Quote:
JimMorrison said:
But still, if taking Luck + Drain ends up giving no clear benefit, in effect negating the effects of the luck, those points would be hands down better in a +income scale. I hardly see anyone saying "I consider my points in luck to be well spent if I get 1 hero in the first 20 turns of the game", you know?
|
No, I don't really take luck for heroes. It's the gems, and the occasional income event. If a nation doesn't have expensive mages outside of the capital or expensive units intregal to a strategy, I value the gems much more than the gold; you can't buy gems.
~70 gems on average more over 20 turns is pretty significant to me (that's 3 a turn without turmoil!). I think that a better test is to pit order/misfortune against luck/turmoil point for point. Luck 3/Turmoil 3 will probably yield a lot more gems than plain Luck 3, I'd imagine. The more common random good events are, the more gems you'll get; it's probably the most common good event you'll see. Don't most people who take high order balance it with misfortune and vice/versa? I'd think so. Those results would probably be more representative.
Or maybe most people don't do that? I know I do.
In any case, I will say that Luck is much worse on larger maps because of the event limit.