Provinces (Management & Size Limitations)

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
Provinces only exist in sophisticated pre-mediaeval empires

??? What about Provinces in modern countries and states in the USA? Do you mean ... and later governments?

Do you propose to have a game wherein from the dawn of time all civs create provinces? Provinces come with bureacracy, which civs must surely research as a tech. .

Provinces are meant to streamline organization and gameplay for the player. Even though they don't really exist for very early civs we wanted them in for those reasons. another of those realism vs playability tradeoffs.

[yellowdaddy]

Provinces only exist in sophisticated pre-mediaeval empires

Whoops! did I type that! (I think I forget to finish my sentence!)

Aye lad, I was referring, of course, to the existence of provinces in pre-mediaeval times is limited to sophsiticated empires like China and Rome, and in all post-mediaeval societies (mediaeval in terms of tech and development - so don't start piping on about amazonian indians and the like!)

[LDiCesare]

The only size limitation that should be put on provinces is that there has to be at least two inside an empire/state/country

Why 2? If you have a single square, you can't have two provinces. If you have several squares that are not contiguous, they should probably be separate provinces, or become so after a time.
It would depend on the transportation/communication tech: If you're unable to reach one place from another in less than X time, then you can't have both places in the same province (or the capital of the provicne must be at less than X distance from every other point of the province - this being the system used to create "departements" in France: you had to be able to reach the capital by horse in one day from any point).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Ir really depends on whether for less advanced civilizations you can program in a projection of power that decreases the further from the capial you get Also maybe some extent major cities could act, for lack of better term, boosters to help expand your area beyond its natural reach, although they could act against it as well.

Then the more ineffectient and larger your empire for this one technological advance, it would actually help. But as i said this is only if you can adequatly represent both decreasing power and influence as well as muliple influences in those border regions between far flung capitals of those states.

[LDiCesare]

Spreading influence is quite easy. I do it for the military and the ai. Crossing the sea, though, needs some work.
Moving a capital would have some effect on that and the player would have to adjust things then. I don't know how to handle that easily.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Spreading influence is quite easy. I do it for the military and the ai. Crossing the sea, though, needs some work.
Moving a capital would have some effect on that and the player would have to adjust things then. I don't know how to handle that easily.

No not spreading influence, but dual or tripple influence in border areas where multiple nations are involved.

[LDiCesare]

Many sources of influence you mean? That's ok too. I usually just do a sum of (us vs them) influences, but could have a more detailed, civ by civ, influence map if needed (just takes more space).

[yellowdaddy]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Why 2? If you have a single square, you can't have two provinces.

What is the point of having one country that consists of one province? To all intents and purposes, the province doesn't exist.

If you have several squares that are not contiguous, they should probably be separate provinces, or become so after a time.

That is entirely subjective, there surely exist provinces in the world that do not have (entirely) geographically contiguous borders: Michigan in the USA; in the Phillipines, Newfoundland & Labrador.
There exist(ed) also non-contiguous states: pre-partition Pakistan; Azerbaijan & Nakhichevan; Malaysia; Brunei; Angola & Cabinda; Eq. Guinea and Rio Muni; Palestine; the wibbly bits along the border of France and Spain...

It would depend on the transportation/communication tech: If you're unable to reach one place from another in less than X time, then you can't have both places in the same province (or the capital of the provicne must be at less than X distance from every other point of the province - this being the system used to create "departements" in France: you had to be able to reach the capital by horse in one day from any point).

Clearly not all of (or even most of) the world bases it's provinces on the French system.

[LDiCesare]

What is the point of having one country that consists of one province? To all intents and purposes, the province doesn't exist.

Provinces are a necessity even if there is one because there are things done at that level. Did you ever play OCC in civ? What's the point of having cities if you only have one? Well, there is a point. USer interface, functions handled at city level. It's a layer of management different from the civ level. There are things that are done at civ level (research...) and others at province level (riots...). We actually also have things going on at square level.
If you're saying that the province doesn't add anything until there's a second one, ok, but since we won't have specific user interface for civs with a single square or province, the limitation isn't meaningful.

Michigan, Newfoundland, Labrador, Philippines

All these are islands or small straits separations. Their parts are so near from one another that, if you wanted to depict them at the scale of a few squares on a game map, you couldn't even show the strait unless going for very small squares, they would be contiguous landmasses for the most part. I am not advocating making a separate province of every island. To me contiguous mostly means that each part can be reached from another part of the same province reasonably fast without crossing a (land) border.

There exist(ed) also non-contiguous states: pre-partition Pakistan; Azerbaijan & Nakhichevan; Malaysia; Brunei; Angola & Cabinda; Eq. Guinea and Rio Muni; Palestine; the wibbly bits along the border of France and Spain...

Pakistan illustrates my point, since it became separate after time.
Nakhichevan is, if I'm not mistaken the name of the whole connex province of Azerbaijan? Thus it is a province unto itself?
Brunei is made of Belait and Temburong, each having a name and being identifiable. But then again, they are so near one another, and connected by sea with a really small distance.
Cabinda is a province of Angola. No part of Angola which is not connex to it is part of it, and vice versa.
Rio Mundi and Fernando Poo are 2 provinces of Eq. Guinea.
All of these examples show that the non connex part is a separate province and illustrate my point.
Palestine has been in such a stable state that it isn't really worth considering. As I said, "after a time" the province would separate. Remains to be seen if that wouldn't be the case here. But again, Palestine and Israel are so complex that trying to have a model precise enough to model these is not my goal. The Gaza region is currently being treated differently rom other parts of Palestine by Israel, thus showing there's the ability to apply different policies to the different parts.
Which bits along France are you talking about? There are non connex departements in the Pyrenees but the states are quite connex from each part of the frontier. The holes in the Pyrenees Atlantiques are so small, in size and population, that it's hardly worth mentioning (effectively 2 villages).

Clearly not all of (or even most of) the world bases it's provinces on the French system.

Thanks, I knew that.
But if you decide an arbitrary 2 provinces system, nothing prevents one form making a huge province and one square for the other province.
I maintain that, unless each connex part is very small, connex parts of land should be in different provinces, or become so (through incentive or mechanically) after some time.

[alms66]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
There exist(ed) also non-contiguous states: pre-partition Pakistan; Azerbaijan & Nakhichevan; Malaysia; Brunei; Angola & Cabinda; Eq. Guinea and Rio Muni; Palestine; the wibbly bits along the border of France and Spain...

I don't think Laurent suggested that non-contiguous states couldn't exist (though I may be wrong - if he did, I'm sure he didn't mean it ). I think he simply said, and agree, that 99.9% of provinces that have or will ever exist are not spread half-way around the world. There is a certain amount of distance, usually quite small, where it simply becomes easier and more cost effective to make the "new" land a new province.

[LDiCesare]

I don't think Laurent suggested that non-contiguous states couldn't exist

Yes, that's not what I ment. I ment that non contiguous provinces (nto states) would probably end up split as different provinces in order to be administered correctly. If they are not, administration effectiveness should probably get lower.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes, that's not what I ment. I ment that non contiguous provinces (nto states) would probably end up split as different provinces in order to be administered correctly. If they are not, administration effectiveness should probably get lower.

I still say after inital formation of provinces they should have inertia and only change because of politcal shifting of power.

[yellowdaddy]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes, that's not what I ment. I ment that non contiguous provinces (nto states) would probably end up split as different provinces in order to be administered correctly. If they are not, administration effectiveness should probably get lower.

aahhh - so what you really mean is NON-CONTIGUOUS PROVINCES are unsustainable!?

I can see that, though Newfoundland & Labrador?

Aren't french overseas territories treated as departements though? there's no devolution there - I mean that's a pretty disparate political system - though I take your point that they all are separate provinces.

(I was getting lost with the meaning of this word "connex")

------

I still don't see the point in 1-province states - you can't edit the size or shape of the province because it is the state.

I understand what you're saying about actions at the province level, but as far as I can see small/1-province states tend to behave rather like provinces anyway - Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Channel Islands etc... with all their foreign affairs and that dealt with by their larger neighbouts...

What's the difference between a 1 province state and a 0 province state anyway?

[LDiCesare]

What's the difference between a 1 province state and a 0 province state anyway?

None. But in terms of user interface and coding, it's much much easier to have civs with one province or more than civs with either zero or 2 or more.
I doubt Luxembourgeois would agree that their foreign affairs is decided by their neighbours (which one - the Belgians, French or Germans?)

Connex means contiguous. Except non contiguous is between things, at least in French, so one thing alone is not contiguous, it is connex. Connex is the correct mathematical term.
I consider connexity here as being able to go from any point to any other in the province without crossing the territory of another province. Islands will typically be separate provinces or attached to the province of the nearest land mass.

[yellowdaddy]

I see what you're saying.

The only non-connex provinces I can think of are little enclaves along French-Spanish and Dutch-German borders, but they're so small, it's probably not worth bothering with them.