Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

That test doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 9 provinces is not the average size of a dom3 'nation'. It doesn't factor in the difference in the early game. It isn't fair in that order 3 costs points whereas turmoil 3 luck 3 doesn't. It ignores a major disadvantage of luck turmoil (that it doesn't scale to large territories) and ignores a major advantage (that early gold event that lets you double your expansion rate).

I just don't see what it really tells us.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

It tells me you haven't run the test. And try to refute facts with theoryminions.

I did run that test. What it tells me is that the average gold given with such as test rivals the gold gotten with order 3, and that you get a lot more gems too.

The link to the test is in the other thread about luck.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

No, I dont agree. I almost always take Order 3, Misfortune 2/3 in every game I play. There is only a *very* short period in the game where misfortune is actually dangerous rather than a nuisance. Only turn 1, 2, and perhaps 3 are the truly dangerous ones for a Misfortune player. Beyond that, you have enough provinces that the chance of anything terrible happening to your capital drops off to practically nothing.

IMO, the only reason not to take Misfortune is if you really want your nations Heroes.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Why would I run a test I see as essentially flawed in application to this thread? Besides I'm not refuting the results you posted in the other thread. Just the conclusions you draw from the test.

You don't seem to have actually read the post of mine you quoted.

But that's ok judging from your response I don't have any interest in debating anything with you.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Ironhawk:

Yes, first 1-4 turns are really a problem. In that R'lyeh case I had 120 unrest in my capitol from events.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

I think the point is that Turmoil/Luck can come near Order in gold income, even though it costs 120 less points, and comes with all the perks of Luck.

I know that the test if flawed. It's the only test that is easy to run, though, and that's why I have run it (or similar ones) and I think that's why others have done the same. If I can bother, I could modify my test map so that two nations start the game own equal, unconnected areas of about fourty provinces, temples in all provinces. It would only provide two samples at a time, so generating data would be very slow and very boring.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Well, I take Order-3, Misfortune-2 quite a lot myself. It's just that Misfortune-3 scale in particular that is a killer for me. I just don't think the 40 points are worth the extra chance of catastrophic doom.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

The test is flawed as far as trying to extrapolate the long term benefits yes, but the more "long term" you try to look, the more static your situation becomes. We'll take a quick example, between an O3/S3 nation starting with 428 gold income and 44 resources, as compared to a T3/P3 nation starting with 310 gold income and 116 resources. Regardless of later options, the beginning of the game will be shaped by the dynamic of this balance, and how it relates to indy strength and other factors. I think it could be argued that most non-bless nations (and some bless, as well) are forced to make highly inferior troops at game start with such low resource income at the capital. For the same gold cost, they get to upgrade to much more durable troops, and can produce a very low attrition indie clearing force in less turns, that requires less upkeep.

Sure, it can be argued that a strategy like this will generally leave you overextended, with a small economy compared to your massive size. Yes and no, because you must remember that not only do you produce your elite heavy infantry much more quickly than the Sloth player, but with the huge resource income, you can cherry pick indies to get what you need in times of crisis. This perspective holds especially true for some bless nations with non-cap sacreds who may not swing 6 points on both scales, but who could potentially benefit from leaving the scales even. I would be willing to argue that even scales can be leveraged to even more strategic benefit, as you will have no glaring weaknesses.

I will wholeheartedly agree that Order is an easier scale to maximize in your strategy, but I am such a fan of the "luck" factor that for a long period after I got Dom3, I went T3/P3/L3 with almost every nation (didn't know what I needed for a good SC, or to work a bless strat, so I mostly used troops). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif I'll tell you, I sure miss the days of virtually 0 barbarian attacks..... It's easy to overlook how much of a dent those can make in the first year economy. When I take Misf2-3, on my faster starts I often end up with 1 army that could be working my borders, but is instead stuck running around my interior, mopping up barbs/villians/knights/trogs/etc.

Also, much of a big deal is made about these initial lab burning down events and such. How painful is it when as an aquatic race you have a thief "steal some of your magic gems" and lose like half your water gems a turn or two before you get Tiamat? How about the temples and under construction castles that are occasionally lost when there is a random event that makes you lose the province?

Order really is the late game winner, not the early game builder or the mid game developer. It helps with those phases of the game, but early has far more factors in play than brute cash flow (and what it can and can NOT provide for your nation), and mid is more defined by Magic, and its exploitation pushing you ahead of the competition one useful spell at a time. But looking at it that way, is suggesting that the vast majority of players are not looking for gaining a decisive advantage in the early game most of the time, but would rather have a guaranteed modicum of early performance, and then rely on diplomacy to survive to the late game, where their actual strategy unfolds.

I think I'm going to set up a poll, to see the difference in scales that someone takes when they are rushing to make a kill as early in the game as possible. (may be worthwhile to note that a single 30000 pop capital should net you as much gold as six provinces averaging 5000 pop apiece, plus the admin bonus, plus the castle to build troops in, plus the lab, plus the gem income - not to mention it eliminates a nearby rival, potentially giving you more room to grow afterwards). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

I couldn't have said it myself any better... Now, I wish that 9 provinces times 30 turns meant the same amount of events that 270 provinces in a single turn does. For some reason, many people seem to believe there is a cap number of events... and that it doesn't scale because of this. Probably because there is a cap.

Just removing that cap would make turmoil / luck and order about equal.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

I was specifically thinking of heavy death scales here. The population loss from death coupled with the pop killing events, even with luck 3, will significantly reduce your population pretty quickly.