Population
 

I've noticed that populations inside the territory only seem to have bad events. I've never seen where settlers have moved into a territory or baby booming for a sudden population increase. ALWAYS the events are bad where 5% thru 35% of the population dies.

My point is that it seems unreasonable for zero(or almost zero) events which increase the population for a territory.

Re: Population
 

Sorry, I tried my own example and you are right. No events to bring in more population apparently. Maybe that is so that luck is not superior to growth scale?


***But there are.. Random events depend on your scale. Take a 3 turmoil 3 luck 3 growth Arcoscephale pretender (lady of luck) and pass a bunch of turns, you should see them.***

[ December 15, 2003, 19:22: Message edited by: Tiltowait ]

Re: Population
 

NTJedi,

It's good to see you made it here from the AoW:SM website.

I posted something very much along these lines on this forum when I first started playing Dominions. I'm sure it's controversial, but I agree with you.

You will also notice that barbarians get to pillage your population even if you defeat them when you get the barbarians bad event.

I was told that they have to have these bad events in order to hide that an enemy wizard has cast a very nasty anti-population spell on your province. Of course, that doesn't explain away the lack of good population events.

I will say...I have seen the AI capital's population get as high as 44,000 in a death 2, unluck 2 dominion--with turmoil!! So maybe the AIs benefit from migration away from player provinces. I don't know.

A lot of the bad events are really bad (and permanent), whereas most good events, with the exception of finding resources or gold/silver, are usually temporary. The disparity between good and bad events is so marked in Dominions that folks had a petition to change the luck/order scales going around a while ago. Fortunately, that thread is now buried...but maybe not for long.

-SM

Re: Population
 

there is events which add to the population of a province. They are much rarer that the ones which reduces it though. IW like to have a downward spiral as a recurring theme for the worlds of Dominions.

Re: Population
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I didn't want to actually bring it up; as I still am not sure about my total feelings or suggestions I can provide that would give realistic or balanced feedback.

I believe Luck is not nearly as far out of whack as I had thought previously.

The reason for this is in part my perception of the game and my playstyle changing.

When I first started playing Dom2 I took the general "Resource creates Strategy". By this I mean, strategy and tactics when first playing a game are more focused on mass production of the best cost/effect ratio. In this light; I seldom went seriously for any design that did not utilize high income and Order 3, Misfortune 3 is the perfect vehicle for this. Gaining 21% income for a nominal chance of a bad event.

Hand in hand with that; anything that affected production or income was felt more keenly than any other type of event, good or bad.

I still do believe that early game floods and storms are overtly destructive when compared to early game good events (gems, decrease of unrest and income boost, rare mine production etc). The reason for this is that only one of the early 'good' events have a standing impact throughout the course of the game (mines) which are much more rare (even in mountain provinces) than floods on the negative scale. Also with that; a province can only have a certain # of sites and if you get unlucky on placement; you don't get your mine.

Take in with it the fact that we (as players) define and estimate our strength in game based on population, army strength, income, etc. It psychologically can be more important than it in reality is.

Fast forward to now. I've played every race, every theme on a array of different scales/pretenders and have been equally sucessful on both sides of the line. Where I think my own perspective changed was to get away from my reliance on income/production (Forced by playing certain styles) and in order to be successful had to adapt and change my thinking. Previously a gem income event would be glanced at, now I'm eager to see it's type. Previously a 100 gold event was seen without as much appeal as I do now.

I do still feel that Turmoil (not so much Order) and Misfortune scales need to be adjusted in some way in order to become "balanced" when using other scales to compensate for them. I do still feel and would like the change of the weighting of the luck scale and perhaps the events to allow a greater variety not only in the events but the scales and potentcy of them.

Re: Population
 

Through playing bless effect races I've gotten along way from the Dom1 economic model of playing and I do find it refreshing. I have got some good results with turmoil/luck races and my latest S&A test actually had incredible luck leading to an explosive start with extra mines, gold, hero's all in the first 4 turns. My base production was not far under an order/misfortune race by turn 5. However this is the only time I have come out really well out of luck in many tries. Normally good events contribute a bit more than bad events cost using the lady of Fortune and about even without. In general I feel order/misfortune is significantly more powerful unless you have a good reason to run with turmoil.

I would like to see luck improved by furthur tailoring of events to scales and the economic benifit of order slightly decreased. I am uncomfortable with the idea of misfortune returning to Dom1 which would make the standard order race use luck 0 instead of misfortune3. This would significantly reduce the amount of order bless effect races one could play and devestate order based dual bless effect races (ie two magic paths at 9). It would however leave untouched turmoil/luck bless effect races.

In general I am happy wiht the downward spiral of population in a dominons game. The wars of Gods are not good for mortals. Still playing +3 growth I expect to finish with alot more population than I started.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Population
 

If there's any chance of some event-tailoring, I'd like to see them rise in effect (not frequency) with time.

As it is, events are glorious or devastating at the start of the game, becoming increasingly insignificant as the game progresses.

As an example, an event may net 50 gold on turn 1, but the same event could be worth 250 or 500 gold on turn 20, 1000 by turn 50.

Re: Population
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would rather see events have increased effects based on the number of provinces you own
instead of just time.

Right now more provinces will give you a better chance at multiple events (up to three), maybe you could have a chance of an event having a boosted effect based on the number of provinces under your control.

Of course Illwinter might decide to apply this to bad events also.

Re: Population
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think order 3/misfortune 3 should be 21% extra income essentially for free. (Or 120 nation points for free, depending on how you look at it.) That's why I want to see some of the event frequency modifier moved back to the luck scale.

With the current order/luck scales:
Order 3/luck 0: 120 points, +21% income, very few events of any kind.
Order 3/misfortune 3: 0 points, +21% income, very few events (most of them are bad).
Turmoil 3/luck 3: 0 points, -21% income, lots of events (more than half are good, but with the current event set, you will be doing well to come out even overall).

On the other hand, with the suggested changes to order/luck (order is +/-5% events per step, luck is +/+5% events per step, major disasters restricted to below certain levels of luck):

Order 3/luck 0: 120 points, +21% income, few events (although not as few as the present Order 3).
Order 3/misfortune 3: 0 points, +21% income, standard number of events most of which are bad.
Turmoil 3/luck 3: 0 points, -21% income, lots of events most of which are good (and the ones that are bad aren't crippling).

As the scales are now, if you are taking any amount of order there is no reason not to go all the way to order 3/misfortune 3. You get a lot more income for 0 nation points, and your disaster risk is not significantly greater than order 0/luck 0. Conversely turmoil 3/luck 3, although it also costs 0 points, is vastly inferior - the good events just don't make up for the constant floods, hurricanes, mass emigrations, etc. that plague your land of good fortune.

I understand what you are saying about order bless effect races, but I think order 3/misfortune 3 will still be viable - it'll just be a little more risky. You are actually losing something (or at least risking something) for those 120 points compared to order 3/luck 0.

Misfortune should be risky. That's what makes it cost negative points.

Re: Population
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If its just a question of greater risk that could be manageable and fair enough.

My experiance of playing misfortune in Dom1 was that it was suciude and thats why I'm worried about returning directly to the dom1 model. I may have had bad luck but I found misfortune unplayable in Dom1 and I would like it to remain playable. The risk for bless races is exagerated as pop killing event in your home province are as good as end game as your home province matter heaps more to the mass of bless races who can only build their key troops in their home province.

To be honest I have given up for now on dual bless effects races as they are hard to play at present and if the weight of opinion is reflected in the forthcoming patch there is a good chance they will be dead ducks. Sure it may be fine after the patch but I don't want to get to emotionally attached a races which maynot be viable next week. Seeing as I'm one of the only players with who has expressed any attachment to these races and most players who have commented on the matter arn't concerned if dual bless effect races vanish I'm trying to give up on my babies before they are ritually slaughtered. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

It occurs to me that after the patch comes through turmoil/luck may be an essential basis for attempts at dual bless effects races.

Cheers

Keir

Re: Population
 

I'm still rather new to Dominions. And working too much to be able to really try out things the way some of you have.

But I will add my commentary to the thread anyway and hope that it isn't received poorly by my more experienced colleagues on the board.

I would actually like to see the number of points you have to play with not be a fixed number. Think about what that would do...everyone (ai included) gets the same number of points. You could see some very high-magic pretenders that way. And you would pay for your power increase by a corresponding power increase in your AI opponents or human opponents. Think of the new dimension it would add to the game! Folks would decide on the number of starting development points (or at least have the option of doing so) prior to a MP game.

I would prefer that the devs change the events to make fortune and misfortune more balanced. Fixed numbers of population lost rather than percentages of highly populated home provinces strike me as better than losing 1/4 your population as can happen now. Sure...you'd miss 2,000 people. But not as much as 7,000-8,000. And the effect would be less devastating.

Maybe a small amount of gems lost event could be made more common in unluck scales.

Or perhaps the national heroes could be beefed up. Anyone taking order-3, misfortune-3 will never see the national heroes. I take those scales a lot with ulm (my current favorite nation), and so I don't get the heroes very often. There are some very powerful summons in the game.... And none of the heroes is exactly a supercombatant...so I don't think it would be a bad thing to beef them up and make them more desirable.

It would be nice if order-3, misfortune-3 was about what it is now...just you would be giving up so many things that you would have second thoughts about taking these scales.

I already read Posts by some people who won't take the third misfortune so that they have some chance of getting a national hero.

If some folks think the combination of order-3, misfortune-3 is powerful, these folks have the option to use it themselves. There are already some folks on this board who seem (to me at least) to know far more than I do about Dominions who don't use those scales. And they don't appear to have adopted this position for purposes of handicapping themselves against weak human opponents.

If everyone has access to order-3, misfortune-3, would not those of you who don't like this combination but find it powerful agree that what is really being argued is the number of starting development points, which is increased if folks who would take some order for income anyway are able to take misfortune to balance it out without losing points?

If what you really want is to play with fewer points, why not just ask the devs to make the number of points selectable?

Just a thought. And I'm sure there will be folks who disagree with my novice perspective.

Re: Population
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I see there are lots of ways population will drop for a province. (events/magic)... yet very few ways population can increase.
There should be good events such as:
Settlers Migrating from faraway lands (random number between 1000 - 3000)
or
Sudden Increase in Marriages and babies (+10% increase)
or
Something!

Re: Population
 

Well, after excessive blood hunting perhaps there could be a chance of extreme bacchanalia so the participants can disqualify themselves from future blood hunts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Population
 

"Settlers Migrating from faraway lands"

Actually........this exists. I had it happen a couple of weeks ago to me when I was playing Ermor.

I do agree that the more you take in fortune the less the devasting events should be and the better good events should be.

It seems to me that the one side of the scale is unbalanced.

If the majority of people are picking order-3 misfortune-3 then there is a problem. It should be a decision, not an automatic choice.

Just my thoughts
Cap