Tver´s vodka is of very stronk.

[Bavarian Steve]

Which negates to an extent the fact that techs actually increase in cost as the game progresses. Each tech is not 600 +/- discounts for western the entire game. There is also a tech penalty (along with the - for ideas and neighbor) associated with the game date. It's the finishers for admin, diplo and aristocratic which add the extra -10% that make that single idea worth more then the generic idea for a longer period of time (I am not even considering the admin saving through -25% from admin, or the diplo saving from innovative or the policy with the two). The fact that we are restricted in our idea choices is whats causing many people to not see that penalty really matter anymore but back when you could stack ideas in their respective MPs you could get techs really low to the point were if a majority of Mil ideas were taken you would want to take another mil idea just not to waste Mil points to the point of absurdity.

Also the only way that techs would be as low as around 100 is if you are WAY behind in tech not at the Ahead of time limit (I.e. waiting for the exact year to save all possible MP and avoiding the malus) even with the extra -5% from neighbor bonus you are still several 100 MP per tech when at time of tech. The only other would be at the END of the game where quite frankly it is coring time not admin which is the limiter on expansion on the high levels (WC) While Florence probably has one of the best tech advantages to a player in the game you have to include all the penalties at the exact date that tech is acquired. By the end of the game there is a +30% penalty.

If my quick math is right aroun the mid 1700 you can have it VERY low but not 84 (asuming you didnt stack admin ideas like crazy).

Two admin ideas (one is admin the other innovative) with tuscan national ideas is around 150 admin per tech NOT counting the penalty which should push it to about 200 +/- a bit. Very low but not the crazy 84. Also needed was around 4580 admin to get the ideas. which represents about 15 tech levels of savings applied to the ideas.

And back on the topic of Florence... republic.... lots of extra MPs..... lots of dev..... I think it is well established how republics > monarchies in most situations in this game if not all (except no PUs or Emperor).

three games running, starting around 1700, i constantly get 84 admin points for tech cost for admin or 166 if taken 1 year ahead of schedule.. its the single reason I have not grown bored of them. Their tech costs get ridiculously low if you want them too, which allows massive development, which is what drove this change in my playstyle. dot forget their events and events from innovate that lower tech cost plus plutocratic. And yes i agree about republics being superior in MP production... and thought that was universal in thought, but there are threads, recent ones too, where others have denied that. also keep in mind this is a development strategy meant for single player.

 

[Beagá]

Some people still didn´t get the point...

- only mana used creates development. Time per se is irrelevant. That´s make zero logic due to howpopulation growth happens. Left in peaceful state EVERYONE shouls see small increases of development. Organically. f it´s slow like 20-30 years = ok)
- Saint Petersburg or Paris : classic cases where development was accelerated by monarch orders/MP;
- The ideal system would be a combination of time, mana and buildings already present. I can understand a Tver with manufactory that never faced war or occupation having a development of 50 by 1700 if it invested a lot in production, I can´t understand a TVer that got 50 development because it has no where to place its points...

 

[Wizzington]

We've discussed adding provincial caps but feel it would be too restricting on players who want to play really small nations. We're going to limit the AI instead, so it doesn't develop backwater provinecs to a ridiculous degree.

 

[ChildeR]

We've discussed adding provincial caps but feel it would be too restricting on players who want to play really small nations. We're going to limit the AI instead, so it doesn't develop backwater provinecs to a ridiculous degree.

If it's developing a province when it isn't smart, sure, fix it, but please don't make it play intentionally bad.

 

[ChildeR]

Left in peaceful state EVERYONE shouls see small increases of development. Organically. f it´s slow like 20-30 years = ok)

Wouldn't a passive increase just make the numbers bigger without any beneficial effect to the game? What good is it if everyone's development is e.g. doubled over the course of the game?

 

[Cymsdale]

Wouldn't a passive increase just make the numbers bigger without any beneficial effect to the game? What good is it if everyone's development is e.g. doubled over the course of the game?

Well, you could have modifiers that affect the rate at which particular provinces change. Factor in nation-wide development modifiers at all.

A very simple system would be to add one free monarch-point worth of each development to each province once a year, so if a province needed 60 points to increase the tax, it would increase the tax by one after 60 years. If you was halfway done, you could spend 30 to 'complete' that development early. If the province ever gets occupied in a war, any free points reset to zero.

Nations that have naturally cheaper development costs would organically develop their provinces faster.

 

[londoner247]

We've discussed adding provincial caps but feel it would be too restricting on players who want to play really small nations. We're going to limit the AI instead, so it doesn't develop backwater provinecs to a ridiculous degree.

Are you also going to get the AI to prioritise developing gold provinces with zero autonomy (and making sure they don't give those provinces to an estate) since this is really the best bang for their buck early on?

 

[Wizzington]

If it's developing a province when it isn't smart, sure, fix it, but please don't make it play intentionally bad.

While I'm normally against having the AI play badly, I think in this case the immersion breaking effect of 40 development Shetlands is enough to justify it. It'll only really impact tiny AI countries, anyhow.

 

[SolSys]

We've discussed adding provincial caps but feel it would be too restricting on players who want to play really small nations. We're going to limit the AI instead, so it doesn't develop backwater provinces to a ridiculous degree.

Honestly, it sounds like appeasing some vocal minority here on the forums. There are many cases in history where backwater provinces were being developed for no apparent reason [incidentally that's how they stopped being backwater provinces].

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

Honestly, it sounds like appeasing some vocal minority here on the forums. There are many cases in history where backwater provinces were being developed for no apparent reason [incidentally that's how they stopped being backwater provinces].

And that surely happened because the nation controlling the province only had that one province and nothing else to do?

 

[beckermt]

Well, you could have modifiers that affect the rate at which particular provinces change. Factor in nation-wide development modifiers at all.

A very simple system would be to add one free monarch-point worth of each development to each province once a year, so if a province needed 60 points to increase the tax, it would increase the tax by one after 60 years. If you was halfway done, you could spend 30 to 'complete' that development early. If the province ever gets occupied in a war, any free points reset to zero.

Nations that have naturally cheaper development costs would organically develop their provinces faster.

That's kind of an interesting idea. Every (Dev Cost) years it would upgrade one random category. A very very rough estimate would be then... 10 dev per province over the entire timespan?

Then I suppose you'd need to have a siege have a chance to reduce dev based on current dev. (easier to damage a high dev province) Might be neat. Might be literally the worst thing ever. Probably that 2nd one.

 

[Wizzington]

Honestly, it sounds like appeasing some vocal minority here on the forums. There are many cases in history where backwater provinces were being developed for no apparent reason [incidentally that's how they stopped being backwater provinces].

This change has nothing to do with appeasing anyone, we've been discussing this issue since Common Sense came out and it's the middle ground we eventually settled on to both maintain immersion and 'tall OPM' playstyles.

 

[londoner247]

Honestly, it sounds like appeasing some vocal minority here on the forums. There are many cases in history where backwater provinces were being developed for no apparent reason [incidentally that's how they stopped being backwater provinces].

To be fair, Wiz is only talking about limiting the AI so he is not stopping them completely. The OP's example does show the AI having upgraded development ten times in the first 100 years which does seem a little excessive.

 

[Cymsdale]

It feels odd to say it's immersion breaking for the AI to do it, but then have it benefit the player if they do it themselves. If something is considered immersion breaking, there should be an incentive not to do it at all.

 

[Wizzington]

It feels odd to say it's immersion breaking for the AI to do it, but then have it benefit the player if they do it themselves. If something is considered immersion breaking, there should be an incentive not to do it at all.

This is basic player psychology. Player breaking the fourth wall and being silly is expected, AI doing the same is not.

For example, if you're playing an RPG and are constantly jumping at all times it won't break immersion, but imagine if you walk into a town and every NPC there is bunnyhopping.

 

[SolSys]

Player breaking the fourth wall and being silly is expected.

Hey, don't knock bunny-hopping off till you tried it

Unrelated, but does this mean you are back to fully work on EU4 and future expansions [or were you just teasing with that cat/tiger in a helmet]?
Or will you go back to helping Stellaris/HoI4 after the patch again?

 

[Cymsdale]

That's a really poor analogy. There is a difference between a player doing something silly that the AI doesn't do, and something that has an actual gameplay benefit.

A player can do something like rename all their provinces silly names, and the AI is 'restricted' in that it won't do that because it would annoy the player. But renaming provinces doesn't offer some kind of strategic advantage, and the AI isn't considered dumb for not doing it.

 

[Darkath]

This is basic player psychology. Player breaking the fourth wall and being silly is expected, AI doing the same is not.

For example, if you're playing an RPG and are constantly jumping at all times it won't break immersion, but imagine if you walk into a town and every NPC there is bunnyhopping.

What about time constraints as suggested ? This would mitigate a lot of the strange behaviour without crippling the AI. Rome wasn't built in a day !

 

[Wizzington]

Another analogy would be making a snake to westernize - the AI could certainly be programmed to do that, and it offers gameplay benefits, but it's a terrible idea from an immersion standpoint. In fact, the AI is heavily restricted in what it conquers purely for immersion/pretty borders reason, so that's what you should really be railing about if you want AI to play optimally at all times.

 

[Wizzington]

Hey, don't knock bunny-hopping off till you tried it

Unrelated, but does this mean you are back to fully work on EU4 and future expansions [or were you just teasing with that cat/tiger in a helmet]?
Or will you go back to helping Stellaris/HoI4 after the patch again?

I'm back on EU4.