Quote:
quantum_mechani said:
Quote:
dirtywick said:
Quote:
quantum_mechani said:
Your own argument about reckless expansion seems to work against you here, taking order is the safe way to keep parity with fast expanding nations without spreading yourself too thin. And that is beside the fact, there are almost always something less important to dredge points from than order, given the large degree of diminishing returns where pouring more points into bless/pretender does not speed expanding.
|
If you're taking turmoil, you're taking equal or greater parts luck. Nations that have cheap mages/nationals or that can take advantage of gem diversity makes it an appealing choice.
But to free up points for a bless or something and not take luck, I think you'd doom yourself to death by random events.
|
I'm not sure we disagree here - turmoil without luck is a bad move. But my argument is that turmoil, even with luck, is still a suboptimal choice.
|
I was saying that taking turmoil only frees up points for luck.
However, I don't think it's a suboptimal choice if you can use diverse gems effectively or you just don't need a lot of gold. For example, in EA Ulm's most expensive mage is 220 gold and that's cap only and they've got no cavalry or otherwise expensive units. Arco, Oceania, Lanka, and R'lyeh are in the same boat to a lesser degree, barring a few expensive cap only units or whatever.
Then, you've got Caelum that has mammoths and Seraphs to pay for, Sauromatia which is almost all cav, hydras, and expensive mages, Agartha has very few cheap units, and Hinnom is just ridiculously gold dependant for any of it's units.
Then some are in between.
Some nations just don't need gold as badly as others, so you have some wiggle room in the scales.