Two armies attacking the same province

[Cainehill]

[quote]
Graeme Dice said:

curtadams said:

Or I could just not take misfortune.

Eh, since when has not taking misfortune helped that much? I mean - I take Luck-3 _every_ game. And in every one of five MP games, I've had to re-take provinces from random events. In one, by turn 15 I'd lost provinces _four_ times, meaning that I essentially lost any chance at being a contender.

Luck _still_ doesn't do nearly enough.

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Cainehill said:
Eh, since when has not taking misfortune helped that much? I mean - I take Luck-3 _every_ game. And in every one of five MP games, I've had to re-take provinces from random events. In one, by turn 15 I'd lost provinces _four_ times, meaning that I essentially lost any chance at being a contender.

Luck _still_ doesn't do nearly enough.

Wild guess... those provinces were under a misfortune dominion? Remember, having a good dominion is little use if you don't push it

I have no idea if this is an effective strategy, but for the who-needs-a-pretender-anyway-strategy (where I usually choose a fountain, imprisoned) and go for max dominion, disorder3,magic3,prod3,grow3,heat0... I very rarely see any misfornate events, except along the border until my pretender breaks free. Lots of gold=>lots of temples=>more dominion push. And more priests to push it quicker too.

[Cainehill]

Esben Mose Hansen said:

Wild guess... those provinces were under a misfortune dominion? Remember, having a good dominion is little use if you don't push it

Nope, friendly dominion with luck in most cases, and definately in that last game. The problem with luck is that it still actually increases the likelihood of bad effects, by increasing the likelihood of _some_ event happening, without doing enough to reduce the odds of bad events.

(This is of course my non-scientific analysis, as opposed to a mathematical analysis based on the published effects of luck/misfortune. )