A better macro indicator for the dev-level discussion IMO is nobles-to-available regions (NAR), because the dev role is to establish the game board and set the parameters, then let the players configure the pieces naturally in the most advantageous way as the players see it.
I’m not totally convinced that nobles-per-realm (NPR) is always the best indicator when talking about the density problem because it seems like a kind of apples-to-oranges comparison when talking about the macro composition of the game board. It is however a good indicator for studying the infinite realm compositions that might emerge, but that study should happen at the player level.
If you want more nobles per region: it seems very logical to tweak the parameters so the appropriately dense regions function better than those “one-horse” regions that are most common. Then the realm has a strategic judgment to make: e.g. “Do we stack nobles in our city that’s about to be attacked, or do we deploy more nobles to the food regions so they’ll produce food and gold more efficiently?” The answer will depend on a few variables, and they wouldn’t always reach the same conclusion, depending on the season, how much food is in storage, the threat of war, and the state of other friendly regions, etc. So in other words, don’t force them into increased density, give them parameters that make a denser region have a comparative advantage.
It you want more war: tweak the parameters to slow down equipment damage, and starving, and speed up travel time. I’m not saying to get rid of those things, just turn down the knob a little bit and make it easier for armies to travel.
I think Chénier is absolutely right that player retention is the more urgent problem and I wish more resources were devoted to it instead of the ambitious roll-outs that seem to be the main focus.
