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

I agree with both HoneyBadger and Gandalf Parker. But as a largely SP sort, I would like more options with regard to points that influence events. A curtailment for three to six turns or something would be tolerable. 36 is too much.

Furthermore, it's important that even the Pretenders that go +3 Luck ought to have crappy things take place occasionally. Am I the only one that actually gets caught up in the role playing of Dom3? Take it as it comes, girl.

Remember that time that some of you old coots, myself halfway there, rolled a twenty sided die as a 1, two or three times in a row, back in the eighties. The ka-ching pays off in the long run, insofar as immersion, despite frustration.

As Gandalf, and others, has/have clearly stated many times, if you're going after a long term PBEM game or a quick blitz, there are settings to take care of this 'problem'.

I fail to understand why this is even a major issue.

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

Who's a girl?
Sorry to disappoint all the starstruck lovers out there, but I'm a big hairy Sasquatch of a man. And married, too.

The roleplaying issue is fine, and I like to use my imagination as well as the next person, but this isn't the point. It doesn't enhance my experience to settle in to play an extended game only to have my nation obliterated.

If 36 turns is too much for you, then that's fine, choose something different. I'd certainly agree that in some circumstances, it is too much-especially small and blitz multi-player games. In others though, I don't think it is.
I just would like to have the opportunity to determine what's best for the circumstances of any given game.

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

If he ever actually went up against a honeybadger he would be unlikely to think "feminine" ever again in connection to taht name.
http://www.honeybadger.com/

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

hahaha, sorry to disappoint you two, but I was making a reference to some late 80s Milli Vanilli lyric there, as opposed to bothering with gender messiness. Feel free to look it up yourselves and re-read my post.

Clearly you both thought otherwise. *still chuckling*

Regardless, this thread is dead. And I place my trust in the designers to continue focusing their effort(s), insofar as their programming and creative time, on things that further the aspects that have enraptured all of us. As opposed to mass audience placation.

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

Why not make prevent luck events from happening in the capitol for, oh, twelve turns? Luck and Misfortune would still have strong effects starting from the first conquest. The early major catastrophes aren't a disadvantage to taking Misfortune, because you'll just restart. They are in effect bugs when they happen.

Incidentally, getting 3000 gold on turn 2 in a MP game is IMO a major problem too. I guess it doesn't happen often enough for people to object.

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

tromper, as to your referencing a Milli Vanilli lyric...well, I definitely feel disappointment, along with shock, disgust, shame, and general appaul, although perhaps not in the direction you intend http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And it's hardly fair or accurate to pronounce the thread as "dead" since there's quite a lot of people posting to it every day.

Perhaps you have it confused with Milli Vanilli's career?

Well, any reasonable set amount would certainly be a good start, curtadams. I just feel that with a strategy game of this complexity is better served by an array of choices than just one "I know I'm right and this is the way it has to be" opinion.

It's just not that kind of game.

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

I do agree about the 3000 gold etc. event, but then it's already been hashed over. I agree that really unfair ADvantages are as inappropriate as really unfair DISADvantages, within the first to-be-decided-upon-by-individual-users-or-general-consensus-at-the-start-of-the-game period of time.

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

I very much like the entire current luck/misfortune mechanics as they ARE. As someone who always usually plays with extreme luck/misfortune, events both good/bad have never been totally responsible for me losing or winning a game.

Those mechanics should be left AS THEY ARE. Developers time would be better spent on other changes.

Anybody blaming luck/misfortune on losing a game or having there game spoiled is really using it as an EXCUSE for there own poor gameplay.

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

That's hardly the case, Meglobob. Even Gandalf seems to think the idea has some merit, and he's hardly an example of a poor player.

I often play with extreme luck/misfortune, and when I do, it's a strategic choice. I'm not making any excuses, or claims about my ability as a player of the game. I'm simply pointing out an area of the game that seems far too arbitrary and can potentially reduce the enjoyment of the game for many people, not just a few.

And I never said I'd lost a game because of a bad luck event, I've just had the fun sucked out of the experience for far longer than any choices of mine would merit.

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

Having your home province trashed by renegade vampire-counts in the second turn should hardly be considered an "excuse". I rate it up there with having the computer start you on a one-province island (what the heck is up with that?) as an immediate game ending scenario.