Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

Gandalf Parker · #1 January 12th, 2007, 02:51 PM

I think that at the moment the safety zone is set for something like 3 turns. So its not the want as much as the range of the safety that is in question.

And of course, starting with one province is a game option. I often like to start with 3-5 on large maps.

thejeff · #2 January 12th, 2007, 02:58 PM

Losing your lab sometime in the first 3 years isn't really that big a deal. It's a one turn delay on recruiting capital-only mages and researching/casting in the capital along with 500gp. Not a game breaker.

Losing your lab in the first few turns when you might not even have recruited a mage yet. That's a game breaker, especially with dormant/imprisoned pretender.
Same for early temple loss.

Agrajag · #3 January 12th, 2007, 03:08 PM

Have you tried using Random Events Are Rare?

TwoBits · #4 January 12th, 2007, 03:11 PM

Is there any "safety zone" at the start of a game? I don't think so.

Once my capitol got hit by vampires on the 2nd turn (before I had the chance to even think of attacking my first independant) of a small , random map MP game (and I had +1 luck to boot).

Wiped out my PD and income right from the get-go. I had to demand a restart, and justifiably, I think.

That's the kind of irritating (and major time wasting - we're talking days if you're playing PBEM, like we were) event that needs to be mitigated against.

Shovah32 · #5 January 12th, 2007, 03:16 PM

One of the worst things is having an imprisoned pretender and losing your lab before recruiting a mage.

HoneyBadger · #6 January 12th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Ok, so what I'd like is the option to set the "safety zone" to a maximum of 36 turns with possibly some options in between the two extremes. Maybe 3, 6, 12, 24, 36.

Thejeff, that's just a minimal example of a bad situation that repeatedly comes up. Losing your lab within the first 3 years might not be catastrophic in and of itself, but if you are playing a no-income nation (and I often do) and have to wait up to a year or two to gather 500 gold, and you can't cash in gems, then it becomes really viciously bad for your nation.

Frankly, I'd be pleased if there were a way to cash in gems without needing a lab. It seems just as reasonable, since the game uses a gold economy (the basic dollar equals a POUND of gold at a time...assuming it's pure 24 carat gold, and assuming mining techniques are primitive, especially in Early Age, where are they getting it all??? A pound of silver I could see. An ounce of gold I could see. Paying 10-20lbs of gold for a militia unit, nope.) to be able to cash in gems without needing a lab/alchemy.

Maybe as a basic function of the Fortress, and extend it to all gems, possibly keeping different prices per gem, and maybe having a fluctuating price based on the size of your nation-so that gems are worth more, the larger your nation is (at the time when lots of gems are more valuable to you), divided by decreasing in price the more the market is flooded by a specific gem.

Ofcourse, the nature of the game tends to preclude a nation-to-nation trade option, I guess I understand that, but there could still be a shadow economy going wherein a nation would put gems on the market for purchase by-for instance-that damned old witch who keeps cursing my troops.

thejeff · #7 January 12th, 2007, 04:03 PM

Even the no income nations have some income. Newly captured provinces, luck events. Years to get 500 gold? Months maybe.

If you're really concerned about this, build another lab or keep the money on hand. Consider it insurance.

I assume you have money at some point. All the no income nations (Which is what now? LE Ermor & Rl'yeh?) benefit from temples and forts.

The first couple turn problems are in a different category, since there's so little you can do to prepare and with only 1 province the effects are proportionally much worse.

TwoBits · #8 January 12th, 2007, 04:05 PM

Totally off topic (forgive me please), but regarding that witch who curses your troops for raiding her hut for gems, do you actually get any extra gems for that event?

Gandalf Parker · #9 January 12th, 2007, 04:15 PM

@TwoBits:
Its hard to tell but yes you should get some. However, Johans idea of little, some, many a lot, is quite abit different from the players.

@HoneyBadger:
The turns limit on bad events at 36 seems crazy to me. Ive seen many blitz games of 2-4 players that are considered to be over by that time. A setting of 36 turns would make taking -3 luck a total no-brainer.

I agree it could use some balancing since at the moment +3 luck seems pretty automatic for many people.

Taqwus · #10 January 12th, 2007, 04:34 PM

...Misfortune of any kind still doesn't become automatic.

I really wouldn't mind seeing SEIV-level event modding, where individual events could be tweaked in magnitude and were rated as to severity. It'd probably please some of the more grognardish players who seek more predictability... some of the events can be quite lucrative or destructive (free items can be as high as Cons 6, if memory serves; 3000 gold AND items is nice; if you've been using Growth +3 in a long game to get lots of pop and it gets wiped out by Ancient Presence, that's ugly).

3 years -is- a very long time, 'tho; by that time, it would seem rather reasonable to have another fort/temple/lab complex and at least some cash reserve, unless it's a custom map with absolutely brutal independent forces that slow everybody down.