diplo annex cost for subjects in 1.13

[atwix]

to be honest, I wish they would just make it so ingame that you see the RESULT of the formulae ingame, rather then seeing all the bonuses you stacked without having a clue what stacks how with another...

 

[atwix]

but I STILL don't get it.

Its rounded down? so 8 times 0.55 times 0.4 gives 1,76, rounded down to 1?

If you get below 2 then, its rounded down to 1 diplo point per development?

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but all this excel thinking is beyond me...

 

[ChildeR]

Complexity for complexity's sake is bad design. They're already different mechanics (one is paid for upfront with each province taken, the other over a longer period of time during diplomatic annexation). But there is zero reason for the behind-the-scenes numbers to behave differently when their structure is identical (base cost, modified by administrative efficiency, positive modifiers and negative modifiers that are carbon copies of each other). It just obfuscates things for the player without any benefits.

While it is annoying to have two different formulas, I like the effect, which in practice is that hostile core creation modifiers affect coring more than they do diploannex (the latter is "less hostile"). E.g. -50% coring cost and +50% HCC cancel out, but -50% diploannex and +50% HCC combine to 75% cost.

There are other ways to do it so the above would be true, but would they be simpler? Not sure.

 

[SolSys]

Complexity for complexity's sake is bad design.

And I agree; after a certain point complexity is just bad. This is not it.
If you ever played MoO3 you'd know what is a bad design when it concerns complexity.

They're already different mechanics (one is paid for upfront with each province taken, the other over a longer period of time during diplomatic annexation).

If by "paid upfront" you meant to the peace screen, than you pay for everything which is not part of the war-goal [Dip points].
Your'e partially right though. Coring is paid upfront [Admin points], but is done over a short period of time. Annexation is truly paid over time [Dip points] and you can make a point for it to be paid up front as well if you wish [Suggestion sub-forum].

But there is zero reason for the behind-the-scenes numbers to behave differently when their structure is identical ... It just obfuscates things for the player without any benefits.

Again, I agree with you partially on this point as well.
The math certainly could be much easier and intuitive like it is for coring, but it doesn't necessarily necessitates an identical structure.

 

[Zelius]

Ok, after some testing I also found it to be multiplicative.

but I STILL don't get it.

Its rounded down? so 8 times 0.55 times 0.4 gives 1,76, rounded down to 1?

If you get below 2 then, its rounded down to 1 diplo point per development?

Sorry if I'm being stupid, but all this excel thinking is beyond me...

Yes, it will be rounded down, in this case to 1 dip per dev.

Interestingly it seems that hostile creation cost is applied afterwards, so the minimum integration cost is 1.5 dip per development for +50% HCC. e.g. it takes 75 dip to diplo-annex 50 development Georgia even with Efficiency 3 and -55% reduction from ideas/policy.

 

[atwix]

so basically any nation can core at the minimum 1 diplo power per development if they get max admin efficiency, influence ideas and the policy for -diplo annex cost active..

Interesting.

 

[tableandchair]

Didn't we find out that even though, it shows the minimum cost of 1 dip/dev on the first screen, it never actually reaches that(without NI's)? There is a discrepancy between the points shown in the vassal annex screen and the actual cost of annexation. I think Path had a post somewhere where he explained how it really worked.

 

[atwix]

lol. Great.

 

[Path]

Didn't we find out that even though, it shows the minimum cost of 1 dip/dev on the first screen, it never actually reaches that(without NI's)? There is a discrepancy between the points shown in the vassal annex screen and the actual cost of annexation. I think Path had a post somewhere where he explained how it really worked.

Yeah, we had a discussion about this here. Since the overseas modifier used to be multiplicative I'm inclined to believe they messed up diplo annexations (again), which'd mean the UI should be right. Then again, Paradox maths...

 

[atwix]

Yeah, we had a discussion about this here. Since the overseas modifier used to be multiplicative I'm inclined to believe they messed up diplo annexations (again), which'd mean the UI should be right. Then again, Paradox maths...

Paradox math path is even worse then statistical math path, eh path?

 

[atwix]

somehow I wonder if switching the client to patch 1.13 when annexations have passed far enough, will make them finish the month after...

 

[Aythne]

And I agree; after a certain point complexity is just bad. This is not it.
If you ever played MoO3 you'd know what is a bad design when it concerns complexity.


If by "paid upfront" you meant to the peace screen, than you pay for everything which is not part of the war-goal [Dip points].
Your'e partially right though. Coring is paid upfront [Admin points], but is done over a short period of time. Annexation is truly paid over time [Dip points] and you can make a point for it to be paid up front as well if you wish [Suggestion sub-forum].


Again, I agree with you partially on this point as well.
The math certainly could be much easier and intuitive like it is for coring, but it doesn't necessarily necessitates an identical structure.

I think we're more or less in agreement, in the end. By identical structure I just mean the behind-the-scenes math, not the process itself. I'm perfectly happy with the current system of HOW you pay, it gives a very different feel to coring and annexing. But when the calculation of WHAT total you pay involves A, B, and C, A/C of which are identical in both cases and B which is a carpon copy modifier with a different name, the interaction of B and C should not be meaninfully different without any way for the player to tell without calculating it themself... that's needless complexity to me. Standardizing the behind-the-scenes calculations would change nothing about how the game plays, but it would be a large QoL improvement for the player trying to figure out what's going on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think we're more or less in agreement, in the end. By identical structure I just mean the behind-the-scenes math, not the process itself. I'm perfectly happy with the current system of HOW you pay, it gives a very different feel to coring and annexing. But when the calculation of WHAT total you pay involves A, B, and C, A/C of which are identical in both cases and B which is a carpon copy modifier with a different name, the interaction of B and C should not be meaninfully different without any way for the player to tell without calculating it themself... that's needless complexity to me. Standardizing the behind-the-scenes calculations would change nothing about how the game plays, but it would be a large QoL improvement for the player trying to figure out what's going on.

At minimum, the UI should never lie to the player. UI in general remains an unfortunately rampant problem in this game despite being improved over time, but the most egregious stuff is when it displays something that is overtly inaccurate.

 

[Aythne]

At minimum, the UI should never lie to the player. UI in general remains an unfortunately rampant problem in this game despite being improved over time, but the most egregious stuff is when it displays something that is overtly inaccurate.

I mean, that's never going to be perfect in a game of this scale, but yes. I wish Paradox would launch a crowdfunded "hire an extra coder who's only job is to clean up the rough edges". 1.14 as the exception because it looks fantastic, I'd rather drop a few bucks on that rather than a new expansion.

 

[ForzaA]

Did some of my own investigating on the subject..

That's quite the convoluted calculations we use there, and the UI giving incorrect and inconsistent values isn't exactly helping.
Adding a task in our database to improve this.

 

[atwix]

Did some of my own investigating on the subject..

That's quite the convoluted calculations we use there, and the UI giving incorrect and inconsistent values isn't exactly helping.
Adding a task in our database to improve this.

so, the cost to integrate subjects *should* be what the UI is telling us? AKA 1 dip point per development at max admin efficiency, influence ideas and the policy?

 

[ForzaA]

The below is my current understanding of it, based on the data collected while determining that there was a problem, and which areas of the game are (potentially) affected
I have not, at this time, had a chance to verify this in the code, nor confirmed the intended functionality. For my own sanity, I am going to assume that the Actual Total Cost is accurate (or at least closer to accurate than what the confirmation dialog suggests)

I have not determined whether there is an actual minimum cost.

Actual Total Cost =SUM_allprovinces (Development* (1+[local]Hostile Core Creation)) * 8 * (1- Administrative Efficiency) * (1 + Diplomatic Annexation Cost)
(rounded down to nearest integer)

(note that beneficial Diplomatic Annexation Cost modifiers are scripted/displayed negative, Administrative Efficiency, positive)

The Confirmation Dialog displays this as

"Due to their Development of FLOOR[Development*(1+HCC)] "
and
"the annexation will cost a total of FLOOR[development*(1+HCC)] * FLOOR[8*(1-AEff)*(1+DAC)] "

(floor being the rounding down to nearest integer)

 

[Promanco]

What bothers me about Vassal Annexation is that if you cheat and have 3000~ Diplo Rep you annex the vassal in a month but you USE 3000 DIP points which kind of defeat the purpose

 

[Path]

Paradox math path is even worse then statistical math path, eh path?

There is but one Path--all paths lead to the true Path ;

I have not determined whether there is an actual minimum cost.)

From a practical PoV I don't think it matters whether one exists, as there's no realistic way to reach it (assuming that one exists it's basically guaranteed to be 1, and to get the cost that low you'd need to stack bonuses that aren't readily availalbe). France, Austria and CNs (and any other tags that have at least a 10% reduction in their NIs, though I can't think of any) can get it down to 1 (0.96, but I assume it'd work out to 1 if there's a hard cap) if they have max efficiency, influence, are running the Rapid-Integration Act and get the Loyal Subjects event. That's not very realistic, though.

A CN with a 20% reduction as an NI could get it down to 1.12 permanently, however, with no need for events. That'd be expensive, but if you're building a CN for the specific purpose of large-scale integrations, it's an option.

What bothers me about Vassal Annexation is that if you cheat and have 3000~ Diplo Rep you annex the vassal in a month but you USE 3000 DIP points which kind of defeat the purpose

If you're going to cheat, you could just integrate directly using the console, though (e.g., "integrate fra").

 

[Promanco]

There is but one Path--all paths lead to the true Path ;


If you're going to cheat, you could just integrate directly using the console, though (e.g., "integrate fra").

Well it is still technically a bug, I just seriously doubt is even on the priority list at all and I don't see the point in officially reporting it lol