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

One of the worst things is having an imprisoned pretender and losing your lab before recruiting a mage.

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

Ok, so what I'd like is the option to set the "safety zone" to a maximum of 36 turns with possibly some options in between the two extremes. Maybe 3, 6, 12, 24, 36.

Thejeff, that's just a minimal example of a bad situation that repeatedly comes up. Losing your lab within the first 3 years might not be catastrophic in and of itself, but if you are playing a no-income nation (and I often do) and have to wait up to a year or two to gather 500 gold, and you can't cash in gems, then it becomes really viciously bad for your nation.

Frankly, I'd be pleased if there were a way to cash in gems without needing a lab. It seems just as reasonable, since the game uses a gold economy (the basic dollar equals a POUND of gold at a time...assuming it's pure 24 carat gold, and assuming mining techniques are primitive, especially in Early Age, where are they getting it all??? A pound of silver I could see. An ounce of gold I could see. Paying 10-20lbs of gold for a militia unit, nope.) to be able to cash in gems without needing a lab/alchemy.

Maybe as a basic function of the Fortress, and extend it to all gems, possibly keeping different prices per gem, and maybe having a fluctuating price based on the size of your nation-so that gems are worth more, the larger your nation is (at the time when lots of gems are more valuable to you), divided by decreasing in price the more the market is flooded by a specific gem.

Ofcourse, the nature of the game tends to preclude a nation-to-nation trade option, I guess I understand that, but there could still be a shadow economy going wherein a nation would put gems on the market for purchase by-for instance-that damned old witch who keeps cursing my troops.

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

Even the no income nations have some income. Newly captured provinces, luck events. Years to get 500 gold? Months maybe.

If you're really concerned about this, build another lab or keep the money on hand. Consider it insurance.

I assume you have money at some point. All the no income nations (Which is what now? LE Ermor & Rl'yeh?) benefit from temples and forts.

The first couple turn problems are in a different category, since there's so little you can do to prepare and with only 1 province the effects are proportionally much worse.

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

Totally off topic (forgive me please), but regarding that witch who curses your troops for raiding her hut for gems, do you actually get any extra gems for that event?

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

@TwoBits:
Its hard to tell but yes you should get some. However, Johans idea of little, some, many a lot, is quite abit different from the players.

@HoneyBadger:
The turns limit on bad events at 36 seems crazy to me. Ive seen many blitz games of 2-4 players that are considered to be over by that time. A setting of 36 turns would make taking -3 luck a total no-brainer.

I agree it could use some balancing since at the moment +3 luck seems pretty automatic for many people.

Well, if he\'s only protecting with Luck +0 - +3...
 

...Misfortune of any kind still doesn't become automatic.

I really wouldn't mind seeing SEIV-level event modding, where individual events could be tweaked in magnitude and were rated as to severity. It'd probably please some of the more grognardish players who seek more predictability... some of the events can be quite lucrative or destructive (free items can be as high as Cons 6, if memory serves; 3000 gold AND items is nice; if you've been using Growth +3 in a long game to get lots of pop and it gets wiped out by Ancient Presence, that's ugly).

3 years -is- a very long time, 'tho; by that time, it would seem rather reasonable to have another fort/temple/lab complex and at least some cash reserve, unless it's a custom map with absolutely brutal independent forces that slow everybody down.

Re: Well, if he\'s only protecting with Luck +0 - +3...
 

Gandalf, you're right, 3 years is everything on a small map in a blitz game. And it's NOTHING on an enormous 1500 province map with gold, resources, and supplies set to 50-which is how I normally play.

And if 3 years is too much for some people, that's ok, give us the option to decide what's too much and what's too little and that will have me whistling dixie.

And I'm not talking taking Luck -3 (or Misfortune 3), I'm talking taking Luck 0 PLUS. There's a big difference. I keep pointing this out, Micah keeps pointing this out, and nobody else seems to understand that all I'm suggesting is, if you don't take any misfortune, you shouldn't suffer apocalyptic events before a certain user-defineable turn.

I'm fine with bad events. I'm fine with taking any amount of misfortune and losing my temple on turn 1. I have no issue with that.

I just don't want to set up a gigantic game with a 1500 province map and have to worry about inconveniencing 20 people at a time for days in the case of PBEM, just because one of them happened to roll an illusionary 1 on the mighty computer dice.

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

And yes, by the way, I am well aware of-and extensively use-the random-limiting feature. Bad events still occur frequently, even with it turned on, and even to the point where they trash nations within the first 36 turns, with Luck 0.

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

I wouldnt mind seeing that setting expanded. It seems like have two settings on levels of events is way too small. And most of the other switches have a much more extended range.

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

I wouldn't mind pop migration events if they didn't just dissapear but moved to neighboring provinces. Ditto for overtaxing.