Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, that depends (as so much does) more on the level of experience of the player, and the circumstances of a given game, than it does the particular event in question.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Well, otherwise what would be stopping you from putting all of your gold in the "bank" every turn and becoming immune to gold-reducing events?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

A penatly for "early withdrawal" perhaps? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

You mean like putting 500 gold into recruiting knights, then taking them back 4 turns later because you need the gold for something else? Doesnt that escape harsh events? I do that alot. Not for that reason, but just because I have a crappy memory on where the knights were available. My "bank" is any province with knights, elephants, cavemen, shamblers, trolls.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

So, there's no real way besides Gandalf's somewhat unsatisfying solution to "have the willpower to save gold for a rainy day".

I still think the game would be well served with a more advanced economic structure, but clearly it's a good idea in any game to purchase several labs and temples as a top priority regardless of your Luck scale, as the game currently stands.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Why is that unsatisfying?
The only alternatives I can think of would be a bank that holds it, or maybe the ability to create/uncreate items such as fire gems. Anything I can think of doesnt strike me as being preferable to creating expensive long-term units where you would at least get something back for leaving your investment there over time (I dont see dom banks paying interest).

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

While the talk about banking is rather amusing, I think it's also somewhat beside the point.

Personally, I think GP's idea of a more quantified scale of events has a great deal of merit. And yes, I do think there should be a 'no random events whatsoever' point on that scale. Clearly, that would make the Luck scale be worthless in-game. A further option would be to have a 'luck quality' scale in addition to a 'luck quantity' scale. In this case, the luck scale cost would be a function of the 'quality' and not the 'quantity'. (After all, currently we can change the quantity of events and that does not change the overall value of the Luck scale.)

Personally, I find myself taking Order3 Luck3 a lot in games. Yes, it's a lot of points, but I despise negative events, and this is the setting that absolutely minimizes the chance of a bad event. Giving me an option to remove random events (and the accompanying scale) from the game would actually increase my options for playing, which can only be a good thing.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

I agree with the order3, luck3 combo. Good scales with a nation who has poor or non-existant sacreds is a excellent strategy. Some of my MP's are very funny at the moment, alot of players are taking double/triple bless who means they have appalling scales. So rather than fight them I sign a 3 turn warning non-aggression pact and just develop/build in peace while there own dominion destroys them. Its amusing as my scouts pick up yet another province that has been attacked/revolted etc...

However I love the entire luck/misfortune mehanic it really spices the game up and reduces predictablity.

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

Gandalf, by "unsatisfying" I mean "artificially imposed". Your method no doubt does work, but it doesn't work in a way that is logical or meaningful. It only works because the program is written in a certain way, not because there's some kind of "Knights of the Order of the Grasping Usury" do you see what I mean?

Re: It\'d make a reasonable game configuration opti
 

When I asked about strategy I wasn't trying to critizise it, just trying to figure out how you got into the situation.

How do you get your income so low? With a high fire gem income, so you've obviously taken provinces. You said another bad event had trashed your capital income, but what about other provinces? (And if that was the plague you mentioned earlier, that's "lose 1/5th population", not "down to 1/5th" right? Bad, but hardly no income?)
Really bad other scales? Turmoil? Sloth?

Without some idea how you got there, I can't see how this is such a problem. Other than maybe AE Ermor/Dreamlands R'lyeh, I've never seen a position where I wouldn't be able to afford a lab in a turn, 2 at most if I had another income loss event.