Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

[Baalz]

Well, I think the issue is not so much with the "dude, that sucks!" events such as a cursed pretender, temple or lab burning down, or several turns of unrest in your capitol. Its more with the things that there is no way to prevent, no way to mitigate, and pretty much make it impossible to come back from. Its just a random roll of the die and you're out of the game regardless of anything you could have possibly done even if you knew it was coming. Strong indy's attacking (Bogus!), and big population killing events are about the only things I can think of that fit that category for me. Everything else fits more into the flavor category- sure it may make the difference in a very competitive game but that's always gonna be the case if you have any radom events at all.

On the luck side of the scale, I don't really see the same issue. There are no events that if you get them, basically ensure you a victory. It's not even close to the impact that one of the catostrophic events will have early in the game- Game Over Dude!

[HoneyBadger]

That's why I'd like to see it delayed a few years, because we're talking things that depend on the strategy you're attempting-if you're LA Ermor and all your pop dies, 100% in the first year, not a really big deal.

If Bogus attacks a province with really strong PD like Abyssia, you've got a good chance of repelling him, same thing with vampire counts.

I wouldn't want those events removed from the game by any means, but definitely a delaying factor on atleast some of them, and you're right about the good events. You could get 3000 gold etc on turn 2 and it doesn't mean you're going to win-it helps a lot, but it's not a certain thing. Again, if you're LA Ermor, not so much of a big deal.

Alternative to my previous suggestion is this possibility:

I'd be happy if-instead of 3 years with no catastrophies-you got 1 year with no good or bad luck events if you choose 0 luck. That would make Luck 0 a strategic choice instead of just a default, which is nice.

Then you could further the same restriction against those with Luck positive or Misfortune positive. Luck positive means no bad luck events for that many years, while Misfortune positive means no good luck for that many years, then it defaults to the current situation.

[Maltrease]

I like your suggestion HoneyBadger. But maybe luck 0... is exactly the default we have now. Luck 1 would be no bad events for a year.

I also think that luck should be completely uncoupled from the order scale. None of the other scales are reduced or enchanced in effectiveness by a selection in a different scale.

[HoneyBadger]

I prefer Luck 0 as having a year off of both, because otherwise, why would I ever choose Luck 0? Luck 0 should be a strategic option, but if it's just the same as Misfortune 1 or Luck 1 as far as solving the problem at hand, then why choose it?

[Gandalf Parker]

I wouldnt say that none overlap. The conversations about order often overlap with growth for maximum preferred effect. And growth with temperature.

On the luck 0:
it seems that taking no +/- should be the natural real world default of some good and some bad. That feels right but the problem with that thinking is that then +3 would be "no bad for x turns" and -3 becomes "no good for x turns". Id have to think about that.

It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns.

Maybe it could be that all settings get no events at all, good or bad, for x turns. But then the X would have to be small enough to not have to monstrous an effect on small-map blitzes. I dont like game suggestions that seem to think that all games are small-map blitzes but I also dont want to ignore that many MANY games are that type.

[HoneyBadger]

"It could be that luck 0 is no events at all good or bad for x turns. That also would seem that +3 means no bad for x turns, and -3 becomes no good for x turns."

I think that's exactly what I'm saying, Gandalf, although not in the exact words by any means. As per Luck 0 being the default of that-no good and no bad events for x amount of turns, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I think I suggested something of the sort up there too

Thanks a lot.

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry, I was just trying to gather my stand on it from what all I had read.
But also, I think that might be what we already have. Though it might be as short as a 3 turn safety. I havent tested it lately.

[HoneyBadger]

Nothing to be sorry about, I just wasn't sure if you were confused or not about what I was saying.

It's definitely not 3 turns, I've had bad things happen on turn 2.

[alexti]

Micah said:
Given that scenario I have to question either the quality of your opponents or the quality of the respective nations...I don't care how good you are, no one should be able to take 2 opponents on at once after cripplingly bad events, especially with a self-inflicted poor strategy.

I think you're making wrong conclusions. Opponents were pretty good. My strategy was quite decent too. It was simply wrong - I expected to encounter uber-bless, but neither of my opponents didn't play it, so I ended up with relatively useless pretender and bunch of spells researched that weren't useful in particular situation. Another important point is that opposition doesn't generally consider destroying you as their own purpose. They have to be concerned with other nations getting stronger. Skirmishes in the early game is one thing, but a major war is a risky undertaking: if you can't win in fast, you're likely to end up in a poor position very soon. So as long as you're able to inflict (or at least convince them that you can inflict) serious damage on the opponents they will typically be satisfied by minor successes. After all they're following their grand plan and it's unlikely that they've built their strategy around you (their neighbour) having unlucky start.

[HoneyBadger]

Luck 1, year 2, Abyssia, lab destroyed. Because of an early luck event, I have no income coming in, and because of the strategy I'm playing, no realistic ability to generate income, and 2500g worth of mages are essentially worthless for X amount of turns.