I think you have got it right Karei.
post it up and then we hope that all other att this forum will agree with the ideas from this page.
post it up and then we hope that all other att this forum will agree with the ideas from this page.
Separate cities/rural areas and an idea about income
- Thread starter Hallsten
- 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.
Sorry if disrupting, but couldn't it been funnier by completely separating province/city? You would then have two kind of provinces:
-countryside, were your armies could be at the north or the south, meaning they have a range of control (economic and military) on the province (and a bit of a nearby province, in time of war). It will produce ressources such as grain, wood, wool, salt. They might also have spots for mines. You will developp them with roads, bridges, and farm/mine modernization
-cities, with a short range of action on a nearby countryside(it's not just a dot, you can't infinitely multiply their numbers.) They would be crowded like colonies(or to be precise, colonies would be small cities), by granting them tax priviledges over countryside, or by forcing people to go there.Their income would be from industrial production(or pre-industrial, if you prefer), trade of the goods of the surrounding countryside, and world trade maybe.
You could modify the income with the previous modifications of EU2 (tax collectors and manufactories, but specialise them more)and with the countryside roads.
Enclaved cities were not so rare, after all. Then you could, diplomatically:
-give a province without cities to a vassal, and it'll be harder for him to make a decent war against you if he tries.
-make war for cities, good sources of wealth, or strategic positions.
-grant a city to an ally(or an ennemy in a peace deal), most often a coastal one, which would be necessary for him to trade directly with you (you can still trade with a direct neighbor, but direct trade generates more profit to both ends, with less additions of tarrifs)), and where he could harbor some troops in time of peace(Think of trade privileges in India, China or North America, at the beginning). I know this might change trade structure. Or it might just be for a big outpost.
-force an ennemy in a peace deal to destroy a city fortress, or forbid him to build new cities or fortresses
-the owner of the countryside could have a CB for the city(ies) inside
But, we can maybe avoid countries without at least one city (the royal court), except for court feudal vassals (court puppets). They just get their income, and often plot together against the authority. They have less options than real countries. They heavily depend on the character of the ruler, because there is less "public opinion".
Free cities, with only one cities, are even more limited, and must be vassals of other counties, but could more easily be centers of trade and finance(foreign loans)
and you can have city states, with only an harbor as a capital, dominating other cities.
you could then have domestic options modifying the balance between city population and countryside one. Or some kind of interaction between the two (aristocracy-plutocracy, serfs-free subjects
Armies could then be located in a city or in the countryside like its done for harbors (with a limit, of course, cause a 20,000 inhabitant city cannot supply a 100,000 men army)
a network of cities with their range of controll could be done as a kind of big barriers. Army could still pass it, but at a very high cost, as they would either lack supply because the fortresses controll the countryside and their supply lines is an easy prey for raids from the fortresses, unless you leave most of your army covering the area.
and you could have rebels and brigands hiding in the countryside, like pirats (could be funded by other players?), harmering your trade, income and security, so that you'll need to keep patrols.
Please tell me what you think of it.
I might add ideas as they come
-countryside, were your armies could be at the north or the south, meaning they have a range of control (economic and military) on the province (and a bit of a nearby province, in time of war). It will produce ressources such as grain, wood, wool, salt. They might also have spots for mines. You will developp them with roads, bridges, and farm/mine modernization
-cities, with a short range of action on a nearby countryside(it's not just a dot, you can't infinitely multiply their numbers.) They would be crowded like colonies(or to be precise, colonies would be small cities), by granting them tax priviledges over countryside, or by forcing people to go there.Their income would be from industrial production(or pre-industrial, if you prefer), trade of the goods of the surrounding countryside, and world trade maybe.
You could modify the income with the previous modifications of EU2 (tax collectors and manufactories, but specialise them more)and with the countryside roads.
Enclaved cities were not so rare, after all. Then you could, diplomatically:
-give a province without cities to a vassal, and it'll be harder for him to make a decent war against you if he tries.
-make war for cities, good sources of wealth, or strategic positions.
-grant a city to an ally(or an ennemy in a peace deal), most often a coastal one, which would be necessary for him to trade directly with you (you can still trade with a direct neighbor, but direct trade generates more profit to both ends, with less additions of tarrifs)), and where he could harbor some troops in time of peace(Think of trade privileges in India, China or North America, at the beginning). I know this might change trade structure. Or it might just be for a big outpost.
-force an ennemy in a peace deal to destroy a city fortress, or forbid him to build new cities or fortresses
-the owner of the countryside could have a CB for the city(ies) inside
But, we can maybe avoid countries without at least one city (the royal court), except for court feudal vassals (court puppets). They just get their income, and often plot together against the authority. They have less options than real countries. They heavily depend on the character of the ruler, because there is less "public opinion".
Free cities, with only one cities, are even more limited, and must be vassals of other counties, but could more easily be centers of trade and finance(foreign loans)
and you can have city states, with only an harbor as a capital, dominating other cities.
you could then have domestic options modifying the balance between city population and countryside one. Or some kind of interaction between the two (aristocracy-plutocracy, serfs-free subjects
Armies could then be located in a city or in the countryside like its done for harbors (with a limit, of course, cause a 20,000 inhabitant city cannot supply a 100,000 men army)
a network of cities with their range of controll could be done as a kind of big barriers. Army could still pass it, but at a very high cost, as they would either lack supply because the fortresses controll the countryside and their supply lines is an easy prey for raids from the fortresses, unless you leave most of your army covering the area.
and you could have rebels and brigands hiding in the countryside, like pirats (could be funded by other players?), harmering your trade, income and security, so that you'll need to keep patrols.
Please tell me what you think of it.
I might add ideas as they come
I think the should be competely separate. This is a better model of cities/colonys altogether. Cities should be founded, an could be given state-culture in a conquered, not-stateculture area, that is poor but of other significanse (trade route, milirary etc), and cities and province should have different forts. Where a city may have a citywall, and the province may have a regular military fort. And off course different ownership. So that sweden doesn't own any provs in northern poland. But all the juicy cities.
ANd then off course you can create trade from this, where the city lives of the supply of the prov, and if the city grows beyond that the demand rises for grain. creating a grain trade from the sparsely populated north to the dense south. With stops in important northern cities.
ANd then off course you can create trade from this, where the city lives of the supply of the prov, and if the city grows beyond that the demand rises for grain. creating a grain trade from the sparsely populated north to the dense south. With stops in important northern cities.
aaaaah, true...Jinnai said:
Port cities should of course be possible to reach by sea.
I've posted similar ideas on a different threat before reading this one and my 2 cents is that there should definetly be separate provinces for cities and rural areas. They should entirely separate. I think that tieing a city to a rural area isn't beyond reasonable and that perhaps when cities are created they are created within rural areas. Thus one rural area can only have one city. In addition, most rural areas, most provinces on the map even, would likely be without cities. Like people have said already this would be far more realistic and historical and add dynamic value to the gameplay.
Hallsten concept is including this possibility. In province you will be able to have troops in rural are or garrisoned in the city. But only limited size of army (dependent on fortification) could be garrisoned.azid said:
Great suggestions, Hallsten. I've also been thinking along the lines of separating provinces into a rural part and an urban part. My main driver is concerns the populations. In EU2 the only populations are the city populations, and their effect on the economy is limited. My goal is a population-based economic model, where it is the size of the populations (together with the technological level, and current production efficiency) that determine how much can be produced, how many people that can be sustained (maximum troop support level if you will), etc.
So a couple of objections/modifications to your suggestions:
* I think that if an invading army is big enough, it will immediately start sieging. I can't think of why an army would not start sieging, unless you impose an extra penalty on the army laying siege. On the contrary, it would spare the players much extra management, which helps while you are busy running a war.
* On the other hand, if an invading army is too small compared with the province it is in, it should be possible for defending armies to go through the province (somewhat like how naval warfare is performed in EU2).
* A sieging army will still affect the rural area. Where else would they get most of their supplies from?
* Only small armies should be allowed to fit into cities. Let's say that a city with population X can harbour an army of size X/4, but if under siege for a long time, attrition will be high, and it will also affect the city population in a severe way.
* I'm not sure if cities actually paid taxes as such, but that there were tolls/tariffs for taking goods in and out of the cities. Maybe however there was a system similar to paying one tenth of your production there as well? Please inform me if someone knows.
* I think your idea of decreasing the base tax of the rural area due to presence of an invading army is good given the EU2 engine. But I would like to take that somewhat further. Instead of reducing the Base Tax, you would instead decrease the populations, combined with some kind of reduced "production efficiency" of the remaining population. The province then recuperates slowly by the increase of the populations and the "production efficiency". I would consider the production efficiency to be a relatively short term effect.
Keep up the good work!
So a couple of objections/modifications to your suggestions:
* I think that if an invading army is big enough, it will immediately start sieging. I can't think of why an army would not start sieging, unless you impose an extra penalty on the army laying siege. On the contrary, it would spare the players much extra management, which helps while you are busy running a war.
* On the other hand, if an invading army is too small compared with the province it is in, it should be possible for defending armies to go through the province (somewhat like how naval warfare is performed in EU2).
* A sieging army will still affect the rural area. Where else would they get most of their supplies from?
* Only small armies should be allowed to fit into cities. Let's say that a city with population X can harbour an army of size X/4, but if under siege for a long time, attrition will be high, and it will also affect the city population in a severe way.
* I'm not sure if cities actually paid taxes as such, but that there were tolls/tariffs for taking goods in and out of the cities. Maybe however there was a system similar to paying one tenth of your production there as well? Please inform me if someone knows.
* I think your idea of decreasing the base tax of the rural area due to presence of an invading army is good given the EU2 engine. But I would like to take that somewhat further. Instead of reducing the Base Tax, you would instead decrease the populations, combined with some kind of reduced "production efficiency" of the remaining population. The province then recuperates slowly by the increase of the populations and the "production efficiency". I would consider the production efficiency to be a relatively short term effect.
Keep up the good work!