[ywl]

Originally posted by PDF:
Back (more) on-topic :
I really have a problem with the "mix" between O/T and L/M : as it stands now you have to take Order to limit Misf effect, or to take Turmoil to amplify Luck. But Order is a rock hard good investment, whereas Luck is a gamble...

In the end you have a 0 net Design cost in both case, but with O+M have +20% income, +6% res and *very few* bad events, in the other you have -20%, -6%, and may have unpredictable good events...(BTW getting 100's of Militias is just a waste of upkeep gold, not really a good news !)

Who will be foolish enough to go for the second option ? Maybe for fun in SP, but no way in MP.
THAT'S the issue IMHO..

Why can't you go for Order 0/Luck+3? You spend 120 nation points. But you get a moderate income, get insured from the major unluck events and have access to the occasional major luck events. The major boost from Cross-Breeding, Void-Gate and Transformation are not bad for some nations neither. Or you can go for Luck +1 or +2 using a lesser amount of points. Points are important but how else are you going to use it? Boosting up a combat pretender who might die frequently. It's always a balance of the overall design.

To me, Order+3/Luck-3 is usable but it is risky. You can get hit by something *very* nasty, even though the chance is smaller. And for some nations, you will definitely miss the heroes. Chao-3/Luck+3 is indeed stupid because of the disabling income. But it just show that negative scale is bad and you can't get something for nothing. It'll be more to my tastle if the effect of Order scale on random events decrease from +/-5% to +/-4%. But as what stands now, I don't think that it's such a no-brainer for Order+3/Luck-3.