War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked

[TheMeInTeam]

Based on the following conversation line:

Spoiler

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserJohan View Post

So larger countries means each individual province costs less in warscore? if so, SWEET JESUS!

That is already the case (and has been since release), it's just visible now.

I'm...a bit surprised to read you saying this actually. It isn't true.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...s-Don-t-Scale-with-Large-Countries&highlight=

Until patch 1.5, the peace cost from taking provinces was capped at ~400%, so if you fought Ming in 1444, you could take a ton of provinces initially, then fewer as they became smaller. Patch 1.6 *removed* this, and it is *not* the case in 1.6 or 1.7.

Patch 1.6 is also the patch that (erroneously) claimed that peace costs scale down against coalitions. In reality, patch 1.6 and 1.7 have removed all scaling entirely.

Now, from my posted bug thread:

Keeping in mind that:

- Province scaling changes of this nature were not documented in 1.6 patch notes, aside from the erroneous claim that they scale with coalitions
- Obidobi was the first person associated with PI to acknowledge the change whatsoever, 1 month after the bug report, and stating quite clearly it was intentional.

Was it not intentional after all? No matter how you slice it, these messages aren't consistent :/.

The wiki on this has not changed since 1.5 and should be considered inaccurate: http://www.eu4wiki.com/War_score#Province_cost

You're incorrect, TheMeInTeam. Scaling was tweaked but not removed. Province warscore costs have been tweaked for 1.8, especially for local trade power as ICoTs, Estuaries and such are far too expensive to take in 1.7.

I decided to test it. Here are the results with some quick console cheats to make sure we win:





So, technically, Wiz is correct this time (unlike the time he told me that neighbor bonus still went to 25% in 1.6, which it did *not* do ). However, you can also see why I concluded there is no scaling as of 1.6. That is because FUNCTIONALLY, there is no scaling of significance as of patch 1.6. The difference between literally over 100 base tax in provinces + multiple important centers of trade:

Spoiler

Is 1% war score out of 14. There is no nation that begins the game larger or richer than Ming, costing 1112% war score. After reducing the war score cost by 816%, the cost of a province is 1% different. It might be around 4-5% on those 50+% war score provinces. Maybe. But maybe there's some difference still between a 300% country and a sub-100% country?



NOPE.jpg

Scaling was tweaked but not removed

Courtesy of dictionary.com:

Tweak: to make a minor adjustment to:
"to tweak a computer program."

Come on man. 400% war score to 1112% war score is not a "tweak". This province is consistently costing what, ~6-7 times what it used to cost? The single largest nation in the game will likely not even take 1 extra war less to conquer as a result of this "scaling". That isn't a "tweak" to large nation war score scaling, it's functionally eliminating any significance it once had.

If you're bringing it back to a degree, then great! However, let's not be dishonest or misleading about what actually happened. There is a GOOD REASON people didn't think it existed any longer. In the current implementations of patch 1.6 and 1.7, the scaling you receive might as well not be there for all the utility it carries. Even a united HRE would barely give a discount.

 

[Wizzington]

It's not exactly a debunking if you conclude that you were incorrect.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not exactly a debunking if you conclude that you were incorrect.

Is that the best you can say about this though, really? It's not like you're 100% correct about parameter values all the time either.

But what if I were to claim...that I was debunking your assertion that it was..."tweaked" ? If we want to be technical for fun, of course! Can this hold up to the scrutiny of "minor change" ^_^?

Edit:

The threshold for debunking your claim is not to prove I am correct, but rather that your statement isn't correct. However, this thread also clearly demonstrates the reality of the scaling change, which many probably aren't aware of.

You know, because it was never actually documented.

You can certainly debunk my claim of "no scaling" in reverse (though I've actually admitted this now), if that will somehow help .

 

[AurochsAway]

It's not exactly a debunking if you conclude that you were incorrect.

It'd be nice if it had been conveyed to QA that the idea there was no more scaling was incorrect rather than have us thinking it's correct. Can the details of the scaling changes be included in the 1.8 patchnotes?

 

[Outrider]

I was going to make a comment in the dev diary thread that if it was a relative 1% for each 100% WS, it would still be there technically but would be functionally removed.

Looking at your test, that might not have been far off.

 

[lucaluca]

yawns* more conquest easier conquest * yawns

The current scaling is fine with me, especially since adm eff makes things ridiculous

 

[TheMeInTeam]

yawns* more conquest easier conquest * yawns

The current scaling is fine with me, especially since adm eff makes things ridiculous

The purpose of this thread is to show the absurdity of the statement and make clear what's happening now. These kinds of situations are outside your range of experience anyway, are they not ?

 

[lucaluca]

The purpose of this thread is to show the absurdity of the statement and make clear what's happening now. These kinds of situations are outside your range of experience anyway, are they not ?

yes, voluntarily

 

[kitemasaki]

The purpose of this thread is to show the absurdity of the statement and make clear what's happening now. These kinds of situations are outside your range of experience anyway, are they not ?

i think its good that themeinteam spots some of these things out. the developers can sometimes miss things or not realize that a modifier or even typo is getting passed them. thats the purpose of these forums, to sometimes enhance or 'fix' gameplay.
its good to see that scaling really doesnt exist anymore so we at least can plan our conquests with that in mind. if scaling really is supposed to be there, maybe they should fix it?

 

[Hakuromatsu]

So, technically, Wiz is correct this time

(unlike the time he told me that neighbor bonus still went to 25% in 1.6, which it did *not* do ).

It's hard to unconditionally admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Also, lol:

However, let's not be dishonest or misleading about what actually happened.

War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I came in here expecting TheMeInTeam to use a whole lot of doublespeak to try and make Wiz look wrong, and was not disappointed.

 

[mcmanusaur]

It's not exactly a debunking if you conclude that you were incorrect.

Without making any statement either way regarding this particular issue, "debunked" is without doubt one of the most widely abused words on the internet.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Come on guys, TheMeInTeam is *functionally* right. Even if there is technically a tiny bit of scaling (emphasis on tiny), practically there is no scaling. To maintain that there is still scaling, but it was tweaked, is more doublespeak than anything TheMeInTeam has claimed. In fact, it's easy to understand his original claim that there was no scaling, because without a massive difference in country size, there's no noticeable effect at all.

 

[Junuxx]

i think its good that themeinteam spots some of these things out. the developers can sometimes miss things or not realize that a modifier or even typo is getting passed them. thats the purpose of these forums, to sometimes enhance or 'fix' gameplay.
its good to see that scaling really doesnt exist anymore so we at least can plan our conquests with that in mind. if scaling really is supposed to be there, maybe they should fix it?

Sure, but wouldn't a different tone be more constructive?

 

[itsuart]

Experiment by the op shows that WS scaling is so negligible, that it could be safely assumed inexistent. You certainly don't want rely on it in your games.
But let's ignore those dull facts and concentrate on wording. Linguistics, you know. Fascinating thing.

 

[Peachrocks]

Sure, but wouldn't a different tone be more constructive?

The tone would be constructive if y'know, they actually realized these things annoyed people and made them not want to play their game. Things such as undocumented changes, confusing mechanics and UI that lies to you as well as inconsistencies and bugs that even THEY don't understand...

Normally I'm all for being constructive, but the biggest reason I don't come here is because I believe in not saying anything if you don't have anything nice to say.

Being nice has clearly gotten TMIT and myself nowhere. So his response? Make fun of them... because there's absolutely no chance this will get changed amongst other unpopular gamey mechanics and no compromises for other community dividers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's hard to unconditionally admit you're wrong, isn't it?

Also, lol:

I didn't put a condition on being wrong. I was incorrect...though of course I tested this, posted it anyway, and admitted my mistake, demonstrating a much MUCH higher standard than, for example, what happened with unit exile in 1.6.

But this thread was dedicated to call something else out.

War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked

I absolutely did debunk his little "tweak" claim, unless you want to argue the definition of that term. The way this change was handled in 1.6 was asinine, and to see the claim that this "scaling has been in the game since the start, it's just visible now" rubs salt in it. After all that, to call me out in that thread on a technicality that is extremely difficult to observe outside of careful side-by-side scrutiny of separate games, all while knowing that this change was made + its nature and *never* mentioning it in the patch notes?

This might strike you as surprising, but I'm not a saint...yet the road I'm taking here is somehow still the high one...in the relative sense. I admitted I was wrong in any capacity whatsoever, after all.

I came in here expecting TheMeInTeam to use a whole lot of doublespeak to try and make Wiz look wrong, and was not disappointed.

Just because I was slightly off on the nature of pseudo scaling doesn't mean Wiz wasn't objectively wrong. I do like the 1-sided nature of the though. Each of us say something demonstrably false (though in my case, it's a bit harder to demonstrate, and I'm the one who tested it against myself!), I admit it and call out the other false statement(s), and then I get hit with a pathetic ad-hominem ^_^. Since you can't see me, just pretend I'm pointing and laughing.

Without making any statement either way regarding this particular issue, "debunked" is without doubt one of the most widely abused words on the internet.

It's terrific click bait, too.

To maintain that there is still scaling, but it was tweaked, is more doublespeak than anything TheMeInTeam has

It's not double speak. It's flat-out inaccurate. Altering a mechanic extensively to the order that it is many times less effective and difficult to even observe is not a "tweak" and will not fit any definition you can find of that term anywhere .

In fact, it's easy to understand his original claim that there was no scaling, because without a massive difference in country size, there's no noticeable effect at all.

And on top of that, it was undocumented. Wiz's claim was the first mention of a mechanic change to province scaling by a developer (in patch notes or otherwise) since the change was implemented, several months ago. The first time anybody with PI even acknowledged it was over a month after, linked in OP.

Sure, but wouldn't a different tone be more constructive?

If it were the first time, or even the 5th time (Rebels, neighbor bonus, power projection/rivalry, protectorates in their release state, change to stab hits on peace deals in 1.7) we've seen something like this, maybe. Considering the original tone in question...hmm. Well, I suppose you can hold me to a higher standard though I really haven't given any reason to merit being held to such standard haha.

 

[rmc]

TMIT forget about it. In this game, if you are able to plan a proper strategy with documented *features* you are using an exploit.

 

[yonderTheGreat]

Sure, but wouldn't a different tone be more constructive?

Being constructive isn't important. What's IMPORTANT is that "tweaked" was more wrong than "not removed" was correct, and so therefore TMIT wins the Pedant of the Day Award.

Also... I'm being sarcastic. Also, it's interesting to learn the specific numbers and the changes.

And, also, yes... it would be nice to have the specifics in the patchnotes. I'm gonna go play more EU4 now! THANKS!

 

[RHKINC]

Perhaps scaling should be worked to have the following result:

Often times in history large empires had frequently shifting zones of control along their borders; particularly with trade influence shifting to more localized neighbors. Especially Ming, since that was used as the lab rat here, had frequently changing periods of control ebb and flow in Central Asia along the Silk Road. I think any adjustments to this should make it cheaper for small nations to grab chunks of large nations, perhaps with different values for different tech groups. Thus a Western France in 1800 shouldn't be losing a province cheaply to a one province upstart Luxembourg with the help of the Empire; but Muslim tech group Mamluk should be able to cheaply lose a province to, say, a rump state Ethiopia if such a war ensues. This could provide punishments, hopefully small ones, for large nations over-extending themselves before they are ready. It also gives the under dogs a better shot at survival; which historically did happy throughout Africa and India and Southeast Asia, small states lasted a very long time.

Edit: Also it is a bit annoying to be a small nation such as Korea facing the Ming and having to siege all of Eastern Asia before getting a decent peace deal.

I have no idea what the context of the interpersonal relationships are that led to this; nor do I care. I just want the best game possible and I think we're all interested in attaining that.