Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I use mainly the oni when playing as yomi, and the bakemono are more like special forces. So I would always take sloth when playing yomi.

Keep in mind that all the nations I listed were supposed to be playable with both sloth 3 and a combination of order3/luck3. Mictlan is probably the hardest to fit into that category with their bless requirements, but with order 3 they can take a little less dominion, since they should be able to fort up pretty quickly.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Yes, that's why I wondered about Mictlan in this list, but not about Yomi or monkey nations. But maybe - as with Order/Luck they should have money for castles and can take less extreme bless probably - just using sacreds together with massed slingers...

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Yeah, that was the thought. It might make more sense to say ma mictlan specifically, since they are not as likely to be doing heavy bloodhunting, so the order scales would have more benefit.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

well, MA Mictlan works perfectly fine with O3L3, for EA and LA Mictlan T3L3 is a no brainer...

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I disagree completely. Using Turmoil3 Luck 3 for EA/LA mictlan needs consideration.

It is not that Mictlan can't be played that way - it can.
I prefer O3 L-2 for mictlan. Mictlan needs to expand as FAST as possible to get a commanding advantage in the early to mid game. This is best accomplished by fort/temple production.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I've checked all threads about order/luck, but still can't understand all mechanics. What is a base % of probability that event will happen this turn? What basic % that it will be good? Does it depend on amount of provinces?

IS there was such a thing as a "basic" probability of event and we knew base prob.for good/bad events, than we could measure the value of each luck scale increase by doing a sum of each event output with taking to account it's probability: (gold value/gems event brings)*probability

I also so somewhere someone made a test, comparing output from 2 different order/luck combination during 100 turns. Could anyone point me to this?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

the 100 turn test is not going to be enough data base anything on, you need a lot more data points then that to draw a reasonable average.

if anything going the other direction: a hard-crunch of event probabilities factoring with average good/gem/unit gain or loss seem best, modified by events certain combo like death scale will unlock. Using Edi's event list as a base is a good start.

Note: The following includes a lot of my own assumption and extrapolation/ answer I got from various posts in this forum. I have not code-dived or tested these assumptions (Not that I'd know how), please feel free (and please do) to correct me if you see any wrong assumption on mechanics, I'd love to know.

Relevant to the hard crunch method: The more province you have the more events happens (the event generation goes through all your province until a max of 3-4 events have been generated. So having 10 provinces will generate 1 event check for each province for a total of 10, increasing effect of luck/misfortune until you consistently get 3-4 events a turn, also note that if an event is generated, the same province gets to do another event check i think, since I've seen 2-3 events on a single province assuming I didn't hallucinate).

Finally, the local luck at each province is a huge factor, even if you have luck +3, if most of your province are under enemy dominion with misfortune scale, your essentially wasting your luck scale. E.g. if you have 10 province, 4 of which has +3 luck, 6 of which has -2 misfortune from enemy dominion, 4 of your event check will get +3 luck bonus while other other 6 gets -2. Also note that you do not get +luck scales if it has enemy dominion on the same province. This is another often overlooked downside to using luck scale, having to keep your dominion up in order to use it, whereas for misfortune scale you could care less if enemy dominion brings you negative luck (hell you may even get neutral luck out of your opponent's positive luck scales).

For the hard-crunch, I think using one solo province as base is best. Things we need to know before we can do it is the base event occurence chance and good/bad event chance. I assume the good/bad event base chance is 50/50, and say if the base event occurence chance is 20% (made-up number), we have a good start. Next thing we need to know is actual % in Edi's event list, as there are rarity 1 and 2 events (2 being the rarer), what is the ratio of rarity 2 event vs rarity 1 event? (I've wanted to know this for the magic site too for a long time) Say rarity 1 event is 4 times as common as rarity 2, we can now calculate the average pay out of any given scales given a single province. 20% event chance -> 50/50 good/bad event list -> 80% rarity 1 20% rarity 2 event -> mix in modifiers like luck/turmoil scales.

If someone can give me those base % chances, I'd be happy to crunch out average pay out under some common scenarios, i envision it something like this:

3T3L3G3M scale - 48% event occurence, avg payout: 132.2 gold, 12.7 fire/water gem, 2.3 slaves ...etc, 6%heroes, 3.1% free units, 1.7% artifact lvl 2...etc

3O1G2U1M scale - ...etc

It'll be very rough calculation to be sure due to the extreme randomness and various factors like dominion / province # in an actual game, but useful nonetheless for reference.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

The idea main goal I want to reach is to measure the value of each step of luck scale, or just of each % of luck, basing on events which cause generation/loss of money/gems/items. Ignoring raiding events and other, which are impossible to compare with something.


So, our forumla is:
(number of events in EDI's DB with rarity-2)*(probability of event with rarity-2)+the same for rarity(-1,1,2)= 10% for 1 check. (based on 1 , capital province, was not tested on many provinces).

Squirellord believes that there are 4 independent checks per turn (4 is a limit of events you can have per turn). Each of them is independent from each other.

So 1 check gives 10% of event, 4 checks gave him about average 36% (24 events during 64 turns).
If we knew absolute probabilities of each rarity, or just relative probabilities of rarity-1 to rarity-2, and we expect EDI's DB to be full,
we could get probability of each specific event. Which is a 99% of the way to calculate the value of each % of luck scale.

Then we could just take a sum of all output of all events which could be measured in gems or gold (including temple loss, etc), * each of them on it's probability and we will have some sum of gems and $. Which can be used as a base for farther calculations, and will let us compare luck and order.

It would be interesting to understand mechanics, mostly to simplify some decisions in certain situations, for example - is there any sense in luck scales in rich games, or O3 is mandatory, the absolute value of some heavy events which give you a lot or take a lot from you - is it worth to take special positive scales or avoid some negative to get rid of some events or to get some events.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

that's not enough information to derive the 10%...

1 province, 65 turns:
44 no event
18 1 event
3 2 events

This fits P(event) = 10%, checked 4 times independently, not too shabbily for only 65 turns.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

4 independent check sounds plausible, it would explain the 2-3 events in a single province I've observed.

For the 24 events during 64 turns data, were there any scale modifiers (turmoil, luck)? So it's game tested that 4x 10% base event occurence is about right?

I was thinking about grouping events into 4 pools: Rarity 1 good, R2 good, R1 bad, R2 bad and sum the output/loss for each pool, throw them into probability formula with base event occurence and we have an instant base output figure to play around with (I think that's what your saying also generally). Of course certain scales open and lock some events. Maybe set up an excel table to show probabilities under all scale scenarios...

Another thing I'm worried about is whether all rarity 1/2 event chance is equal, I've seen a lot more brigands or sharks event then any other rarity 1 events...

And we still need the probabilities for Rarity 1 : rarity 2 events to think about any calculations...

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

that was with totally neutral scales. I did not look at event quality.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

If you guys want to test certain scale combos, you can make a map where scale modding sites are assigned to all the provinces (Well of Pestilence for death, Strange Opening for misfortune, Temple of the Raging God for turmoil, Totem Poles for luck etc). Or you can just mod a new site that increases all the scales you want to test things with.

The good part about that is that modifying scales for testing with sites is going to cause no fluctuations due to dominion, since the effect is local to the province and always tilted toward that scale at 3. If you want to test a scale of less than one, then you need to use dominion for that.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

In Edi's db, there is a description of event:

poploss 20% (not killed, causes immigration event elsewhere)

What means elsewhere? Any neighboring province, or absolutely elsewhere?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I think that's a linked event, one province gets poploss "immigrate out" then there's also one in the same turn getting "immigrate in". If you score the immigrate in event, your pop gain is 20% of whatever the immigrate out province is. I've seen both end of the events, so I'm assuming this is how it works.

If you get lucky and there's an immigrate out event in enemy capital to one of your province, you can potential see up to 6K+ pop boost

I think the immigration is anywhere, not adjacent, as I got immigrate event in one of my provinces thats at the heart of my territories. Now if I can figure out some way to interrupt their migration and steal the pearls they use to teleport... Thats a lot of pearls :D

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

One more interesting question. There is a number of good events which can happen with you theoretically. For example, there are many which require Magic 2 (or at least Magic 2) scale. With Magic lower then M2, you have shorter list of possible good events. Does it mean you will have less good events? Or just it means that you will have the same number of events but from shorter list?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I'm guessing that having less variety of good event does not affect the chance of scoring a good event in the first place. eg. What you said on same number of events from shorter list.

I assume the mechanics to be:

1) event generation check
2) If event occur, roll good or bad
3) if event good, roll event from good list.
4) if event bad, roll event from bad list.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

my guess would be the province has a list of possible events, arranged from good to bad. It rolls a die (of some size) on this list, and permutes up or down based on luck/misfortune scale. So the number of good events vs. bad events in the list would matter. But i could be totally wrong.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I would defer to Squirrelloid for the actual mechanics in this case, he's undoubtably more familiar with Dom 3's mechanic pattern and quirks then I am, so his guess will likely be closer to how the designers coded it.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I wrote up a long post that seems to have gotten eaten.
But events seem to occur in clusters in provinces, far more than chance would indicate.

For example, I have gotten the *temple made, and temple destroyed events* in the same province, in the same turn.
Same things with labs.

This means that the events follow sequentially from each other.
Ie., events are not rolled randomly on a table and then applied.. its event 1 apply, event 2 apply et.c

I personally think it goes like this:

1. Determine number of events.
2. Randomly choose province for event
3. Determine what events can happen (scales etc).
4. Check each possible event see if it happens.
5. Still have events remaining.. go to 2.

I say this because very randomly in old versions you could get more than 4 events in a province. Which if you had a province with a lot of potential luck events, they might have missed the programming loop to check that (ie., only check at step 5 instead of step 4.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

1 is almost certainly wrong based on the data I have. If it predetermined the number of events, you'd be unlikely to see a binomial distribution (which you do see). (I mean, I suppose it could calculate the number of events based on a binomial distribution, but that doesn't seem like the kind of thing JK would have bothered to do. In fact, the only reason to do that is to fool people trying to figure out how events are generated.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I've also noticed that events clusters and tend to like certain provinces, often times I get events for the same province 50%+ of the time per turn over a year or so. I think it's easily observable, after two or so years holding 10+ province you should notice that certain province name pops up a lot more often, I usually end up memorizing where the province is base on the name for those that gets an event every other turn or so.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

how is rolling four times (step one) not binomial?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

The issue with this:
is that it would take the order/turmoil probability factor out of the equation, or use that of one predetermined province like the capital.
To test it, we'd have to put a capital with +3 order and another province with +3 turmoil and see
- if events are evenly balanced between the provinces
- if the overall probability of events is that of an order 3 province or an order 0.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

But why would you check that way if you're determining number of events all at once? It only makes sense to determine them independently if you're checking for the event after some other step 1. (Especially given what we know of JK's programming style)

In addition to the problem LDICaesare points out, your method also predicts that empire size has no effect on the number of events seen. I'm pretty sure this is wrong, but I haven't recorded data to test it specifically.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Because it's based on a %chance of events happening? I suppose you could come up with a complex formula to make the percent bonuses/penalties (from Luck/Misfortune or Order/Turmoil) meaningful, but it would seem easier to just use them multiple times.

On the other hand, the number of events does seem to scale with number of provinces.
On the gripping hand, it doesn't seem to scale at all linearly, which the check each province in turn would suggest.
I ran a test recently, after the discussion about events happening more frequently in low number provinces:
2 Nations on a 602 province map, provinces divided evenly. Both nations T3L3 Dom10. Temples in every province to push dominion up as fast as possible.

I'm not sure what it proves, but it doesn't seem to be checking provinces in order. Nor does the number of events scale up as fast as I'd expect. I didn't test smaller numbers of provinces, but you get 2 events regularly and 3 occasionally with much smaller empires (30-40 provinces?) If each province was checked independently, until a cap was hit, I'd expect a 300 province maxed out luck/turmoil empire to be hitting the cap regularly.

I also have a hazy memory of one of the developers saying that events were driven by the capital scales, but I wasn't able to find the post again. It was a long time ago.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

assuming independent province by province checks with neutral scales, a 300 province territory should have a .9^300 chance for each event not happening, which as you might imagine is vanishingly small. (10^-14)

Ok, so we need a new model. Chris's model doesn't have any effect for empire size, so that clearly isn't right.

thejeff, is that data listing provinces in the order the events happened?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Yes, the order they were listed in the messages.

Do we know the base chance? We certainly don't know what it means.

At least by the end of that test most provinces were T3L3, which should have boosted the chances by 36% (Do we know if that is +36 to the base percent chance, or an increase of 36% of the base chance? I'd always assumed the former...)

I can try to run more turns. See if the data changes.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I'm assuming its a % increase in base chance, because adding 36% is very clearly too large.

My tests suggest a 10% chance of an event for each of 4 independently calculated events. The distribution of events i saw matched such a binomial distribution. Of course, I only tested with one province, so it does leave open how it works with more provinces.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

From a design point of view, I would think that a diminishing effect on event frequency for additional province to be a reasonable design decision, along with some sort of cap. It looks like the event gen mechanic doesn't check for event province by province, but perhaps roll for whether an event happens, then roll where it occurs among your provinces, then select events up or down the event list base on local luck. The formula itself will probably account for province number as a factor in a diminishing formula, e.g. 4 rolls of "Occurence = 10% + (10% * (x/x+1))" where X is the # of province your have (disclaimer: this is not meant to guesstimate the actual formula, but show how a cap of 19.9999% event occurence in 4 checks might be implemented, along with adding in province # as a dimishing factor, the cap can easily be changed to other percentage).

It is also a reasonable mechanic for event gen formula may also make a 1st event more likely to occur then a 2nd event, though Squirreloid's testing seem to refute this.

Linear relationshop between event frequency and province # wouldn't make sense (Also refuted by thejeff's data, though more sample population would help as 10 turns of data is a bit low, it does however, show that something unintuitive is going on with event generation though)? We know that province # is likely factor from Squirreloid's test I think, as we do see a lot more then 36% event when we had more provinces, also Squirreloid have tested this for quite a few turns, so turn progression may not influence event chance (at least for a solo province). What other factor can account for thejeff's data where the event chance seem to pick up with no change in province #?

@thejeff
For your test, was your dominion spread covering all your provinces? Or was it just spreading out from capital? Or maybe turn # is a factor when there are mutliple provinces... Thanks for your testing data too thejeff, very handy.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Rereading my post above, I realized that unless you're my clone, it won't be easily understandable. I'll try to lay out my thought process in an easier to understand manner:

Event generation mechanic:

a) 4 single checks for event, roll once only (not once per prov)

-At current, this looks the most reasonable, as thejeff's testing likely show that the check is not once per prov (otherwise he'd max out 4 events a turn, or close). Likely the formula used includes province # as a factor somehow in a dimishing manner, as we can say with some confidence that we DO see more events when we had more province.

b) assign all events to random province

-Of those 4 checks, any success rolled (event generated) must be assigned to a province. Technically this should be random, though many have noticed that this tend to cluster.

c) once event assigned to province, apply luck

-So an event has been assigned to a province, luck have to apply somehow. I'm guessing the event is generated after the province has been selected. The province applies its local luck to the event roll through whatever formula.

thejeff's phenomenon:

This refers to why thejeff's testing seem to show that events occurence picks up as the turn progress. To be fair we need more data to say anything with any credibility, let's leave this aside for now. Something must be different during his t5-9 compared to t10-15 to account for the increased occurence, off the top of my head:

a) Turn #

Well obviously turn # is most visible, would turn progression be a factor in event generation? Squirreloid's testing seem to say otherwise, since his average event frq on a single province was 36% throughout without seeing thejeff phenomenon. However, it is remotely possible that turn # as a factor only kicks in when there is more then 1 province. I see this as unlikely but possible.

b) dominion

The other thing that could be different is the dominion, but I need to know whether thejeff's data had dominion spreading from Cap on T1 only before I can make any conjecture. Test with philosopher and temples may be revealing if so, maybe in thejeff's test scenario wall in dominion so it only occurs at capital, then letting it max or keeping it low to see, then maybe test if dominion being widespread changes anything.

c-z) ???

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Except there are substantial problems with it checking for each event on a non-province-by-province basis. Namely, no obvious way you accrue more events as #provinces increases, and no way to factor in local scales. So i'm not sure your (a) is anywhere near certain - indeed, it would seem the evidence suggests against it.

Now, actual P(event) could actually be P(event|#provinces), as a decreasing function with respect to provinces. This seems a rather complicated model given what we know of JK's coding style, however. (I mean, the game uses a distance metric near manhattan metric because calculating real distance was too much processor power per calculation - clearly simple was better as far as JK was concerned). But we don't *know* unless someone wants to do some code-diving.

Until we determine a plausible mechanism for generating events, can we restrict ourselves to totally neutral dominion? Lets not complicate things before we have a good basic model to work with.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I thought it might be pretty simple to code in #province affecting event even if you're doing a non-province-by-province basis. something like the example I used 2 post back (I didn't put the example in the "clarified" post you read so you probably missed it):
event=10%+(20%*(x-1/x)) where x is province you have
to demonstrate a dimishing effect as thejeff's data might suggest. so 1 province = 4x 10% check, 2 provinces = 4x 20% check, 3 province = 4x 27% check ...etc with this random non-realistic example (it's a pretty inelegant sample formula), except there is obviously more factors in the formula then is present in this example, in order to account for anomalies for Jeff's results.

I agree though that nothing short of code diving is going to give us anything concrete to work with, so it's an excercise in futility at the end.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Oh, we can totally figure this out, or at least propose models consistent with data. But for that we need data!

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I still don't get the criticism.

I'm suggesting first determine how many provinces get event checks. Then run each event check through a provinces event mask.
But I'll do some tests...

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Ok, two things:

First, as thejeff pointed out, if you determine #events before you look province-by-province, then province scales have no effect on how likely an event is. Yet they clearly claim to do so.

Second, my point was if you generate #events first, you ignore #provinces. Yet there's certainly the perception that larger empires have more events (we need real data to actually confirm, but it does meet my anecdotal experience). At which point, generating #events first doesn't account for increasing average # of events based on number of provinces owned that doesn't result in obvious asymptotes or the like at some point. (And remember, JK's known algorithm work has already rejected x^2+y^2=z^2 as too complicated).

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

ok; With 50 turns, 0 luck 0 luck -3 +3 4 territories
22, 27, 54, and 46 luck events

With 8 territories same scales
24 24 64 55 luck events.


A few observational data.

1. With over 100 turns run - there were never any turns with
ZERO luck events (after turn 1).
2. I watched various emigration events where pop was lost.
There were never any pop gains the same turn.
3. Four events occured to one nation once in both sample sizes.


Number distribution
With 4 territories
0,1,2,3,4
33,11,4,1
26,19.4
15.17.11.5.1
19,18,7,5



With 8 territories,
0 1 2 3 4
28,19,3,0
29,18,3,0
10,16,29,3,1
11,24,13,2

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I think that it's not too impropable that the luck/turmoil effect on event frequency could be one of those things where either the capital or your pretender scale is used in the event generation formula rather then province-by-province check. This was something I forgot to put in my "clarified post"

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

In my test, I didn't start with full dominion, so there is likely some lag, but did have dom10 and had used the map file to put a temple in every province, so it spread fast.

I can run more turns tonight. I was originally looking for province clustering not just numbers, so I had to actually check each event. Just getting the number of events will be faster.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Looking at the data I generated, with 50 turns run on a size 4 empire and 50 turns run on a size 8 empire.

With neutral scales, the number of events did not scale between the empire size.

You have the same number of events happening on a size 4 nation, vs a size 8 nation.

Second, I believe the reasons the number of luck events increased so drastically (but not evenly) for +/- luck is because the luck scale increased the number of eligible events in their provinces.

I don't believe its a question of IF a luck event occurs, pick a random event in this territory.

I think its, IF a luck event occurs, check to see if each eligible event in a province occurs.


So, if as I believe there are up to four luck events, and each one has a check to see if it occurs - the actual chance of having an event =4* P(E)*P(EventinProvince)

So changing luck not only increases p(e) it also increases P(eip). This is the only way I can see to account for the doubling of events, and also the consistency that -luck increased the number events more than + luck. While they both may have increased the p(e), the increased the P(eip) unevenly due to the more possible unluck events than luck events.


Second, the same provinces were hit turn after turn with the same events.

Third, some events get turned on on certain turn progressions, 7,10,35, this has a slight dampening on the number of events per turn I posit in the early turns.

However, in the 4 lands test 34 events happened in the first 10 turns, 39 events occured in the last 10 turns.

In the 8 nation test, 34 events happened in the first 10 turn, 43happened in the last 10 turns.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Could there also be a cap on number of province affecting event generation frequency? After all, with only 1 province, you definitely see less then 34 events in 10 turns (from play observation not actual testing). Perhaps once you hit 10-20 provinces, any additional provinces no longer impact your event frequency.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Wait, those numbers don't make sense.
34 events in 10 turns as the low end?
Averaging more than 3/turn?

In my test, I got 1 4 event turn and many 2 event turns.

If you're getting that many with neutral scales, something else is going on.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I specifically chose 4 territories, so that if their was some kind of limit of only 1 P(e) event could be checked per province, that there would be enough provinces so that all 4
P(e) events could be expressed.

I am saying, and I think the evidence bears this out, that P(e) is not a function of the number of provinces.

By the way, the event table strongly suggests that if you have turmoil scales expressed in a province, that can be worthwhile to garrison troops in the province. The cost of the garrison is
is less than the likely cost of the barbarian events. Even better of course is to increase pd to a point where you dont need to worry about it - however that falls to gameplay, and the value of capital questions.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I'm dealing with 4 nations, each with 4 provinces, at the low end. And 4 nations, each with 8 provinces at the high end.

And yes, the numbers dont' make sense if you think events are a function of # of provinces. I don't think that.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

One of ways to check is number of possible events affects total number of events a player will have can be done by comparing 2 builds - one with magic2, another with magic or or drain1. Magic adds a lot of events.Luck1 also add events.

If it amount of event's doesn't depend on province count, then what...If you have capital with good luck scales /dominion and conquered a province, your overall luck becomes lower until luck scale in that province achieves the level you had in capital?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Militarist: my last test had four nations

Two with 0 luck
one with +3 luck
one with -3 luck

My next test (date uncertain) will be

Two nations with 0 order
one nation with 3 order
one nation with 3 turmoil

I suspect that this will show reduced events for the +3 order, and increased events for the turmoil.

now, for the +0 nations, 94% of the time, either 0 or 1 event occured. I don't think that any P(eip) results could surpress P(e) that much. Could be wrong.

for the luck nations +/-3 it clearly resulted in more luck events. The number of zero events was pretty constant at 20%.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Oh, 34 events over 4 nations. 8-9 events/nation over 10 turns. That fits my expectations a lot better.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

Just another complication to add to the question:

How do events in independent provinces fit into this?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

I will admit to not being able to fully understand this. So all tests below were with 4 nations each? When you say 22,27,54,46 luck events, you mean for the 4 nations seperately over 50 turns? For the ones below, 0,1,2,3,4 are events and the 4 rows are for 4 nations? the 26, 19.4 is that over 50 turns 26 had no event, 19 had 1 event and 4 had 2 events?

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

well, it isn't 8/nation.

For example, the +o nations got 20 events, the +-3 nations got 56
over the first and last 10.

As for independent provinces - beats me. But I doubt the number of events varies if you have computer controlled vs indy, vs players.

Re: Luck/Turmoil versus Nothing.
 

1. No. 50 turns were done for 4 nations with 4 provinces.
50 turns were done for 4 nations with 8 provinces.
2. correct.
3. No. In the second data I am presenting the number distribution. Nation 2 had 26 turns with 0 events, 19 with 1, 4 with 2.