development won't affect these.

 

[Trin Tragula]

The Skåne market is a Danish modifier. I don't see how it could be contributing to "hide" Swedish strength in any scenario where Sweden is part of the union.

Do you feel all local goods produced are similarly problematic? Manufactories do the same thing for instance

And the Kalmar union barely ever holds. It's not an on and off relationship like it was in reality but that's because unions in eu don't work like that. You have fewer and far more decisive liberation wars as a rule
In the end it almost always breaks.
These modifiers (as well as estuaries and centers of trade) probably should contribute to warscore though. Will look into that.

 

[bbqftw]

Provincial trade power already contributes to province warscore as far as I know.

 

[durbal]

The Skåne market is a Danish modifier. I don't see how it could be contributing to "hide" Swedish strength in any scenario where Sweden is part of the union.

Do you feel all local goods produced are similarly problematic? Manufactories do the same thing for instance

And the Kalmar union barely ever holds. It's not an on and off relationship like it was in reality but that's because unions in eu don't work like that. You have fewer and far more decisive liberation wars as a rule
In the end it almost always breaks.
These modifiers (as well as estuaries and centers of trade) probably should contribute to warscore though. Will look into that.

Awesome, thanks!

 

[Koramei]

I love these modifiers, I totally agree they make the map feel more alive, and things like the Tirolian goldmine are special flashpoints for conflict in multiplayer. My only complaint is that there aren't more of them, I think you could feasibly justify extra productive places in a whole bunch of places in the world.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I love these modifiers, I totally agree they make the map feel more alive, and things like the Tirolian goldmine are special flashpoints for conflict in multiplayer. My only complaint is that there aren't more of them, I think you could feasibly justify extra productive places in a whole bunch of places in the world.

You are free to suggest more. We do try to reserve it for really exceptional places but this is by no means the only places that could qualify.
Make a thread in the suggestions forum and tag me if you feel you have good candidates.
Will want a proper motivation and references of some sort and I can make no guarantees beforehand of course