War Score Scaling with Nation Size - Debunked

[The-King]

yawns* more conquest easier conquest * yawns

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

*YAWNS* Because Speed 5 peace mechanics are SOOOOOOO exciting. *YAWNS*


Anyways, When I first experienced the change to warscore scaling I was happy because back in 1.5 you could take provinces from super huge nations for like 1-2% per warscore, which was stupid. It's a huge problem in late-game multiplayer because destroying nations becomes possible after two wars - which meant you couldn't lose 1 war or you were just dead. The warscore change was a good thing going into multiplayer so you didn't have the threat of losing one war and giving up 30 provinces. But it became overboard when the truce mechanics were changed making conquest very slow and much more boring. I'd say they were decent ideas for the situation in version 1.5, but together they're horrible - especially for SP.

 

[Blindbohemian]

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

That's not really a sufficient response.

 

[Ivashanko]

This topic has all the makings of a classic!

Anyways, these changes should be much better documented than they currently are. I think that is one of the main issues here.

 

[grumphie]

*grabs popcorn*

this is promising to be intresting

OT though, hwat would that mean for WS on, say, 5 provinces comapred to the max? because i dont think WS scalign is going to(or even should) matter a lot on one province, but i can imagine it saving you a significant amount of cost if you take a few provinces.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

*grabs popcorn*

this is promising to be intresting

OT though, hwat would that mean for WS on, say, 5 provinces comapred to the max? because i dont think WS scalign is going to(or even should) matter a lot on one province, but i can imagine it saving you a significant amount of cost if you take a few provinces.

You're looking at 1-2% saved per province, but only if your target has ~1000% war score.

If you pretend it doesn't exist, it will likely never materially affect the outcome of your wars compared to knowing it.

 

[Peachrocks]

That's not really a sufficient response.

It's not only sufficient it shows Wiz didn't read/understand what was posted at all much like everyone else who jumped all aboard the 'burn the heretic TMIT' train just because he said the words he was wrong. Never mind the fact that thing he was wrong about is so insignificant nobody would or HAS noticed it.

Compared to Wiz who outright denied removing a feature that changes conquering somebody from 4-6 wars to 10-12 wars, ON top of extended truce times. Yeah... let's protect big nations guys... because somebody else in a multiplayer environment totally wouldn't declare war on a weakened power and the powers at the start are perfectly even too aren't they *Sarcasm*

Yeah TMIT deliberately draws the ire of people with thread titles like this, you have me to blame for the blessing/curse for introducing him to the game but really, I just want a solid strategy game to play and there hasn't been one in a long long time.

 

[misterbean]

I'm going to sound like a total noob here, but the term 'scaling' somehow confuses me. It means that, the bigger a country is, the less WS you need per province in the peace deal, right?
And is OP claiming that this is not the case (i.e. demanding Poitou would cost the same, no matter the size of France)?

 

[GabbyDieJaeger]

Oh my, the amount of semantics in this topic is ridiculous. Yes, warscore scaling does exist, but functionally, for all intents and purposes, it does not, which is a pity, because this sort of thing obviously benefits blobs far more than any other sort of nation, and again seems geared towards the vocal multiplayer community as opposed to the majority singleplayer community.
I recommend that warscore scaling is brought back, and honestly I would quite like a reworking of the warscore system in favour of stronger OE, rebel, and AE mechanics. After all, the main problem that nations had with expansion was the difficulty of administering new territory effectively and efficiency, not some arbitary random number declaring that they had taken "too much".

 

[pingouin2ter]

You were wrong.
You were told so.
You carried out your test that proved that you were wrong.

I only see personal attack and imprecation in this thread.

 

[grumphie]

You were wrong.
You were told so.
You carried out your test that proved that you were wrong.

I only see personal attack and imprecation in this thread.

that'd be fair if it actually scaled in any normal degree.

this is a few % on a nation the size of ming, you would barely notice this against a full grown russia or france.

 

[Path]

No doubt the backlash would've been more moderated had the title not read like some sensationalist tabloid headline, semantics or not. That said, I didn't think scaling existed either (and given the evidence it might as well not for all the difference it makes).

 

[AurochsAway]

No doubt the backlash would've been more moderated had the title not read like some sensationalist tabloid headline, semantics or not. That said, I didn't think scaling existed either (and given the evidence it might as well not for all the difference it makes).

Considering we were told that scaling was removed in the Bug Forum I think quite a few people did.

 

[stevefs]

I'm going to sound like a total noob here, but the term 'scaling' somehow confuses me. It means that, the bigger a country is, the less WS you need per province in the peace deal, right?
And is OP claiming that this is not the case (i.e. demanding Poitou would cost the same, no matter the size of France)?

Yes. TMIT's test was on Dali to be taken from Ming at full size and then at greatly reduced size. The war score cost changed by 1% in 1.7. TMIT did not provide a comparison test in 1.5 ( which is still available in the Steam Betas) where the predicted war score cost of Dali against full size ming would be 1-2% and the same 12%-ish for reduced Ming that we see now.

 

[zodium]

It's not only sufficient it shows Wiz didn't read/understand what was posted at all much like everyone else who jumped all aboard the 'burn the heretic TMIT' train just because he said the words he was wrong. Never mind the fact that thing he was wrong about is so insignificant nobody would or HAS noticed it.

Compared to Wiz who outright denied removing a feature that changes conquering somebody from 4-6 wars to 10-12 wars, ON top of extended truce times. Yeah... let's protect big nations guys... because somebody else in a multiplayer environment totally wouldn't declare war on a weakened power and the powers at the start are perfectly even too aren't they *Sarcasm*

Yeah TMIT deliberately draws the ire of people with thread titles like this, you have me to blame for the blessing/curse for introducing him to the game but really, I just want a solid strategy game to play and there hasn't been one in a long long time.

This is a pretty solid strategy game by any measure of "solid." It's so solid, even people who ostensibly hate the game and think the developers are incompetent liars, like TMIT, can't stop thinking and posting about it!

 

[dskod1]

Question: can the warscore per province scaling be modded in the defines? If not I think it should be added there so people can just change it themselves. Not that that ever solves things but better than nothing.

 

[Red John]

But...

But why?

 

[Novacat]

Anyways, these changes should be much better documented than they currently are. I think that is one of the main issues here.

I am actually starting to think that major gameplay changes are kept deliberately hidden from the community precisely to avoid massive forum discussions like this one.

 

[Chevaresqye]

I am actually starting to think that major gameplay changes are kept deliberately hidden from the community precisely to avoid massive forum discussions like this one.

Good, now we have game developer become NSA-like entity and player does not have the right to know what was changed in their software.

 

[Novacat]

On the flipside, the consumer is not obligated to purchase any future titles from Paradox. Paradox built its reputation on not being douchebags to the community.

 

[correctamundo]

Good, now we have game developer become NSA-like entity and player does not have the right to know what was changed in their software.

Just when one thought that the arguments couldn't get any lower ;-).