Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

wow...

you guys are worse than social scientists and even historians; and historians love to debate, and they get mean man.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

@Jim,

On the other hand, somebody probably SHOULD run the luck test on more than 9 provinces, just so we get some quantitative idea of what we're dealing with. I'll try to get to it this week. If I do so, Kasnavada will be satisfied and everyone will benefit.

-Max

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Ive found it fairly playable to take negative luck with nations who have plus-luck gods and units available, and low domain.

Ive also found it playable to take low production with nations where Im concentrating on non-armored units (such as Pangaea). And low growth or high temperature for nations with lots of nature magic.

Usually not the most extreme settings +3/-3. Those I rarely use. But then again thats probably what +3/-3 should be.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

interesting. why is nature magic a contingent for extreme temps? for the spell relief? do the "resist" spells (cold and fire) reduce or eliminate the encumbrance effect of temp scales?

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Supply. Nature mitigates supply issues--he's not talking about the loss of income or encumbrance penalties.

-Max

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

What are these plus-luck units of which you speak Gandalf?

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Doesn't the Lady of Luck add luck to the province she's in? I thought she did.

-Max

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

There are also units which prevent bad events from occurring for the province they are in.

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

Please. That's not what I was saying. I tried to argue that different scales have different effects on different stages of the game, and that Luck doesn't have to be as powerful in late game as it is in the early game. I was probably acting a bit harsh, and I'm sorry for that.


You have to consider the feasibility of something being added to the game. I doubt events can be easily combined into few messages, especially when so many events give you several different types of things. The only combined message I know of is for hunting blood slaves in a single province.

I don't have anything against raising the event cap, by the way. Scaling the number linearly (i.e. if you get max 3 events with 12 provinces, you get max 9 events with 36 provinces and max 12 events with 48 provinces) just wouldn't work well.It should scale much, much slower, such as 6 at 60 provinces, 7 at 100, 8 at 150. Why? As I said before, it would clutter the message view, and the events would lose what little special feeling they have. If the events would have to be grouped, wouldn't replacing them with better events be a better idea?


And about militia events - yes, many nations were given new events, but it's far from most. The actual line from the progress page reads:

* New militia events (mostly for uw nations).

Re: refuting common wisdom on scales everybody kno
 

of course. i reallized this as I was at work, having a "dom strategy" moment.

if you take cold3 order2 and growth1, you will gain net income bonus (even more so considering random temp flucs), and halfway reduce the supply issue; the growth over time will work out to even more income. I've never encountered supply issues, but I think that is my playstyle, as I prefer to use smaller armies with thugs and SCs.

If you can manage the supply somehow (like with nature mages), then large cheap armies really benefit from the encumbrance penalty, as the individual units would die before it had any effect anyway, and the opposing army will tire themselves out on it.