Thoughts on the new idea changes

[ChaffyExpert]

So Economic and infrastructure seem bad, Economic was already iffy, but now i suspect it will be basically useless. Devving is already not worth it and really just RP only, or maybe Multi-player, now playing super wide is literally the only options.

My suggestion: Change the gold inflation thing, which is situational and barely useful, or just add this in economic infrastructure or both, Anyways as i was saying, the idea should be something that reduces the impact of developing an already well-developed province.

for an example of this sort of absurdity, it costs the same, if not more, to develop a highly developed Paris, than Greenland. ??? how does that make any sense? Terrain doesn't *really* matter all that much, and the costs for highly developed provinces is insane, and when you stack -development cost modifiers, it's still more worthwhile to develop Kola than, say, Paris, in terms of cost.

In Anbennar the dwarven holds have a modifier that reduces development cost, allowing for it to continue into 90 dev or more which would normally be impossible.

If Economic had an idea that, say, gives -5% development cost per 5 development, (for example) that would make Economic and playing tall much more viable. Although still not as much as just playing wide but you gotta start somewhere i guess.

[Kapika96]

It should cost more to develop a highly developed Paris than Greenland, that's realistic.

Think about it, exactly how much more development would you need to make a substantial impact in a huge city? An absolute tonne. In Greenland? It's so poor to start with that 1 extra fishing boat would make a fairly large difference, hence it's cheaper to develop. Of course it's even cheaper to develop a backwater hamlet with only a couple peasants that's on grassland, rather than one on ice, so terrain still matters, as it should.

I also really don't want any 90 dev provinces in the game. That's just totally unrealistic. No cities were that highly developed during the colonial period. It was stupid when that became a regular thing due to concentrate development making it easy. I'm glad that's been nerfed and can't be used to make super capital cities anymore.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

It should cost more to develop a highly developed Paris than Greenland, that's realistic.

Think about it, exactly how much more development would you need to make a substantial impact in a huge city? An absolute tonne. In Greenland? It's so poor to start with that 1 extra fishing boat would make a fairly large difference, hence it's cheaper to develop. Of course it's even cheaper to develop a backwater hamlet with only a couple peasants that's on grassland, rather than one on ice, so terrain still matters, as it should.

I also really don't want any 90 dev provinces in the game. That's just totally unrealistic. No cities were that highly developed during the colonial period. It was stupid when that became a regular thing due to concentrate development making it easy. I'm glad that's been nerfed and can't be used to make super capital cities anymore.

From a food logistics, value, and population growth standpoint, developing a highly developed Paris makes more sense, it's not like there isn't land for expansion, now making the city itself denser would be nearly impossible, but a province on the other hand should grow due to the development of the major city.

Quite simply, going from 5k-10k seems smaller and less effort than 50k-100k, but that 50k city, especially if it's near farmlands, will naturally grow much faster than the 5k city, and importing construction supplies would be much easier than shipping it off to Greenland. So, again, it makes no sense that it would be easier to develop Greenland than continue developing an actual useful city that is nearby food and construction materials, with better infrastructure (most likely) compared to a frozen barren rock in the middle of the Ocean.

The fact that it requires more for Paris to grow is a moot point because logistics and natural population growth makes it essentially the same as developing the more undeveloped region without immigration being involved anyways.

Besides, this is about balance and playing tall/economic ideas being viable, 90 dev is unrealistic? But what even is a dev? Not to mention surely a prosperous nation could have a population the starts to exceed that of, say, China hypothetically,

don't want 90 dev provinces, but it's not really about you, why should everyone be railroaded towards the exact same playstyle of taking adm, influence, humanist/religious, and diplomatic and blobbing as much as possible?

A 55 dev province has roughly like 375% dev cost, so reducing that by -55% is still 325% extra cost. So the fear mongering about 90 dev provinces is really unnecessary, its's still expensive to have super-cities, just slightly not so much. even if it was -10% dev cost per 5 dev, that's still 375-110 + 265% dev cost, which means the monarch power cost is still in the hundreds, which is still far far far more expensive than simply conquering provinces. Playing wide rather than tall would still be far far cheaper monarch power wise.

[Big Boss]

make sure you check my last comments on the DD, I implemented a lot of feedback!

[Totally Innocent Chatbot]

Originally posted by Big Boss:

make sure you check my last comments on the DD, I implemented a lot of feedback!

Damn, they didn't even do you the courtesy of giving you a [Developer] tag?

[Kapika96]

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

Originally posted by Kapika96:

It should cost more to develop a highly developed Paris than Greenland, that's realistic.

Think about it, exactly how much more development would you need to make a substantial impact in a huge city? An absolute tonne. In Greenland? It's so poor to start with that 1 extra fishing boat would make a fairly large difference, hence it's cheaper to develop. Of course it's even cheaper to develop a backwater hamlet with only a couple peasants that's on grassland, rather than one on ice, so terrain still matters, as it should.

I also really don't want any 90 dev provinces in the game. That's just totally unrealistic. No cities were that highly developed during the colonial period. It was stupid when that became a regular thing due to concentrate development making it easy. I'm glad that's been nerfed and can't be used to make super capital cities anymore.

From a food logistics, value, and population growth standpoint, developing a highly developed Paris makes more sense, it's not like there isn't land for expansion, now making the city itself denser would be nearly impossible, but a province on the other hand should grow due to the development of the major city.

Quite simply, going from 5k-10k seems smaller and less effort than 50k-100k, but that 50k city, especially if it's near farmlands, will naturally grow much faster than the 5k city, and importing construction supplies would be much easier than shipping it off to Greenland. So, again, it makes no sense that it would be easier to develop Greenland than continue developing an actual useful city that is nearby food and construction materials, with better infrastructure (most likely) compared to a frozen barren rock in the middle of the Ocean.

The fact that it requires more for Paris to grow is a moot point because logistics and natural population growth makes it essentially the same as developing the more undeveloped region without immigration being involved anyways.

Besides, this is about balance and playing tall/economic ideas being viable, 90 dev is unrealistic? But what even is a dev? Not to mention surely a prosperous nation could have a population the starts to exceed that of, say, China hypothetically,

don't want 90 dev provinces, but it's not really about you, why should everyone be railroaded towards the exact same playstyle of taking adm, influence, humanist/religious, and diplomatic and blobbing as much as possible?

A 55 dev province has roughly like 375% dev cost, so reducing that by -55% is still 325% extra cost. So the fear mongering about 90 dev provinces is really unnecessary, its's still expensive to have super-cities, just slightly not so much. even if it was -10% dev cost per 5 dev, that's still 375-110 + 265% dev cost, which means the monarch power cost is still in the hundreds, which is still far far far more expensive than simply conquering provinces. Playing wide rather than tall would still be far far cheaper monarch power wise.

"but it's not really about you" same applies to you. And hey, lots of people were annoyed when South East Asian mega cities were a regular thing, prompting those to be nerfed, so clearly it isn't just me that doesn't want megacities again.

A prosperous nation wouldn't realistically be able to exceed China's population without having a similar amount of land. Firstly you obviously need somewhere to put all of those people and the infrastructure to support them, but birth rates typically decrease as a country gets wealthier too, making it even more difficult for a small wealthy country to compete population wise.

[grognardgary]

And lets not forget that until the development of the tractor and it various attachment it took a lot more farmers to feed a big city. In most countries the majority of the people lived on the farm until the mid 1940's

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

From a food logistics, value, and population growth standpoint, developing a highly developed Paris makes more sense, it's not like there isn't land for expansion, now making the city itself denser would be nearly impossible, but a province on the other hand should grow due to the development of the major city.

Quite simply, going from 5k-10k seems smaller and less effort than 50k-100k, but that 50k city, especially if it's near farmlands, will naturally grow much faster than the 5k city, and importing construction supplies would be much easier than shipping it off to Greenland. So, again, it makes no sense that it would be easier to develop Greenland than continue developing an actual useful city that is nearby food and construction materials, with better infrastructure (most likely) compared to a frozen barren rock in the middle of the Ocean.

The fact that it requires more for Paris to grow is a moot point because logistics and natural population growth makes it essentially the same as developing the more undeveloped region without immigration being involved anyways.

Besides, this is about balance and playing tall/economic ideas being viable, 90 dev is unrealistic? But what even is a dev? Not to mention surely a prosperous nation could have a population the starts to exceed that of, say, China hypothetically,

don't want 90 dev provinces, but it's not really about you, why should everyone be railroaded towards the exact same playstyle of taking adm, influence, humanist/religious, and diplomatic and blobbing as much as possible?

A 55 dev province has roughly like 375% dev cost, so reducing that by -55% is still 325% extra cost. So the fear mongering about 90 dev provinces is really unnecessary, its's still expensive to have super-cities, just slightly not so much. even if it was -10% dev cost per 5 dev, that's still 375-110 + 265% dev cost, which means the monarch power cost is still in the hundreds, which is still far far far more expensive than simply conquering provinces. Playing wide rather than tall would still be far far cheaper monarch power wise.

"but it's not really about you" same applies to you. And hey, lots of people were annoyed when South East Asian mega cities were a regular thing, prompting those to be nerfed, so clearly it isn't just me that doesn't want megacities again.

A prosperous nation wouldn't realistically be able to exceed China's population without having a similar amount of land. Firstly you obviously need somewhere to put all of those people and the infrastructure to support them, but birth rates typically decrease as a country gets wealthier too, making it even more difficult for a small wealthy country to compete population wise.

I don't see why i should only have to play one way, and besides the point is balance, why would anyone take Economic ideas now?

Also, it wouldn't lead to "megacities" it would just make it slightly cheaper to have big cities. So because you don't want megacities i can't play tall? The only way to play is wide?

Plus, all this would do is balance out the game more, but no we can't have that, we must force everyone to blob to space as the only possible way to play the game.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by grognardgary:

And lets not forget that until the development of the tractor and it various attachment it took a lot more farmers to feed a big city. In most countries the majority of the people lived on the farm until the mid 1940's

But still does it make any sense at all that Economic ideas doesn't really let you have a bigger city/cities? Like, ok then, no changes to economic ideas, or infrastructure (the one they are adding)

Why would you ever pick those ideas then?? At this point, since developing isn't worthwhile and people are against megacities, you might as well just get rid of development economic and infrastructure ideas since the only way to play is wide anyways.

[Totally Innocent Chatbot]

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

Originally posted by grognardgary:

And lets not forget that until the development of the tractor and it various attachment it took a lot more farmers to feed a big city. In most countries the majority of the people lived on the farm until the mid 1940's

But still does it make any sense at all that Economic ideas doesn't really let you have a bigger city/cities? Like, ok then, no changes to economic ideas, or infrastructure (the one they are adding)

Why would you ever pick those ideas then?? At this point, since developing isn't worthwhile and people are against megacities, you might as well just get rid of development economic and infrastructure ideas since the only way to play is wide anyways.

The problem is that Paradox appears to be basing a lot of their balance changes off of issues raised by competitive multiplayer users, in particular last year's installment of the officially-hosted "Grandest LAN" multiplayer campaign. Where multiplayer is concerned, stacking every possible modifier to dev cost is considered the most overpowered strategy in the game, and idea groups like Diplomatic and Administrative are abjectly useless - even though the complete opposite is true of single-player campaigns. They don't seem to get the idea that the changes they're making to shake up the multiplayer meta - pleasing only a very small minority of players in the process - are only further enforcing the already heavily entrenched single-player meta. And it doesn't help when you had the cringier side of the game's Youtube presence constantly using multiplayer meta idea group picks in single-player and fooling people into thinking they're even vaguely efficient there.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by Totally Innocent Chatbot:

Originally posted by Emperor Palpatinate:

But still does it make any sense at all that Economic ideas doesn't really let you have a bigger city/cities? Like, ok then, no changes to economic ideas, or infrastructure (the one they are adding)

Why would you ever pick those ideas then?? At this point, since developing isn't worthwhile and people are against megacities, you might as well just get rid of development economic and infrastructure ideas since the only way to play is wide anyways.

The problem is that Paradox appears to be basing a lot of their balance changes off of issues raised by competitive multiplayer users, in particular last year's installment of the officially-hosted "Grandest LAN" multiplayer campaign. Where multiplayer is concerned, stacking every possible modifier to dev cost is considered the most overpowered strategy in the game, and idea groups like Diplomatic and Administrative are abjectly useless - even though the complete opposite is true of single-player campaigns. They don't seem to get the idea that the changes they're making to shake up the multiplayer meta - pleasing only a very small minority of players in the process - are only further enforcing the already heavily entrenched single-player meta. And it doesn't help when you had the cringier side of the game's Youtube presence constantly using multiplayer meta idea group picks in single-player and fooling people into thinking they're even vaguely efficient there.

That's the thing too, this idea would actually change that.

The main reason -dev cost is OP is because you can make all those ♥♥♥♥ 3 dev provinces into 20 dev ones cheaply, this is because the dev cost applies to all provinces equally, while high dev ones scale in cost dramatically.

even with -20% dev cost economics is really only good in some decisions, now it's -10%? along with the other changes, why would anybody ever pick Economic or the new infrastructure? Aside from the 5% discipline with quality maybe. even in MP seems like economics would be second to Admin or Religious/Humanist now.

If instead of a blanket -20% dev cost it was -5% per 5 dev or smn starting after 20 dev, Thus making economics more worthwhile for playing tall while nerfing it for people that play wide and get economics.

[ChaffyExpert]

Also for people saying current system is fine.

Please tell me again how doubling the development and population of a frozen rock in the middle of the Ocean that is almost always frozen over cheaper than developing a big city and increasing it's population by about 6%.

[RCMidas]

Because development and population are not correlated. If increasing tax development meant increasing the population, it would necessarily increase production and manpower development also, and all other combinations of this.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Because development and population are not correlated. If increasing tax development meant increasing the population, it would necessarily increase production and manpower development also, and all other combinations of this.

If anything that makes the high cost for developing cities make even less sense.

[RCMidas]

Only if you've never worked in Real Life administration. I have. The more you try and squeeze out of a stressed system, the more time and resources it is going to take, often on a perpetual consumption basis and not merely a one-off expenditure.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Only if you've never worked in Real Life administration. I have. The more you try and squeeze out of a stressed system, the more time and resources it is going to take, often on a perpetual consumption basis and not merely a one-off expenditure.

Yes but it doesn't make sense growing a big city by 6% is more expensive than doubling the development a frozen rock in the Atlantic.

All my proposed change would do is make the cost go from, for example 200 mana, to about 150 mana or whatever the amount is based on the development cost. Point being it simply makes it more worthwhile to dev.

Plus playing wide is the only option and the changes to Economics makes it basically worthless ideagroup. might as well scrap the whole system really.