Proposed Rule Update- Colonial Development.

[Kaiser Kirk]

This is the most complex of the proposed changes.

As such, the players may decide to reject it.
That is ok.

I think if implemented it would make for a game where some areas had much greater value than others.
This would help fix the basic problem of every province being effectively the same.

This is hard to add to an ongoing game.

IF we adopt the map and arable land and/or resource point concepts, THEN we will have to decide :

• Start 1912.5
  
• "Soft Restart" - Each player keeps 10 colonies, repick from 1910.0 onwards.
• "Full Restart" - Each player repicks from 1910.0 onwards
• "Other" - you tell me.

I wanted to post both the Arable land map, and a new Turn spreadsheet modified to implement these.
However, I am not done with both, and it is evening in Europe.

I will try to have the Spreadsheet done by Weds Evening.

This is a DRAFT Arable Land Map.

It covers all undeveloped Non-PC land.
Since I was using a blank map, I assigned values for NPC areas by accident.

The final version would color in the PCs and NPCs as developed.

Green = Prime
White = Average
Brown = Harsh

There is also a Resource point map.
The idea on the Resources is that they would be revealed once the province is claimed for a year.
So that map is not shown.

See next post for how I think these will work in-game.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Proposed Rule Update

Colonial Costs

Goal : To provide more and less desirable colony locations, and to allow faster colonial development by focusing on the best location.  It is assumed that particularly good locations will attract non-government investment and hit "1 IC' faster.

Province with Port Symbol : Has 1 existing IC. 

Mainland Region with Port Symbol : Normal IC cost
Island Chains (assumed Port) : Normal IC Cost
Interior Region : IC Cost $+5.   Lack of easy access slows settlement and development.

Land Quality :
Land Quality for undeveloped provinces will be shown on the map.

Prime : IC cost -5
Average : IC cost Normal
Harsh : IC cost +5

Resource Points :
Resource Points will only be revealed when Province has been claimed 1 calendar year.

Rich : Each IC built in this province Generates 2x Income. ($3 in the colonies)
Average : IC yield Normal
Poor : Each IC built in this province Generates 0.5 x Income. ($1 in the colonies)

Note : I have considered "Ultra Rich" and "Rich" which would be $3 and $2 income.
I think simplicity is better, and at $3, they are very desirable.

[Desertfox]

So a province with a port, comes with an automatic IC? Would that mean you wouldn't need a land point to hold it?

More an observation than anything, but being from Arizona, calling the southern province "harsh" is being a bit harsh (pun totally intended). There's quite a bit of agriculture there, especially around Yuma where you can farm year round. And central valley not prime? Unless you are trying to be fair and not give yourself a bonus, but thats prime land.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Port :  I hadn't thought about that, but yes that would be the end result.   
I suppose we could specify it needs a garrison land unit, but no deployment point.
In the KISS of N7, I will leave the proposal as is  unless folks view it as a problem.

I will caution that leaving it un-garrisoned would mean anyone can walk in an take it, immediately severing the supply routes for the rest of  your province.

Edit : The other approach I had was to make Port Symbols $5 cheaper to make IC, and just give everyone a 5IC boost. That seemed like more tracking. So this seemed the KISS.

Edit : I will put the alternative up on the other thread.

[Kaiser Kirk]

More an observation than anything, but being from Arizona, calling the southern province "harsh" is being a bit harsh (pun totally intended). There's quite a bit of agriculture there, especially around Yuma where you can farm year round. And central valley not prime? Unless you are trying to be fair and not give yourself a bonus, but thats prime land.

Prime Lands are intended to be lands where there is good soil and abundant local water or rainfall.  Once cleared, farming can start and be productive with little infrastructure.

Irrigation is a form of IC.

The California Central Valley is reliant on an extensive network of dams and aqueducts to be so productive. That marks it as 'average' for development cost.

I suspect the areas around Yuma may be as well.  Temperature is limiting on what crops grow, and you need extensive water. But it does have long growing seasons.  This is why it is harder to make productive, but then produces full value.

There are areas where there are both "Harsh" and a "Poor" resource point.  They are hard to make productive, and then do not produce full value.

Provinces are large
The Yuma area, a strip along the Colorado, is an example.  A small portion of a larger province. 

On average, Yuma receives 3.36 inches (85 mm) of rain annually. Even in the wettest year of 2005, only 7.39 in (188 mm) fell. The driest year at Yuma Airport has been 2007, with only 0.15 in (3.8 mm) recorded. On average, August and September are the wettest months of the year, while June is the driest.

The area is otherwise in the Sonoran Desert and does not otherwise get adequate rainfall for agriculture.

Harsh is appropriate for the Province.

The Yuma are would be an example of the developable part of the province...with work.

Lastly : I'm working from old atlases and knowledge, my ability to know the specifics of various areas is limited. 
Toss that in with evaluating it's suitability for settlement, and I will be off in places.
Raising points like Fox did is good, and can highlight missed/ badly classified areas.

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm not opposed to using the map.

I can work with the access/quality/resource elements of provinces.

I would prefer to stick with existing colonial claims as the best case and view a full reset as a worst case. If some reset is necessary, I'd like some recognition that some nations have made more effort to expand than others, and will be more significantly impacted by resets.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I would prefer to stick with existing colonial claims as the best case and view a full reset as a worst case. If some reset is necessary, I'd like some recognition that some nations have made more effort to expand than others, and will be more significantly impacted by resets.

That's exactly why this is being presented as a group decision on this.

When we get to implementation, my proposal is to allow folks the option of abandoning current holdings and transferring current investments.
That way if someone grabbed a bunch of what is barren lands, and don't want them now, they can recoup. 

[Desertfox]

I am in favor of these changes.

While for obvious reasons I would be in favor of a "full restart" *cough* Hawaii *cough*, it wouldn't be fair for everyone else, so I'll go with "as is" or whatever the general consensus is.