Development

[qweytr]

I have for now changed development everywhere to 2/2/2. This is the base value most provinces should have and it should obviously be increased in important cities. Before we start doing that, I think we should agree on a consistent way to define the development, so that the different regions of the world will be in balance with each other.

[PhelanBavaria]

Can we make the terrain have an influence on that? Like giving deserts the least development, mountains a bit more, grassland a bit more and coastal the most or something like that. Perhaps we could also define it by regions, giving the regions of Egypt, Syria and that more development than most areas in Europe.

[qweytr]

The terrain influences future development already with the development cost modifiers. And empty coast should have no more development than an empty desert. It is just easier to develop.

Province development should mainly be determined by population and wealth, though they can be hard to estimate for this timeline. I think that any provinces don't contain any known cities should have 2/2/2 development. Provinces with known cities should get higher development depending on the population and wealth of the city.

[PhelanBavaria]

I think you should just let the script run over all provinces and put 2 2 2 everywhere. After that everybody has to go over his areas and check for where development should be higher.

[qweytr]

I already put 2 2 2 everywhere. And that's exactly what I'm saying. Now everyone should go over their provinces to set the development, but we should agree on some general rules on how to set the development, so that it's consistent between the different regions.

[qweytr]

For example we could agree that total development values for provinces are: 6 No city. 7-9 Small city or a city of which there is very little information. 10-12 Medium city 13- Large city, provincial capital or a significant trading city.

[PhelanBavaria]

Oh, sorry, then I misunderstood. That suggestion sounds reasonable.

[qweytr]

The provinces should probably also be renamed after the largest city in the province while we set the development. It shouldn't be too much extra work as we have to check out the main city of each province anyway.

[Firesoul7]

There is a serious problem with the current system, in that it relies solely on how many cities there were, and not natural resources etc. This is problematic because it means that the Seleucids would never have chosen Seleucia as their capital, as they historically did. I think we need to have a points system, such as +1 for every minor city, +2 for every medium city, +4 for every large city, +5 for any metropolis, such as Babylon, which was truly massive and a centre of the world, +1 for non-desert non-glacial, +1 for coastal (fish were very important, and most ancient cities were built on the coast), +2 for grasslands, +3 for having a river running through it, and some others.

I get that it's important that the successors don't start in a desert etc, but I think it important that a successor can appear in any sensible province, because a lot of capitals were founded where there was basically nothing besides the natural resources they would need.

I await your opinions on the matter.

[qweytr]

As I said, Seleucus established himself initially in Babylon. Then he founded Seleucia and moved his capital there. We can add new events or decisions for founding new capitals.

There's no need to define the province development by natural resources, as better trade goods give more money already making these provinces better with equal development.

Also, provinces with better terrain are already better as they are cheaper to develop. There were plenty of coastal provinces or provinces with a river that were still almost uninhabited. These provinces should not get any extra development.

[PhelanBavaria]

Maybe we could have a decision that becomes available when you get a new capital in an undeveloped province, which drains development from other provinces and increases it in your capital?

[qweytr]

Sounds good.

[Firesoul7]

The bracket for where a capital is established needs to be brought down a lot. Not one of the successors built their capitals in a province with sufficient development for them to be considered a worthy capital at present. This leaves the whole event system broken, and unfixable. I fully support the idea of a decision to drain development from other provinces of the empire and giving it to your capital, but for now we have to either raise the criteria for how much development each province has, or else drain the amount of development needed for a province to become a capital.

[qweytr]

The development levels just aren't updated yet. All of the Diadochi capitals were founded close to existing major cities in provinces that will have high development once the development levels are updated in all of the provinces.

[PhelanBavaria]

We could bring down the development levels required, but let's just see how it does with adjusted development levels in provinces. Remember, this is a dynamic system, so we have to choose a pretty high level. It's not hard at all to adjust the development levels required later.

[Firesoul7]

The problem is that I've updated Seleucia already and it doesn't make the cut. Basically only Babylon and maybe Persepolis, these are the only cities that would have enough development to be chosen as capital. On 27 Aug 2015 08:39, "PhelanBavaria" notifications@github.com wrote:

We could bring down the development levels required, but let's just see how it does with adjusted development levels in provinces. Remember, this is a dynamic system, so we have to choose a pretty high level. It's not hard at all to adjust the development levels required later.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/PhelanBavaria/ancienttimeline/issues/36#issuecomment-135322937 .

[qweytr]

Alexandria and Antioch, capitals of Ptolemy and Antigonus should also have sufficient development. Seleucia doesn't need to be any higher, as Seleucus first established himself in Babylon. The events or decisions for forming a new capital could then target some slightly less developed nearby provinces.

[Firesoul7]

That still isn't many places.

[qweytr]

Those were just examples. There would be some more, but I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the Diadochi had their capitals in or right next to one of the top 10 cities in the empire.

[Firesoul7]

Bavaria has agreed with me in reducing the required development to 8, a mid-levelled small city. This seems the best solution to me.

[qweytr]

But 8 is just 2 development ahead of a completely non-developed province. There could just as well be no limit at all, as most of the provinces in Persia and all in Macedonia would already exceed that.

[Firesoul7]

But that also means that a desert cannot be the capital of one of these places. I'm being quite harsh with my development, a lot of the cities in Macedonia already don't reach that level of development. Don't worry, they will pick sensible capitals.

[qweytr]

Greece should be among the highest developed regions at game start and several cities there should have above 12 development. I agree that 13 development might be a bit high limit, but it shouldn't be brought down further than 11.

[Firesoul7]

I've only done Thrace so far, and a tiny bit of Macedon. I might increase the development of various provinces there later. Nonetheless while about half the provinces I've made so far in the region could be capitals, the rest are at 7 development. This can be expected to be the case in a lot of other regions too. On 27 Aug 2015 11:03, "qweytr" notifications@github.com wrote:

Greece should be among the highest developed regions at game start and several cities there should have above 12 development. I agree that 13 development might be a bit high limit, but it shouldn't be brought down further than 11.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/PhelanBavaria/ancienttimeline/issues/36#issuecomment-135369863 .

[Firesoul7]

For me a development 13 province is a world capital, like Babylon. A truly massive city. A lot of provinces won't have cities at all. The fact that no Greek provinces I've done so far still have 6 development already makes them a highly developed region. On 27 Aug 2015 11:10, "Roman Huczok" jonesfred694@gmail.com wrote:

I've only done Thrace so far, and a tiny bit of Macedon. I might increase the development of various provinces there later. Nonetheless while about half the provinces I've made so far in the region could be capitals, the rest are at 7 development. This can be expected to be the case in a lot of other regions too. On 27 Aug 2015 11:03, "qweytr" notifications@github.com wrote:

Greece should be among the highest developed regions at game start and several cities there should have above 12 development. I agree that 13 development might be a bit high limit, but it shouldn't be brought down further than 11.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/PhelanBavaria/ancienttimeline/issues/36#issuecomment-135369863 .

[qweytr]

If we are going with what I said, 13 or higher would be a large city. I'd say that in Greece at least Athens, Pella and Corinth fall into that category. Inland Thrace would be in the no city or small city range, but I'd consider most coastal cities like Odessos to be in the medium range.

[Firesoul7]

I underestimated the size of Pella by quite a lot, I thought it was basically a large village, with most of the inhabitants being shepherds. That's my vision of most of Macedonia at that time period. Anyway, I've upped the development of many of the cities in the region.