Is growth scale must in a long game?

Joonie73 · #1 December 16th, 2003, 08:51 AM

See topic.

Wendigo · #2 December 16th, 2003, 09:33 AM

It sure helps.

You can alternatively have a neutral/negative scale & play very agressively.

SurvivalistMerc · #3 December 16th, 2003, 03:45 PM

LOL, Saxon...I know how you feel.

I have come to the conclusion that a neutral growth scale is useful for nations with powerful military units. Because it takes a massive army to invade them...and that massive army will start to starve, reducing its morale and possibly giving it diseases.

To keep my own troops from starving, I use nature forges like endless bags of wine. Nature is very easy to get into, even for nations that don't start with it due to the massive number of druid and jade sorceress sites.

The percentage your population grows is somewhat small. But I agree that it would come in handy in a long game.

I'm quite new myself...these are just some thoughts. My next project: Make iron faith ulm work. I think I may have figured it out, but I'm not sure.

Graeme Dice · #4 December 16th, 2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Saxon:
Can any other nation get away with poor growth? What about the Ice and Fire races, can they try to make the entire world poor and get away with the reduced income themselves?

Ice and fire races do not get decreased income from their ideal temperature. They only get their maximum income when the temperature is at the ideal point.

RadiantFleet · #5 December 16th, 2003, 06:55 PM

I find a strong growth scale helpful but not neccisary in a long game. Basicly, in later game their are a lot of ways to raise money (gift of nature's bounty, direct conVersion of gem to cash, etc.). Don't forget that their are other economies than money. You can use blood summons (once again growth helps, but is not required) for units, magic summons, well equiped hoards of leaders, lots of combos work.

I tend to like growth, high province defences with a couple of nodal armies for conquest and destruction of invading armies, but don't get locked into the idea that their is one optimum way to play. Also, sometimes your strategy can change by finding a really cool site early in the game that makes other strategies attractive.

ywl · #6 December 16th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joonie73:
See topic.

Good scales are always useful but it's always a matter of trade off.

I think that each tick on growth give 0.2% of population increase - right? If so, even at Growth -3, your population decrease is only 26% after 50 turns, quite a long time in an normal MP game. The loss is significant but not too devastating, especially since you get 120 nation points out of it. The income bonus from Growth scale is actually more significant than the population death.

You can do well enough with Growth 0 in most cases, and save the points for something else.

Jasper · #7 December 16th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Growth +3 will give you a significant income boost in a long game all other things being usefull, but it's slow enough that spending those 120 points on something usefull early is probably at least as good.

Growth +3 is certainly no where near as mandatory as Order +3 and Misfortune +3, which is both more powerfull and cheaper.

Saxon · #8 December 17th, 2003, 02:00 AM

My friends the undead are not so fond of this one, so they will not need growth.

Can any other nation get away with poor growth? What about the Ice and Fire races, can they try to make the entire world poor and get away with the reduced income themselves? Sometimes I wish I did not have a job, I lose so much valuable playing time! I want to try some things.

Graeme Dice · #9 December 17th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
Growth +3 is certainly no where near as mandatory as Order +3 and Misfortune +3, which is both more powerfull and cheaper. [/QB]

I never take misfortune 3 if I don't absolutely have to, as I don't want the really bad events to have any chance of happening. The most destructive ones only happen at misfortune 3, so I simply remove the possibility altogether by never going over 2.

Treebeard · #10 December 17th, 2003, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I never take misfortune 3 if I don't absolutely have to, as I don't want the really bad events to have any chance of happening. The most destructive ones only happen at misfortune 3, so I simply remove the possibility altogether by never going over 2.

What are those? I certainly get hit by a bunch of nasty effects with lucky 3...