Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

The kids are with the neighbours so I was lying down to an afternoon nap when a horrible thought occured to me - what if misfortune did become like the old dom and increase chance of events? What if order does get toned down in terms of income?!

120 design points down the tube is what this would mean. Most race designs I have come up with for dom2 would be scrapped, not adjusted, tinkered, but scrapped. Minus the ability to take order 3, misfortune 3, most of my bless races are custard. For me the biggest improvement from dom1 to 2 is variety created by the bless effects and you can only just use them afford them - many races can't. Order3/misfortune3 is the engine that provides the necesary gold and design points.

So in a fit of selfish, self centered, egotism I cry "please don't take my toys away!"

If things are going to be changed lets make more things good not more things bad/mediocre - there may be many, many, options in dom but many of them are bad ones for MP.

Please lets not nerf anything. Lets concentrate on making idea's work.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not trying to combat your opinion here Keir, but if the rules change or things are adjusted to fit what you've already come up with and you cry *No!* for that, while at the same time stating in another thread "There is almost no other option but to take Order3 in competitive MP" then there is something intrinsically wrong.

That means you found a way to get the points for those high cost pretenders with multiple bless effects with an acceptable loss because you gain 30% Gold -30% events, +30% Bad events.

I would think you could just play with Misfortune on Rare events if you wanted to not have your pretender ideas rethought to apply to a new scale.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

I'm actually with Kier, although not in the way you might think.

I would much rather see the events changed than the scales. This way, I can have rare events due to order, nice income, and extra pretender points.

There really are two ways to fix the "bad event problem." And I think fixing the events is the way to go.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Er - what am I crying "No" to that has changed? I have come up with a whole range of races which I believe are new additions to competitve MP approaches and I'm concerned that they might be nerfed by a proposed rule change. They work with the existing rules. Somewhat different to the way you put it above which I don't entirely understand.

What I'm saying it that if you fix the order 3 misfortune 3 problem in a number of the suggested ways you kiss goodbye to alot of options this has opened up. If order/misfortune makes for awhole lot more options in MP then I would have to say I prefer the existing scales to the old ones - given other changes to the game. I would rather have to play order/misfortune than return to the narrower range of competitive MP approaches that existed in Dom1. I thing it would be very sad (and unlikely) if bless races were nerfed. Having gone to the trouble of creating the bless system I imagine that Illwinter are happy people like me are trying to make maximum use of it given that many vets wrote off bless effects.

Changes to game settings like events uncommmen will not change the problem of losing 120 design points as I have already calculated issues like that in (give me a little credit for taking account of the obvious Zen). Some race designs would take very little of a hit losing 120 design points (as long as everyone else does) - others simply cease to exist. Some race designs don't exist at random events commen and are killers at random events rare and visa versa. Its like slight changes in the worlds environment which do not affect some species but wipe out other ones that were already tenuous.

Improve turmoil (for some races/themes) don't nerf order. Improve luck don't nerf misfortune.

Thats what I'm saying. Otherwise I lose my toys and sorry Zen but I reckon thats a bad thing.

Ciao

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

I never said to change order vs misfortune. I was asking about your comments.

When there is a prevelance of a thing and you could make such a bold statement as to say "Only under extreme circumstances would you not choose Order 3, Misfortune 3 because of it's benefits" then there is imbalance.

Gamers seem inherently afraid that anything that changes is going to "Nerf" the good instead of balance the bad.

I believe the answer is to change the weight of the Luck events vs the scale itself and the Turmoil effects, you can add in Magic as well since I rarely do much than take Drain 2, but I am not a developer of Illwinter or a brother (damn family, Last name not Osterman) so I have only the input of a player the same as you.

In saying "I would rather have the Old Dom1 scales if you change the ones I use now" is as you stated; selfish. Which is fine, your enjoyment is part of the game, but so is balance.

I would hope if you feel the way you do you could help the devs find a solution that did not hurt your scales as some others have done.

Like I said; I didn't want to be combative, and I still think you are a good guy. Just approached a plea to the Devs in a less than optimal manner.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Er - what? Did I said that? I don't think it - I don't think I said it?

Actually I was being humerous in my first post and trying to put a personal touch on things so that maybe people could empathise - man was I wrong! I don't actually think there is anything selfish in not wanting the game to change in a way that ruins a whole range of options made possible by the existing setup. I'm worried that the changes seeking balence will be horribly unbalencing so I really think you are missing the boat Zen.

As for balence I would suggest that what we are really searching for a dynamic balence built around the many imbalences in the game. The imbalence in order/turmoil combines with other imbalences to create the overall balence of the game which people are proposing to change. Balencing order/turmoil is by no means necessarily a good as it could imbalence the game badly. Not everything should be equal or fair - this is not chess and there is no reason pawns, for example, should have the same value. The skill of race design and play is utilising imbalences to generate more powerful than the norm effects. More like the real world by far than Chess or Go which are almost perfectly balenced. Even if you don't agree in theory you may as well concede in practice as Dominions is too complex for anything else to be true - despite the most dedicated search for perfect balence.

I think you have been unneceserily combatitive on this Zen and I also don't think you have read what I wrote very carefully - either that or I'm just confusing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Assumptions that I'm a typical gamer panicking over my favourite toy being nerfed are unlikely to be right considering Illwinter went to great trouble to invent these favourite toys and I am aware of this fact.

Damn humour gone caused trouble again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif can't win them all.

cheers

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

The game has been out 2 weeks in full Version; how can you come to the conclusion that it is drastically imbalanced when you haven't played it in all it's fullness on those settings enough to know. Theories are all fine and good; but I'd hope you have fact to prove it.

And you may not have said that; I do need to reread things more carefully; I got the wrong idea on what you said. You want to keep the scales now as opposed to the stricter MP balance that was in Dom1. But if Dom2 does anything it shows that they did recognize it and move away from it so I wouldn't think they would step back into the old scale system based on all the new changes. I would hope the faith in the developer to think ahead instead of behind would be prevelent with a company with such a good track record.

If I missed the boat, then I was swimming over here in the sea of irony that has alot of miscommunication of different culture/countries verbal usage and sentance structure.

But I always did like to swim.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think the game is drastically imbalenced. I'm arguing against the catastrophist approach that the scales need drastic fixing.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thats right I perfer the new scales because they free up points for pretenders compared to the old scales to a total of 120-160. In the old days order 3 plus luck 0 or often +1 was the norm. The new norm is order 3 misfotune 3 - but that doesn't mean there arn't variations and hopefully Barbarian Kings will become another good turmoil option.

I see no reason why turmoil should be a good option for classic order races (Arco/Pythium), or even a balenced choice. Some choices suit some races better than others and so it should be.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey thats cool man. I generally edit out all the juicy/confusing/ironic bits before hitting "add reply" but I do like to think people get a feel for me over time and will cut me some slack to play around with. Trouble when I keep it dry all the time is I can come across like a lecturer so its a hard balence to maintain.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Just what pretenders are thinking of that absolutely need to take advantage of the broken combination of Order and Misfortune in order to be viable? Perhaps you could provide some sort of concrete example?

As it stands now I'm completely unmoved and unconvinced: Order gives way too much benefit, and Misfortune has virtually no downside when combined with Order.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

There is the downside of never getting the national heroes. But I agree with you...that is minor compared to getting rid of most of the catastrophic events.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As it stands now, Turmoil is a bad choice even for Pangaea -- which gets extra benefit out of both Turmoil and Luck.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's what it seems like. Pangaea has a great patrolling unit in the harpies, but doesn't really even need them as raising taxes can't be done very well.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

It is mainly the money aspect. Even with 10 Provinces pouring in the gold; you are making so much less than any Order based build you are losing incredible ground on both research and production of units.

I've tried both Pangea and BK, SaA using the Luck 3, Turmoil 3 scale. If the benefits for this scale weighed in the same as Order/Misfortune then there wouldn't be as much as issue.

If you look at the various scales which are adjusted more often than not for yourself.

For Me:

Growth: The "extra". I would take Order first, Production second then Growth in that order, unless for some reason I could get away with Sloth; then I would pump this. Even for blood magic; as the virgin loss of population is negligable for it's benefit. The slow increase over time to money is not as benefitial overall than Production scale. (For me, this is a preference)

Death: Almost never chosen; ever. Only 3 races really can choose them and only two have any benefit and that is Ermor, C'tis (Desert Tomb). Unless you are those type of races, this scale will destroy your economy.

Magic: I rarely take Magic even if I have bad researchers as a race. The vulnerability to magic resistance isn't as much on my mind as the points it costs that could be put elswhere.

Drain: I use this fairly often, to the point if 2 if I pick it at all. -2 to Research can hurt your research unless you compensate for it, but you get the benefit of 1 MR which coupled with points isn't as bad as you might think.

Heat/Cold: Only if I have to, to fit racial standards. Easy concept.

Production: This is the second scale I usually up. The only time I wouldn't up this scale would be if I am playing a style that I didn't need resources in order to field a decent army early or late in the game. More often than not this is either maxxed at 3 or Sloth. The factors of this choice are even, production and gold are both desired.

Sloth: I only choose sloth if I can field an army without production. This is rare and if I take this scale I *always* take Growth unless it's Ermor.

Order: I always take Order to 3 unless I am trying out some sort of Turmoil idea. If I adjust luck at all to misfortune I take Order up. Always.

Turmoil: Only for testing purposes. I have never sucessfully put a non Turmoil benefit race/theme (whether manditory or Pangaea) to use. It is counterproductive. If I ever take Turmoil I *always* take some form of Luck almost always 3.

Luck: This is a side note. More viewed from a "Did I take Turmoil or Order" outlook. Never on it's own merits. National heroes and such are nice; but they don't bring home the bacon.

Misfortune: If I have order I take this to 3, no middle ground. There are no other reasons I have ever taken misfortune outside of a few tests to see how many bad events I can get in a row/turn with Turmoil.

That's how I look at it. Others may have other ideas.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Is it? As you put it so eloquently "I'm unconvinced." I'm also unconvinced of the zealous crusade to change the game in sweeping fashion by people lacking enough experiance to have a good judge of the question.

I have made a case Jasper and two sentence responses telling me you find it unconvincing and want more arguments are . . ."unconvincing." So you are "unconvinced" *shrugs* so I'm "unconvinced." And? Doesn't read like a discussion to me?

If you don't read the race designs I put up so don't know why they only just have enough points to work then thats your issue. I had the impression that my Posts on race design were getting little attention. Sorta funny as I was reading how one couldn't get decent race designs out of bless effects when I first came to this forum and when I post some decent bless race designs the complainers don't seem to notice or be interested in discussing the question - though some are keen on changes which would wipe out my school of race design. To this you are "unmoved and unconvinced." Cheers mate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Fortunately for me I'm happy with the general thrust of Illwinters approach and the over enthusiatic attempts to rebalence fundamental game features are unlikely to be taken on. That being the case I think its time to get back to posting on interesting race designs and realistic options to fix minor problems. If I'm lucky people will look up from the balence debate long enough to make comment. I never did hear wether people thought the data I put together on patrolling was right - why? People were busy with the great balence debate and as they had already written off patrolling as useless why respond to someone trying to make something of it?

Sorry Jasper for being grumpy but after working hard to clear up the misunderstanding with Zen your "unconvincing" pose is a bit on the nose.

I left this group the first time I joined it because it struck me I was wasting my time. I just got drawn into largely pointless game balence debates and I get little feedback on my race design Posts - though I appreciate what I do get. When I have asked questions people don't even answer. Sure its no big deal but nobody looked up from the game balence debate to tell me the details I asked about Tien Chi - to busy doing important things.

Bah Humbug

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Here's a question...

Is it more economical in Dominions II (in terms of money per person killed) to raise taxes to 200% and patrol, or to pillage? Assume the units used take no upkeep.

[ November 24, 2003, 05:45: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Hrm. Keir, what did you ask about T'ien Ch'i? I must have missed it. Was it regarding the S&A and BK as well as summons type of thread?

I thought your Dancers of Death was a well formulated approach to the C'tis and put them in the running of potential MP candidate because of their fast expansion (akin to Caelum, Arco, Pythium and Micatan).

I don't particularly like the dancer unit later in the game even when you *can* mass produce it because they seem to really take a beating against a human opponent.

Maybe we could make or gauge a race/theme/pretender by a Triple T test. The Ten Turn Test.

What has it accomplished in raw numbers by turn 10 before you arrive at conflict (as a standard).

And I do apologize about our misunderstanding - though you shouldn't be grumpy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pillaging produces unrest that you would have to clear as a 'clean up' after/while you were taking your money. If you wanted to do *Per Person* instead of resources used to produce X amount of money then it wouldn't have value based on how fast you get the money.

Unless you are going to try to pillage provinces completely out of population. I've never actually done that. You would have to calculate how much money lost over time as well.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did point out why I was unconvinced -- that I would need to see some specific example. Without pinning down a specfic context there's simply too much subjectivity for much debate.

I have seen your race designs, and don't see the problem you mention. Sure, you couldn't max out the bless effects quite as much if order and misfortune were balanced, but then other races couldn't take advantage of them either. I do not see how the general concept your're aiming for would be impossible.

What I do see is that any design that uses Turmoil or Luck simply sucks. IMHO this greatly reduces variety -- much more so than the degree to which one can max out bless effects.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The lack of a response is an answer of sorts. You made some good points, and left doubt in my mind. I'm still not sure bless effects are worth it, but I'm no longer so sure they can't be strong. I'm left with no opinion, and so nothing to post on the issue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It doesn't help that I don't really care to play the kind of explosive start scenarios where strong blessings would be most usefull. I prefer an already established start, which dampens the effects of capitol only troops.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I missed whatever you had to say about patrolling, and don't really see much to discuss about it to be honest. Constantly patrolling seems like a mistake to me, but if you're desperate quick cash may help. If there's anything more to it, I just don't see it.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wrote my response before seeing what Zen had posted...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I find debate about game balance interesting in it's own right, so I guess our mileage varies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I don't really care much whether my ideas get implemented, but find that debating game balance brings me to a finer understanding of how the game works and improves my play. For example, I'm entirely willing to be convinced that Order/Turmoil isn't a far better buy than any other combination of scales; most of the point for me posting such opinions is to offer a chance for others to poke holes in them.

I'm not sure what questions you had about Tien Chi that weren't answered, otherwise I'd try to help you out... As far as I can tell standard Tien Chi is only worth playing if Magic Duel is Banned, and there's really not much more to it. The turmoil requiring variants are even worse, as they can't take advantage of Order/Misfortune. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dude....your constant whining makes me sick, but seriously. You don't like lot of things, because of your beloved MP screwed in your opinion.

What about waiting for the mod tools, and make your OWN MP mod.
If your friends will like your mod, they will play with you.

I myself find the game very balanced, my only problem is the weak-mediocre AI.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dude you obviously haven't followed my Posts since I'm arguing in favour of keeping things as they are. The original much misunderstood post was supposed to be funny - so "dude" chill out. I was saying "hey guys don't argue for too much change or we will lose the really interesting balence they have created." Seeing as you seem to agree with me why are you accusing me of constant whining?

So dude if you want to be a smart arse try reading, then digest, then shoot - or you might hit your foot.

Sort of ironic that I am being castigated by those who seem to agree with me - the moral of the story is don't try subtle humour on the net or somebody will throw mud in your face. Bleergh.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know - apologies to both you and Jasper.

I asked what the prot of Tien Chi HC was and wether you could find orders to get them to utilize both lance and bow. I was waiting for the game to arrive and dreaming of HC hordes. Like I say its no big deal but as Jasper says the lack of responses is in itself a response. I'm just feeling a bit sad that what I'm interested in - all the new race possibilities and how to play - seems secondary to largely pointless (IMO) debates on the grand balence. But hey thats just the way the cookie crumbles and so I haven't written up any races for awhile.

I was looking at putting together a compendium of
radical race designs but have given the idea away for now. Its alot of work getting the races designs written up and tested and the response has been fairly patchy - mainly silence or vague scepticism from vets and some interest from newer players. I believe race design possibilities have opened up to such a degree that race design is a different thing in Dom II and I have put this thesis forward with little response. Meanwhile other vets argue about game balence and think thats what is interesting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Its a funny world.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Keir wrote:
>Order3/misfortune3 is the engine that provides the necesary gold and design points.

Eh, whut? That would be –120 design points for order and +120 design points for misfortune, resulting in a big fat zero. I have to assume that these “provided” design points you refer to are the ones from misfortune, which you think of as free points, since you have max. order, and are thus somewhat protected from too many bad events.

Anyway, to get to the heart of the matter, you are both right, and you both have the exact same concern, but you are not listening to each other. Keir is saying that there is a game balance issue because a lot of things are not viable options IF the order/tumoil and fortune/misfortune scales were not as they are. Zen is saying there is a game balance issue because these scales are so strongly biased towards one configuration that it leaves no viable alternative configurations of the scales themselves.

So you both want game balance and to be able to play in a game rich in diversity, with unlimited viable combinations of choices. You just have different perspectives on how to approach the matter.

That said, I have to add that Zen has nailed the real problem. If there is only one viable choice between the scale settings, then the scales are imbalanced (pun not intended).

If there is a design point problem that makes some play styles unviable, then that is a separate issue.

When I learned that there were pretender bless effects based on starting magic paths I was thrilled. The possibilities! But I think that these bless effect are meant to be flavour, or a feature, another option, rather than something to build an entire dominion on. I would love to discuss how to make the most of bless effects as they are however. <goes off to search for Keir's Posts>

/Rainbow

[ November 24, 2003, 12:07: Message edited by: Rainbow ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dude you obviously haven't followed my Posts since I'm arguing in favour of keeping things as they are. The original much misunderstood post was supposed to be funny - so "dude" chill out. I was saying "hey guys don't argue for too much change or we will lose the really interesting balence they have created." Seeing as you seem to agree with me why are you accusing me of constant whining?

So dude if you want to be a smart arse try reading, then digest, then shoot - or you might hit your foot.

Sort of ironic that I am being castigated by those who seem to agree with me - the moral of the story is don't try subtle humour on the net or somebody will throw mud in your face. Bleergh. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1. I don't agree with you.
2. I think that the balance of the game is ok.
3. You should chill out.

Nothing personal, but as I said, maybe you should wait for the mod tools, and balance this with that, as you want.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

> 1. I don't agree with you.
> 2. I think that the balance of the game is ok.

HE THINKS THE BALANCE OF THE GAME IS OKAY. THEREFORE HE AGREES WITH YOU. THAT'S WHAT HE JUST GOT FINISHED *SAYING*.

...

...Stravos, you know, you make reading this board very frustrating. And very infuriating. Because you waste people's time. You waste people's time a lot. And that is very very frustrating. And that's all I'm going to say. :\

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Kier, here are the mobile units and the one sacred for the T'ien Ch'i (Base).


Red Guard
G 70 R 42
HP 10 S 10
Pro 15 At 12
Mo 15 De 14
Mr 12 Pre 10
En 5 Mv 2/20

Sacred
Lance, Falchion, Hoof
Full Scale Mail, Helmet, Round Shield

Imperial Horsemen
G 45 R 30
HP 10 S 10
Pro 15 At 11
Mo 12 De 13
Mr 10 Pre 18
En 5 Mv 2/22

Lance, Falchion, Hoof
Full Scale Mail, Helmet, Round Shield

Heavy Horsemen
G 25 R 28
HP 10 S 10
Pro 14 At 11
Mo 10 De 8
Mr 12 Pre 10
En 5 Mv 3/23

Lance, Spear, Composite Bow
Full Scale Mail, Helmet, Buckler

Horsemen
G 20 R 9
HP 10 S 10
Pro 7 At 10
Mo 10 De 12
Mr 10 Pre 8
En 4 Mv 3/24

Spear, Composite Bow
Full Leather Armor, Helmet

In my experiance the only order that works for a missile using cavalry are no orders or Fire http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If you place your Horsemen at the front end of the line, and have them Fire on a specific type of unit they will be eventually engaged as enemies come within close enough combat to them.

There is no way I have found for them to be put on a flank and advance while Firing into an area. If you put them where they are not targeted for melee by an opponent; they will not engage unless something gets close enough.

Edit: Yes I do like answering questions for someone who already has the full game and knows. Yes I am crazy! Also changed Heavy Horseman.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:39: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You sure about that? All other cavalry listed have 10 HP; 14 sounds unlikely.

But it sounds like Tien Chi has awesome cavalry! Normally I refuse to use cavs because they're too pricey, but I'd make an exception here=)

However, there's still the problem that you can't effectively order your cavs to use both their ranged and melee weapons... I hope that gets resolved! "Charge and fire while approaching" or "Fire while the enemy is approaching, then charge when you see the whites of their eyes" would be nice.

P.S. You're listing Precision and Protection as "Pr" rather than PRO and PRE or PT and PC, so it gets a tad confusing=) But if the elites have only 15 protection rather than 19 like 45gp indy knights, I'd prefer the indy knights. Unless the TC elites really do have 18 precision, in which case I'd Gift of Reason them and give them a magic bow=)

[ November 24, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Yes I changed it. Was distracted. Sorry about that, it has been changed. It has Prot 14, 10 HP.

Yes they do have awsome cavalry; they just can't use it very well.

The Horse Archers make very good decoys, as they have the tag "Cavalry", "Archer" and if you place them in back "Rearmost" so you can abuse the Tactical AI by sporatically placing 1 horseman in a place you want certain enemies to attack and abuse it in that manner. That is the only real benefit outside of having the equivilant of armor, mobile archers.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Once again Stavros, you miss the point (other than Keir agreeing with you on the overall balance) - "doing your own mod" won't take you anywhere if, like Keir I believe, your main interest is in MP.

Unless there's a very wide agreement on the superiority of Mod X over the "vanilla" game, 99.9% of MP games will use the standard, Illwinter-designed, Shrapnel-released game, with all (not totally buggy) patches. What Keir argues here is for the devs not to listen too much to the hordes of people who complain about the lack of viable (competitive) options concerning the order/turmoil and luck/misfortune scales. I won't give my opinion, as I clearly lack the experience, but I don't see how you can understand this as whining about the balance.

{Edit: changed the display}

[ November 24, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: PhilD ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think your timing is just bad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'm interested in race possibilities too, but am still exploring what's different about Dom 2 more generally. It's easier for me to decide on race design once I get a feel for what things are effective.

[ November 24, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmmm. Perhaps Units with missile weapons that are given orders to attack, should also fire their weapons on the way? This would make bow armed cavalry more usefull, and then you could more intuitively give javelin armed troops attack rather than fire orders. Similarily for troops with guard orders, as has been brought up often before.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the 25 gold Tien Chi cavalry is really the only one worth building. The much more expensive 45 gold cavalry is only marginally better at melee, and without bows.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

I was doing the basis of the "View" screen when you highlight a unit and back click on it. So that's why I formated it as such. I was just in a hurry to do so http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Precision is the lower based on the list opposite of Morale, and Protection is the top left. I'll edit it.

But yes, I was less than happy with the Red Guard, and the Imperial Horsemen as they have substandard statistics to other human Indy units. Though I can see with the selection that you're given it might be justified; except for the Red Guard are capital only. There isn't enough of a combat difference outside of Morale which is the easiest to deal with outside of just that particular unit. (Larger Squad size, high morale mixed with low moral squads, priest and Divine Magic)

Edit: Where is the love for taking the time to write it out!?

[ November 25, 2003, 03:37: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks Zen. I'm in full on child care part of the week so getting back to Posts becomes slower. I do appreciate your effort. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

re extra design points.

The point was relative to Dom1.

In Dom1 most races I designed had Order3/Luck1. I tried luck0 but never had the courage to play it in mutli-player due to concern over the horrific events you can get early in tests.

As an aside I think Johan underestimates the impact of losing population/gold early as the extra early gold is often the difference between expanding fast enough or going under. My experiance of MP suggests that early events (good or bad) have hugely disproportionate impact.

In Dom2 most races I design have order3/misfortune3. Thats 160 extra design ponts over Dom1 and that, in my estimation, is what makes the possibility of a wide range of bless effect races worth trying. Without the points only the most extreme temp races have enough points for the high level starting magic. Its not a question of quantative differrence in race power, as you suggest Jasper, but qualitiative - thats how the bless effects work. Its the level 9 ones the tend to matke the race desing viable or not. Got enough for the effects you need to make the troop type work - yay. Not enough and the race is simply lame. To me the difference in power between a tight race and a bitsa is not 10-20-30% but more like 50-150+% because of the way low casualty expansion feeds upon itself.

I'm sorry for not providing lots of concrete examples on this Jasper but it would take alot of work to do. All I can say is that the races I am trying to make work are very hard to get enough points for to make viable. To me this seems obvious but its clear its not for people who have approached things differently. I don't know what more I can say.

I realise that my initial post was just too flippent and not obvious enough in its humour. The whole post was supposed to be funny but obviously some people didn't get it - maybe you have to be spending alot of time around young kids to appreciate the joke. In future I will be more restrained.

I really do believe that a formalistic approach to balence which says that every feature should be individualy balenced with every other feature is just plain wrong. Its the overall balence and the possibilities this produces I'm concerned about and not wether certain options are necessary to get a good race. Does it really matter that much if most players take order 3 misfortune 3? I think the extra points from this creates ideas I don't think this strangles ideas. I do think, and have posted elsewhere, that cutting back the worst events is a good idea so I'm not adverse to any change and I am in favour of making turmoil/luck races viable. Its just that some of the changes recommmended would have disastrous implication on the overall balence.

Now I must withdraw from this discussion as, as you may have noticed, I'm not in the frame of mind to enjoy it, and why else would I want to post for? Doing some more work on my Mictlan design is a much better prospect.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's the nub of our disagreement! I think it is possible to get to level 9 just fine, though not really 2 level 9s. In doing so you will have less effective scales, but IMHO that's as it should be. I'm not seeing the cusp effect you describe.

For example I've toyed around with a Medusa with 9 Earth, 3 Nature, 40 admin castle, dominion 4. This still leaves 80 pts for buying scales, which seems just fine to me.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wasn't so much asking for lots of examples, just a particular example that you already had worked up -- something like the above Medusa.

I asked because I figured you were interesting in talking about your designs... Perhaps it's possible it could be made to work even without free points from Misfortune -- for example if Order wasn't so damn good it wouldn't be so necessary, and perhaps you could get away with Order 0, Misfortune 0.

IMHO being able to get 120 free pts out of Misfortune 3 after taking Order is just broken -- constraining the viable choices enough in these scales that they may as well not exist. Perhaps it would be interesting if Pretenders were built out of 600 pts instead of 500, but that to me is a seperate issue.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes. It does matter to me whether the scales are roughly balanced. I don't want to always have to play an Order/Misfortune faction to be competitive. It's too great a reduction in variety, and it constrains me to roleplaying only one flavor of race -- I very much dislike it.

The first 3 races I considered for Multiplayer in Dom 2 are Pangaea, Tuatha, and Autumn and Spring. Pangaea despite it's theme is only viable taking Order, Tuatha must take luck, and Autumn/Spring must take Turmoil. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Moreover, I very much believe that far more variety is lost through the dominance of Order/Misfortune than is gained by effectively allowing Pretenders 120 extra points.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

What is it about Pangea and turmoil? Is it a Pangea theme that is only available if you take turmoil, or does turmoil have some other special effect for Pangea?

/Rainbow

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In standard Pangaea theme, Panii attract Maenads in dominion with strong turmoil. In other words, you get more free troops the stronger the turmoil you take.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Thematically Pangaea feels like it should have Turmoil. They also get many more Maeneds out of it, and without them their Panii really aren't worth their 350 cost. Plus, they get a better advantage out of Luck through Crossbreeding, and Luck is more potent with Turmoil.

I've just finished two games as Pangaea, the first with Turmoil/Luck, the 2nd with Order/Misfortune. Order is far and away superior for Pangaea, despite it's extra advantages from Turmoil/Luck. Order/Misfortune gives more than 50% extra income, and less bad events -- for the same price. Even the extra gems and items from Luck are more than offset by being able to afford more mages to search! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I generally try to play what I like rather than what I know is most effective, but I don't think I could bring myself to play with anything other than Order 3 and Misfortune 3 in multiplayer. The handicap of not doing so is just too great.

Now, perhaps I'm missing something. If so, I'm really keen to know what it is! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I will answer your post even if you withdraw from the discussion, that way you won't be able to make a witty rejoinder and I will get the Last word.

First of all I still think that the bad luck events are not that much of a problem, not compared with the income loss. The 66% income of turmoil 3 to order 3 dominates the effect of the badluck events themselves. So if order -3 luck +3 is less viable than order +3 luck -3 it is in my mind much more to the constant income loss rather than the effects of negative events. It is highly unlikely that bad events will come remotely close to having as much of a negative impact as the turmoil will. I hope this doesn't come out as sounding condescending, but I believe many dominions players tend to overestimate risk compared to predictable loss, many strategy players seem to be very averse to random factors and I think this is reflected in the negative press the badluck events get. The sense I get from much of the discussion is that players worry more about the hurricanes and floods than they do about the income loss from turmoil.

If I read you correctly your desire is for pretenders with strong bless effects to still be viable. They are so in your mind because viable scale settings are more affordable than they were in dom2. What I think is the problem with your argument is that if other scales were to be changed so that you percieved them as useful as the order scale you would feel compelled to raise them as well. The design points you get by using misfortune 3 you get because you do not consider misfortune 3 detrimental under order 3, you get 120 points for free. Your bless designs hinges on that it is just one scale you consider essential, order. If I shared your estimate of the situation I would draw the conclusion that I should call for more design points and toned down order. If one only made the other settings as useful as you seem to consider order I fail to see why you would not feel compelled to pour design points into them the same way you do with order.

I too wish to see people spending points on pretender magic and bless effects, but I do feel it is unfortunate if it becomes a no brainer to allways go with order +3 luck -3. Since so many players seem to consider order 3 a no brainer it is perhaps a good idea to reduce its effectiveness in some manner. If income is reduced this would cause grumblings in some quarters though. And if the other scales are toned up design points will once again be concentrated in scales rather than pretender magic, which I, and apparantly you as well, do not not desire.

I have more to add but I do not have the time at the moment, so this will have to do for now.

[ November 25, 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

I think that a solution to this problem lies primarily in the luck scales, not so much the order scales. The issue is that luck +3 is nowhere near potent enough, especially as the bad events dominate the good (even in the 80/20 split) to the point where it isn't just 'risky' to take luck&turmoil, but its suicidal. Over the long run you will lose out on the luck scale alone, without even worrying about your lost income to turmoil.

There have been several suggestions as to how to rebalance the luck scale, and what seems reasonable is for the events to be classified into 'major' and 'minor' or even more gradiations. Then the luck scale should effect the chance of getting major or minor, not just good and bad. Order may be too strong as it is as well, however the easy change there is to not get protection from random events from taking order, but still get the increase in random events from taking turmoil. Now you take order specifically for income, but it won't shield you from the random events (good and bad). You take turmoil specifically to get more random events, and set your luck scale accordingly. This still costs design points for players like Kier so it may not be satisfactory to their world view, but something is out of line in the way that the order and luck scales interact, and something should be done to rectify that.

As an aside...

I'd like to see specific pretenders for each nation (and perhaps theme) who's sole function is to provide high bless effects. I was thinking of something along the lines of a pretender who's magic levels were doubled to determine the bless effects, then I thought that may be a bit too much, so a pretender who had discounted majic picks (somehow...) but who's magic levels were halved for purposes of casting and research. It would be interesting to try a totally tricked out bless race, without having to totally compromise your scales.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

I think Johan may have hit the nail on the head when he said many gamers would rather count on the guaranteed income from order, than gamble on income from luck. But just because I share a little of G. Parker's desire to flout the conventional wisdom, I am currently using in MP a design with order 0, Luck +3. We're only on turn 7, which I realize is hardly a sufficent baseline for comparison, but: on turn 2 my worshippers held me a nice little ceremony which raised the dominion of my home province, and since then, I have had one 100 gold event, and one 200 gold event (events are common). A back of the envelope calculation suggests (and I'm too lazy to work it out more precisely) that I am slightly ahead in income compared to what I'd have had with order +3, and I had that little ceremony thrown in as a bonus. I enjoy positive luck scales, and wonder if the folks who enjoy and are good at extensive testing don't miss the boat when they do their tests as an either/or black/white comparison between order 3 misfortune 3 on the one hand, and turmoil 3 luck 3 on the other. I'll be interested to see if one of my fanatic followers can't locate say... a Ring of Wizardry sometime soon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There are very different Groups involved and sometimes its hard to pick them out. I like to make reference to the Formula Folk and the Random Map Cult but its not always so cut and dried.

One thing I see come up often in game debates (30 years worth of game debates) is a vary basic difference in opinion over what is or isnt strategy or tactics. Some people (lets call them chess players) feel that balanced maps and no surprises makes for the best strategy game. Others (gamblers?) like to make best tactical use of whats thrown out to work with. Of course most people arent cut-and-dried, they tend to be some of both.

This discussion feels like its headed that way though. Trying to decide which scale is more important to the players, or which ones will be an automatic choice, is difficult to do if its done by one type of player or the other. Those who like their variables set will always feel that order is an automatic choice because it is (for them). Those who like to roll the dice will go toward luck and wonder why anyone takes order at all.

IMHO whats needed is to maybe stretch the scales out abit so that all choices can be used to create a complete strategy for those who want to play that way. So its not so much whether the order takers feel luck is worth anything, just whether they feel order is worth using. And luck needs to be judged by the luck Users. I dont think we want them to both be desireable by both Groups. Just my opinion.

[ November 25, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well the order/misfortune peole also have 120 more design points than you do with order zero and luck3. I think the idea is that the two scales are not balanced with respect to each other, and since they are directly connected there is a problem. That isn't to say that you can't succeed with your setup, or some more extreme luck based set up, just that over the long run you will need to stay ahead of the distribution of events. Other tests (though they only create a small sample) have shown that from a purely economic viewpoint order3 misforutune3 is the run away winner. It may not be as much fun to play for some people, true (and I'm one of those people), but in a competative environment its superior to the other choices.

What I am asking for is for the luck scale to be readdressed, so that it is not as digital as it seems to be now. I want luck to be a comperable choice to order from a competative stand point, even though I don't typically play very competatively http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There seem to be some misconceptions concerning the luck scale floating around. The major/minor tied to luck scale values events that people are requesting is to a degree present in the game. The 1500gp event is only for luck +3. IIRC the 1000gp is restricted to luck +2. There are events that exists in both common and rare forms where the event is rare at a certain value and common at a more extreme luck scale value. So the luck scale is not digitalised in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

Well; the Devil's Advocate question is?

Johan you've had and played the game longer than any of us; you've played with the different situation.

If you wanted to win a MP game; and didn't have any "Fantasy" notions, or "Roleplaying" notions not using Ermor or any other Point Rich race/theme.

What % of the time do you choose Order and what % of the time do you choose Turmoil? Then the same for luck and misfortune.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There seem to be some misconceptions concerning the luck scale floating around. The major/minor tied to luck scale values events that people are requesting is to a degree present in the game. The 1500gp event is only for luck +3. IIRC the 1000gp is restricted to luck +2. There are events that exists in both common and rare forms where the event is rare at a certain value and common at a more extreme luck scale value. So the luck scale is not digitalised in the way you seem to be suggesting. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great, that's good to know.{edit- though I actually should have known that since I now recall an older discussion about it... anyway, my sugestion is that perhaps these classifications, especially on the bad event side be reevaluated} But how is it on the bad event side? I've gotten the lost a temple and 1/4 pop gone without misfortune +3, I think that's the issue that I have right now, the bad events that crop up even without misfortune +3 just seem to overwhelm the good events (even with higher levels of luck).

Though I will admit that I've not done alot of testing on this, but others have, and their results are out there.

Also quickie on the Lady of Fortune... what and how exactly does she effect luck? I've had her for 40+ turns now and only had one good event happen in her province (though with Order +3 I suppose that may negate some of her ability...)

[ November 25, 2003, 17:54: Message edited by: licker ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yup.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nope - Its an absolute question of not having the points to get started not a relative scale of value. I'm lowering all my scales to the abo****e minimum I can and survive (hopefully) long term in order to get points for magic paths. I'm not going to raise one of my scales because its got a bit better because the only place to take the points off is magic - do that and the race dies as its the magic choices that define the entire race design. Some designs either work or don't in MP. Some designs could play with 120pts off and still work fine because they can still do the fundamental things they need to and get by.

Jasper the Medusa you mention is inadequate as a pretender for most of the bless effect races I'm working on. Earth mother with two 9's or Son of Niefel with Water 9, earth or nature 9, Lord of the Desert Sun with two 9's, Prince of Death with a 6 death and 9 water - these are the sort of pretenders I'm using. Only the very best sacred troops work as a basis for a race design, IMO, with one 9 or less to boost them and I'm more interested in the borderline sacred troops.

I'm generally playing drain3, Growth 0, and sloth2 or 3. Someone suggested I shouldn't take growth3?! If it were so easy I would indeed be blowing smoke. The only reason I don't play death as a norm is that its crazy to kill off the population in the only place that can build sacred troops.

On luck Johan there is for me one central consideration - MP games I'm in take a couple of months to play. Of course I don't want to get an earthquake on the first turn as my carefully crafted race (that I will probably never play again) suddenly can't start as planned and if I'm playing a borderline race design (and I generally am) that can mean can't start enough to be in the game. I don't take that risk. I'd rather weaken my race to avoid the chance - oddly enough in Dom II I don't have to as I just take order3/misfortune3. That is why I take order3/misfortune3 - to cope with luck not to get the gold - thats just a bonus. If you want to make order less effective in bringing in income I don't mind as I'm taking order for order not gold. Sure the gold is nice but its just not fundamental to what I'm trying to do and losing some of it will not break the back of the races - just slow them a bit.

I personally don't see the problem with improving specific races which should use turmoil and luck so that they are happy. I have been testing a nice looking Tuatha race with luck +1. If Barbarian Kings gets to recruit through the success of their Khans then playing turmoil won't bother me in the least and if recruiting is turmoil related I'll be +3 turmoil every time. As for Pangaea main theme I wouldn't play them without luck3/turmoil3 and don't see why they can't be a decent choice with a bit of tinkering if they aren't now. Turmoil should be bad for most but good for some in my opinion not a reasonable choice for anyone. How many races can play death3 and pretend its a decent choice?

I guess my approach to race design must be a bit odd as for me what is fundamental and obvious can't be seen be other perfectly intelligent human beings. If its just my particular bent that is at issue then go on - throw my toys away. If in fact the toys are only of interest to my particular subjective bent then they don't really matter to game as a whole. I still believe what I'm describing has a basis in objective reality based on my experiance of MP - my race designs tend to do very well - but of course this has little or no validity for others.

I know I'm trying to avoid balence questions and said I'd stay away, and sorry for stealing your Last word Johan, but when a developer joins in there is an added incentive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And maybe just maybe if I state the point in a different way people will get what I'm saying about the difference between quantitive increase in race power vs qualitive changes. Enough small changes makes for a completely different thing.

Ciao

Keir

[ November 25, 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You get those same "extra points" by taking Growth +0, instead of Growth +3. Lots of people do.

One of the problems with the game is that the Order scale is so good, people see Order +3 as the norm. They need to reduce the gold bonus of Order to +4% per tick and remove Order's effect on random events. Then you could take Order +0 and make your cool pretender without crippling your nation in multiplayer.

They also need to remove the population killing bad luck events to finish balancing out the Luck scale.

-Catquiet

[ November 25, 2003, 12:17: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But it is still effective. One doesn't need to max out 2 blessings to have sacred troops be reasonably effective. To be frank, IMHO you're effectively asking for free points for your favorite designs.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It would be simpler, more effective, and allow more variety to simply fix the inbalanced scales.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm very keen to see how you get past spending 160 cost for luck +1 considering the minor benefits it gives. I found them to be way worse than default Man -- largely because then you can take Order3/Turmoil3.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a dramatic and hard to balanced change, with a very narrow focus. I still don't think it's a good idea.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'll repeat myself here: O3/M3 gets more than 50% extra income over T3/L3. The generally minor benefits from luck don't even come close to offseting this, and you get more bad events to boot.

Your arguement that Turmoil should have bad effects and not be a reasonable choice for all doesn't jibe with your arguement for free points from Misfortune.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you are grossly overexaggering. Fixing Order doesn't "throw your toys away", it only tones them down -- and allows for much greater variety elsewhere.

To me you are simply saying "I won't be able to easily max out 2 blessings by taking free points from Misfortune", rather than "Races with strong blessings won't be effective if Order is balanced". I would consider the 2nd a problem, but not the first.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Definitely the income lost is just too much, and way more of a factor than the bad events.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However, I partially disagree with this. The bad events really are worse than the good events on average in my experience, over and above players being risk adverse.

Bad events are always bad, suffer from increasing decrements, and are more likely to destroy something critical permanently than good events are to give a permanent increase.

Good events are often not usefull, sometimes even harmfull, have decreasing increments, and are likely to be minor things like gems or worthless troops. There are occasionally _very_ usefull things -- but these are rare.

Good events I usually see: Random worthless troops, small amounts of possibly usefull gems, usually unusefull items, laughable increases in province defense, etc. Hero, Gold and mine events also crop up, but are relatively rare. Very often "good" events don't actually improve my position.

Bad events I usually see: Gold lost through unrest, event, or province loss. Temple and lab destruction. Permanent income reduction. Theft of stuff I was planning on using. Bad events typically hurt my position.

I'm not really sure why, and perhaps my tests are just skewed, but the balance of possible good vs. bad events seems substantially different from Dom 1.

Re: Please don\'t take my toys away!
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Definitely the income lost is just too much, and way more of a factor than the bad events.

Quote:

I hope this doesn't come out as sounding condescending, but I believe many dominions players tend to overestimate risk compared to predictable loss, many strategy players seem to be very averse to random factors and I think this is reflected in the negative press the badluck events get. The sense I get from much of the discussion is that players worry more about the hurricanes and floods than they do about the income loss from turmoil.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">However, I partially disagree with this. The bad events really are worse than the good events on average in my experience, over and above players being risk adverse.

Bad events are always bad, suffer from increasing decrements, and are more likely to destroy something critical permanently than good events are to give a permanent increase.

Good events are often not usefull, sometimes even harmfull, have decreasing increments, and are likely to be minor things like gems or worthless troops. There are occasionally _very_ usefull things -- but these are rare.

Good events I usually see: Random worthless troops, small amounts of possibly usefull gems, usually unusefull items, laughable increases in province defense, etc. Hero, Gold and mine events also crop up, but are relatively rare. Very often "good" events don't actually improve my position.

Bad events I usually see: Gold lost through unrest, event, or province loss. Temple and lab destruction. Permanent income reduction. Theft of stuff I was planning on using. Bad events typically hurt my position.

I'm not really sure why, and perhaps my tests are just skewed, but the balance of possible good vs. bad events seems substantially different from Dom 1. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really see the good events that minor. I'm not sure you've never seen it or just unintentionally missed it while writing.

There are equivalents or even mirror images of the bad events: there are permanent increase of province income and resource, increase of population from migration, random temples and laboratories - though usually not in the right places - or even castles...

In Dom 2, you can also get some very good commanders from a few new events - wind master, lore master and the stalker (that ethereal assasain).

I don't know. As Gandalf Parker said, the gambler in me always like luck. I've not battle-tested Dom 2 enough to form a solid judgement but of course, the income decrease from Chao scale is significant.