Tver´s vodka is of very stronk.

[londoner247]

You can only build shipyards in coastal provinces, IIRC. If you have coastal provinces, a navy will probably useful. So...why not?

In a small number of provinces it is fine but not in dozens of provinces where you will never build fleets. That is just a waste of money.

 

[Beagá]

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.

Thanks for nice answer to thorrny issue.

Wiz, would still be a system where developent happens during course of years/groups of years based on player entity, soil/weather, buildings present, occupoation by war etc etc?

So istead of insta mouse button that could be. Example.

A bad growth level for a province of grasslands (say, 1/1/1) would need 10 years to see extra development. If the province was in turmoil (different rligion, not accepted culture, looted) this would jump to 20. Monarch point use makes that on the other hand, shorter - from 10 to 5 years to see increase;

Things like that.

In short:

1- Developent increase happen in all provines at pace that depend on ruler choices and what happens inside and around them. No more "click 5 times for more soldiers in Silesia!

 

[oblio-]

Besides the cap, I've been advocating for a "razing lite" approach to reducing development.

Basically, rival nations should be able to raze each other after a certain relation threshold, say -100 or -150, but unlike hordes this should generate AE and not produce any monarch points.

 

[Sian]

Hmm, perhaps.

maybe in length use the fancy new Area/Regions you got in 1.14. the further ahead from the average of the Area it have a modifier of .x, the further ahead from the average of the neighbouring areas, it have a modifier of .x, with further ahead of the average of the region, it have a modifier of .x

In all cases X would be a number from 1 to 0 where for each whole number away from each average, it lowers the Modifier by 0.1, and by the time the province is 10 development ahead of any one of the averages it'll softcap so the AI won't do it any further before the rest have been bought up.

Or something among those lines

 

[Grif_E]

When you do this, could you consider limiting based on an algorithm that considers nearby development? For example, a 30-development Venice is less out of place next to a 26-development Treviso, 24-development Brescia so raising development in Venice from 29 to 30 is more likely than if it were surrounded by 15-development provinces.

Maybe lessen any inhibition for capitals and centers of trade.

 

[Sian]

In a small number of provinces it is fine but not in dozens of provinces where you will never build fleets. That is just a waste of money.

Then the issue IMO is that the AI doesn't focus enough on fleets. a Dock is worth approximately the same as Trade depot that you can move to whichever trade note you want it to.

When i'm playing a coastal heavy nation, i'm often throwing my money into making docks in all my coastal provinces if i don't have anything better to do with them (Advisors or army maintenance primarily)

 

[zukodark]

Regarding the bolded, underlined part: If an AI is already ahead on tech, maximum stability, already has acceptable generals/admirals, has 0% overextension, no policies to enact, no idea groups to fill, then why would they not use it on development? I thinks that's silly.

These cases aren't that rare. Some AI nations (especially one-province minors) are in an almost eternal state like that. That is where the problem come. With "at points" I didn't mean that they would never use it on development, even in such a case, and more me being fine with at a rare occasion the AI not using all their monarch power, for example when their only province always gets better and better to an illogical level.

 

[Pornek]

@Wiz
I think that might actually be a very elegant solution which Beaga posted. Why not make it a -1 mp drain like annexation or policies and keep the current price of development ? That would also require the player to think ahead of time, instead of "about to hit cap on x, nothing useful to spend on, increase development x"

 

[gabadur]

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.

What about having devlopement increase very slowly in forest, woods, mountains provinces over time 1 mana per 80 years, but provinces of capitals, farmlands, and grasslands develop a point every 30 years, and mana can be used to rush it. Also with this new growth war should cause developement to lower to show how destructive war is.

 

[grommile]

Maybe lessen any inhibition for capitals and centers of trade.

Which runs headlong into the fact that one of the things that breaks people's "sense of what should be" is German OPM megalopolises.

 

[Frogbait]

They'll generally spend the points on policies and maintaining ahead of time bonuses instead.

And now the next complaint will be people complaining about the AI taking the diplomatic defense act more frequently

 

[Philadelphus]

@Wiz
I think that might actually be a very elegant solution which Beaga posted. Why not make it a -1 mp drain like annexation or policies and keep the current price of development ? That would also require the player to think ahead of time, instead of "about to hit cap on x, nothing useful to spend on, increase development x"

Yeah, that would definitely slow down OPMs a lot more than larger empires, since they'd have to improve their one province serially rather than improving multiple ones in parallel like a larger country could do. I've often though it'd make sense for development to take time to happen rather than being instantaneous. I don't know if it would slow them down enough not to have 40-development Shetlands by the end of the game without sitting down and doing a bunch of calculations, but it would definitely slow the rate of increase the more developed a province gets.

Edit: Perhaps, like diplomatic annexation, the monthly progress could be modified somehow, though I don't know how off the top of my head.

 

[atwix]

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.

drat, @DDRJake can say goodbye to 50+ development OPM Gotland as a possibility now

 

[Voigt]

When you do this, could you consider limiting based on an algorithm that considers nearby development? For example, a 30-development Venice is less out of place next to a 26-development Treviso, 24-development Brescia so raising development in Venice from 29 to 30 is more likely than if it were surrounded by 15-development provinces.

I though @Wiz said they want to limit the AI Development on backwater provinces. Since Venice is a Important Center of Trade, there shouldn't be a cap for the AI in this case.

 

[kvk]

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.

You guys should develop this RPG, I would play it

Sounds like Morrowind or oblivion.

 

[wackazoa]

I think you're stretching your arguments pretty hard here. The reasoning is the same in both cases: We don't want to block the player from making silly conquests like say, East Frisian Italy, but the AI should never go for such a goal no matter how much gameplay sense it might make. Similarly, we don't want to block the player from building 100 development Hamburg but the AI really shouldn't. How new the mechanic is doesn't matter at all - it's the same reasoning behind AI behaviour, and it's fine to be for one and against the other because that's how you would prefer it, just recognize that you don't really have a very good argument for your preference.

Interesting. So the problem lies in trying to keep the game a sandbox for the human, but making the CPU act more historical/non sandboxy? I wonder if some times the trouble is worth it? Because you possibly end up with situation where the mechanics might hamper both? I think its interesting what you guys are try to do but one question... Why not just do one or the other?


Also I guess the problem with any historical game is that the human knows what to look for and when.

 

[tobias.mb]

When you do this, could you consider limiting based on an algorithm that considers nearby development? For example, a 30-development Venice is less out of place next to a 26-development Treviso, 24-development Brescia so raising development in Venice from 29 to 30 is more likely than if it were surrounded by 15-development provinces.

Maybe even give cost discount / penalty if a province is far behind / ahead of its neighbours? Or maybe take the average in an area and check whether a province is below or above?
That would probably already solve the problem of isolated supercities.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

Maybe even give cost discount / penalty if a province is far behind / ahead of its neighbours? Or maybe take the average in an area and check whether a province is below or above?
That would probably already solve the problem of isolated supercities.

I think St. Petersburg could be seen as a good example against such an implementation.

 

[Grif_E]

Which runs headlong into the fact that one of the things that breaks people's "sense of what should be" is German OPM megalopolises.

Sure, but then you just have an exception for OPMs or even TPMs. But I'd still like to see some RotW minor build out their capital and/or trade city even if it's surrounded by a sea of 3-5 dev provinces if the situation presents itself. But maybe it's just not something that will actually happen anyway.

 

[Delta21]

I have seen Tver survive up tot the 1700s for 3 games now. Nobody eats them and I can't understand why.