[SurvivalistMerc]

Catquiet,

I haven't tested it, but with current luck events, it seems less viable than 3 death. At least you get the heroes with death. And death doesn't cause you to lose provinces, only to lose population in a predictable manner.

I think the long-term problem of death dominion is why order has a 7% bonus to income now. I just about think they were balancing order relative to the death scale.

I don't ever take death with the nations I like to play. Because large armies are hard to move around in a death dominion. And Catquiet, I don't think the devs intended for most nations to take death 3. Though I could be wrong. I think select nations like Abyssia and the undead nations with dominion that will kill the population anyway were meant to take death. Death dominion is actually beneficial if you don't have living armies. For certain nations, death 3 is very viable. Ermor. Abyssia. Carrion Woods Pangea if they weren't required to take growth.

My real point is that 9% increase in income does not balance on the order side of the equation what your scales take on the misfortune side. I think most folks would agree with me. We could do a poll if you you'd like. I actually think just the economic effects of that much unluck in terms of tax loss, destruction of equipment, and the like will more than equal the 9% net income in your example. And that's not counting the heroes, population loss, getting Bogus the Troll, gem theft, etc.