Why do people use normal richness in MP?

[rabelais]

Just curious. I find the economic constraints in D2 enormously frustrating, even with very good scales... yet all the MP games I see use default richness settings.

Am I just a munchkin, or is it an implicit cash/resource ratio balance thing? Seems like rich should be the practical default for MP, where things are often slow/laborious.

Yet it's never even talked about....


Rabe the (Hypothetically) Enriched

[Raz 24]

I have only played with normal richness and by about turn 45 I have over 2000 gold in income , and is pumping out huge armys and burning my brain controllieng everything , taxes , unrest and all other small things . I think the normal richness is good , just need those farmlands

My english teacher will kill me someday!

[PDF]

Having had some Dom1 experience, I initially wanted to have more resources... However after trying with the new "normal" setting I now prefer it : gold is a *real* constraint and force to make harsh choice every turn. It's more challenging, no longer are the players swimming in gold ...

[PvK]

Yes.

Also, I have been playing with normal or even high site frequency, but now that I've gotten better at site searching, I'm thinking maybe low would be interesting, to limit the choices and prolong the natural national limits, etc.

PvK

[IKerensky]

Hum, my brother tricked me in a Worldmap game... with indies 9 , site frequency 75 and a POOR World !!!

Facing 50 to 80 knights and crossbows to get a wealth 3 province is definitely a new experience for me....

And I wondered why he choosed an heavy summoning Pangea to start with....

[Norfleet]

Rabelais, if the economic crunch seems to really frustrate you, you're either playing a really expensive nation that tends to naturally run into these problems, or you're born to be an Ermor player.

Poor worlds inherently favor Ermor, since Ermor gains nothing from the wealth level of a province, and acquires most of its money from burnination.