I can't figure out how this system really works...

For instance, I have a EP ratio with Joao II of 4755 : 7662 in my favour. However, the costs to perform the missions are 124%! :eek:

With nearly all the other civs I have a poorer ratio of EPs spent to them, and yet the costs to perform spy missions are all under 100%...

What gives? How does this system work...?

Cheers

Does he have any security bureaus?

I have noticed this too and was wondering. But I think maybe it's because he performed counter-espionage missions against you, which increases the cost of your missions against him by 100 or 200% or something like that for a certain number of turns...

the system is kind of a silly thing of spiraling costs that all just cancel each other out in a way... what if you perform counter-espionage against him at the same time? it's like everyone has to keep doing this to keep things in balance, otherwise you take the chance of being left behind. crazyiness :)

Does he have any security bureaus?


Shouldn't have anything to do with Security Bureaus. They only give EPs and help thwart spies, they don't do anything to the cost.

It's bizarre. It's almost as if they've got it the wrong way round.

screenshot, please. Also remember that there are other modifiers (distance, religion, etc. . .).

It is quite complicated but it was explained in a thread I read in the past, posting from there:



The ratio is not related to the "extra cost" (percentage) of the missions - this percentage is connected to the total amount of espionage points invested by the players in every other civs (not the amount actually spent, but the spent + saved for later use). If you have more invested points in every other civs (spent + saved) than the opponent, your percentage will be less than 100% (cheaper) and vice-versa.

I don't know yet if there are more factors that influence the "extra cost".

The raw cost of the missions is affected by the ratio between the two civs and the amount they have invested in each other.

Example:
- Civ A: Total invested (spent + saved) points in the game towards all civs: 100; Total saved points towards Civ B: 20
- Civ B: Total invested (spent + saved) points in the game towards all civs: 80; Total saved points towards Civ A: 30

Raw cost analysis: The raw cost of Civ A missions against Civ B will be higher than the opposite, because ratio = 30/20 (Civ B has more points saved towards Civ A). If the amount of points of Civ B was higher, the ratio would be e.g. 40/20 and the raw cost for Civ A would be even higher.

Cost modifier analysis: Civ A will have a negative modifier on the raw cost of it's missions (<100%, lower cost) because it has more points invested towards all civs than Civ B (100 vs. 80). Civ B will have a positive modifier (>100%, higher cost).

One would presume that the "total invested" values are used for the graph, under the Demographics screen, but unless you kept track of your gains and spends cumulatively you won't know how much your total investment is. The computer knows, bless it, but won't tell you.
However, the crucial point is how much a mission will cost now, rather than how that figure was calculated. Sufficient to say that generating more EPs than your opponents makes missions cheaper, which is pretty obvious.

Thanks for the information oedali. Makes sense now. :)