About the latest video "Building in multiple provinces..." with reference to AoH 2

[Rodak Polak 596]

In the latest video investment in the economy and in population growth is shown. Unfortunately, it looks like there may be a similar bug as in AoH 2

When you invest in province with 1% growth rate nothing changes (like in AoH2 bug with 99 economy where no matter how much you invested, it was always 99)

The second problem in AoH 2 was exhaustion of investment opportunities (once the farms were built, it was no longer possible to invest in the province's population also, if the economy was too high, instead of profits from the provinces, there were giant losses. The consequence was that after some time it was impossible to invest in the population, and investing in the economy was possible, but it made no sense). Imagine that France, once investing in Paris, is satisfied with it for hundreds of years. No sense. Without investment, the city falls.

My solution to making the game better and more realistic is:

• If you don't invest in population growth, it falls by 0.01 percentage point per year
• If you don't invest in economy, it falls by 0.01 point per year
• The decrease will be so slow that it will not destroy your country or stop its development. But at the same time, if you do not invest in a province for many years, it will become depopulated and its economy will collapse which is consistent with reality
• At the same time, this will make investments will always be possible and profitable

When it comes to buildings in the province: maybe it would be good to add that there is a small chance (e.g. 5%) that while your province will be occupied, all buildings will also be destroyed (in AoH 2, after some time there was nothing to build, and wars did not destroy buildings, which was unrealistic)

[Rodak Polak 596]

The minimum population in a province should be 10, negative population growth should be possible, but the economy should not fall to less than 0

Edited March 5 by Rodak Polak

[qxz 617]

1 hour ago, Rodak Polak said:

In the latest video investment in the economy and in population growth is shown. Unfortunately, it looks like there may be a similar bug as in AoH 2

When you invest in province with 1% growth rate nothing changes (like in AoH2 bug with 99 economy where no matter how much you invested, it was always 99)

The second problem in AoH 2 was exhaustion of investment opportunities (once the farms were built, it was no longer possible to invest in the province's population also, if the economy was too high, instead of profits from the provinces, there were giant losses. The consequence was that after some time it was impossible to invest in the population, and investing in the economy was possible, but it made no sense). Imagine that France, once investing in Paris, is satisfied with it for hundreds of years. No sense. Without investment, the city falls.

My solution to making the game better and more realistic is:

• If you don't invest in population growth, it falls by 0.01 percentage point per year
• If you don't invest in economy, it falls by 0.01 point per year
• The decrease will be so slow that it will not destroy your country or stop its development. But at the same time, if you do not invest in a province for many years, it will become depopulated and its economy will collapse which is consistent with reality
• At the same time, this will make investments will always be possible and profitable

When it comes to buildings in the province: maybe it would be good to add that there is a small chance (e.g. 5%) that while your province will be occupied, all buildings will also be destroyed (in AoH 2, after some time there was nothing to build, and wars did not destroy buildings, which was unrealistic)

> If you don't invest in economy, it falls by 0.01 point per year

Why would that be the case?

You are heavily neglecting the dynamics of economy.

Economic complexity encompasses a multitude of factors, including government policies and global conditions. Assuming a linear decline solely based on a 'decay' factor oversimplifies the dynamic nature of economy. It is important to understand that economy can thrive through private business initiatives (as an example) within the population, without constant government intervention.

 

[Rodak Polak 596]

13 minutes ago, qxz said:

> If you don't invest in economy, it falls by 0.01 point per year

Why would that be the case?

You are heavily neglecting the dynamics of economy.

Economic complexity encompasses a multitude of factors, including government policies and global conditions. Assuming a linear decline solely based on a 'decay' factor oversimplifies the dynamic nature of economy. It is important to understand that economy can thrive through private business initiatives (as an example) within the population, without constant government intervention.

 

Because probably both population growth and economy will have their limits in the game (which I think makes sense. I wouldn't want population growth to be around 100,000% or more). And if they have a limit, it means that at some point investing would be impossible. That's why I proposed a slight decrease, which is true by the way in reality if country do not invest. With my solution investing will always make sense. I know that economy is more complicated but also I remember that AoH 3 is not economical game, but a strategic and historical one based on the rule of "easy to learn hard to master"

[Rodak Polak 596]

Maybe with each new era or unlocked technology, the upper economy limit should increase

[qxz 617]

5 minutes ago, Rodak Polak said:

Because probably both population growth and economy will have their limits in the game (which I think makes sense. I wouldn't want population growth to be around 100,000% or more). And if they have a limit, it means that at some point investing would be impossible. That's why I proposed a slight decrease, which is true by the way in reality if country do not invest. With my solution investing will always make sense. I know that economy is more complicated but also I remember that AoH 3 is not economical game, but a strategic and historical one based on the rule of "easy to learn hard to master"

Of course there will be a limit otherwise the amount of calculations will cause performance issues.

Economy is not relied on investments,  which is why Age of History 3 improves the economy so much, by adding buildings and many more factors like resources.

Proposing a slight linear decrease assumes that the country is in a constant decline which is obviously not always the case.

The comment below your reply is way better than your original suggestion. 

Scaling the economy with certain technological advancements actually encourages the player to advance in the game, rather than constantly investing in the economy, which basically in your point of view is in a constant decline which just increases the micro.