Question about development:

[hashinshin]

It was said that farmland is the best for developing, and mountains is the worst. I noticed that mountains are +50% in one of the pictures, so my question is this:

Do development costs range from +0%-+50%, or are their provinces that REDUCE the cost of development?

 

[Wizzington]

0-50% from terrain, climate can add on up to 50% more.

You probably don't want to be developing in Arctic Mountains.

Farmlands are the best because they have no extra cost and also add +2 building slots.

 

[hashinshin]

So I had another question:

With the HRE having it's development cost in 1444 reduced do all the many many many nations still lead to it being the most developed location by say the 1600s? My gut tells me since they're in a nice climate without many mountains that the ~50 nations would make the HRE a wonderland.

 

[Wizzington]

So I had another question:

With the HRE having it's development cost in 1444 reduced do all the many many many nations still lead to it being the most developed location by say the 1600s? My gut tells me since they're in a nice climate without many mountains that the ~50 nations would make the HRE a wonderland.

There is no HRE development cost reduction in 1444, you have to pass the first reform.

Also, quite a bit of the HRE is Woods and Mountains.

 

[hashinshin]

Derp, I meant total development reduced not development cost reduced. As in the HRE in 1444 has less development after the expansion than it does now, but the 50+ nations all shoving their monarch points in to development will make it reach paradise levels of development.