Is growth scale must in a long game?

RadiantFleet · #1 December 16th, 2003, 06:55 PM

I find a strong growth scale helpful but not neccisary in a long game. Basicly, in later game their are a lot of ways to raise money (gift of nature's bounty, direct conVersion of gem to cash, etc.). Don't forget that their are other economies than money. You can use blood summons (once again growth helps, but is not required) for units, magic summons, well equiped hoards of leaders, lots of combos work.

I tend to like growth, high province defences with a couple of nodal armies for conquest and destruction of invading armies, but don't get locked into the idea that their is one optimum way to play. Also, sometimes your strategy can change by finding a really cool site early in the game that makes other strategies attractive.

ywl · #2 December 16th, 2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joonie73:
See topic.

Good scales are always useful but it's always a matter of trade off.

I think that each tick on growth give 0.2% of population increase - right? If so, even at Growth -3, your population decrease is only 26% after 50 turns, quite a long time in an normal MP game. The loss is significant but not too devastating, especially since you get 120 nation points out of it. The income bonus from Growth scale is actually more significant than the population death.

You can do well enough with Growth 0 in most cases, and save the points for something else.

Jasper · #3 December 16th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Growth +3 will give you a significant income boost in a long game all other things being usefull, but it's slow enough that spending those 120 points on something usefull early is probably at least as good.

Growth +3 is certainly no where near as mandatory as Order +3 and Misfortune +3, which is both more powerfull and cheaper.

Graeme Dice · #4 December 17th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
Growth +3 is certainly no where near as mandatory as Order +3 and Misfortune +3, which is both more powerfull and cheaper. [/QB]

I never take misfortune 3 if I don't absolutely have to, as I don't want the really bad events to have any chance of happening. The most destructive ones only happen at misfortune 3, so I simply remove the possibility altogether by never going over 2.

Treebeard · #5 December 17th, 2003, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I never take misfortune 3 if I don't absolutely have to, as I don't want the really bad events to have any chance of happening. The most destructive ones only happen at misfortune 3, so I simply remove the possibility altogether by never going over 2.

What are those? I certainly get hit by a bunch of nasty effects with lucky 3...

Graeme Dice · #6 December 17th, 2003, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Treebeard:
What are those? I certainly get hit by a bunch of nasty effects with lucky 3... [/QB]

They are ones that can cause the loss of a quarter of the population in one turn and so on.

Keir Maxwell · #7 December 17th, 2003, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by Treebeard:
What are those? I certainly get hit by a bunch of nasty effects with lucky 3...

They are ones that can cause the loss of a quarter of the population in one turn and so on. [/QB]

I seem to have had my fair share of these playing turmoil luck races with luck at +3. The problem might be that your dominion spreads unevenly and the turmoil scale produces alot of catastrophic events. On the other hand playing order3, misfortune3 has seemed the way to go for avoiding bad events. The problem is you don't get your national hero's. I do enjoy getting hero's with luck races.

Cheers

Keir