Luck/Misfortune Nerf.

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, luck 1, turn 2, Abyssia: plague strikes, cutting my pop by 1/5 and costing me 200 gold.

[PDF]

HoneyBadger said:
Ok, luck 1, turn 2, Abyssia: plague strikes, cutting my pop by 1/5 and costing me 200 gold.

What's broken is that now Luck doesn't seem to prevent major disastrous events - you just have less chance of getting them...
I don't think Curse event has much importance anyway (even on a Prophet or Pretender), but plagues, earthquakes and so on have.

[Micah]

Curse on an SC pretender early seems like a major setback, as he'll rack up afflictions from doing his thing...I don't see the problem with a cursed prophet though, I tend to keep mine in the back happily smiting and blessing things, with no serious chance of injury, and thus no chance of an affliction.

[HoneyBadger]

Yeah, even the 1/5th pop event, if it only happens once, not every turn or so (which does happen), wouldn't be a big deal. And I do consider a cursed Prophet to be just pure bad luck and not the scales at fault. The point is that major catastrophies do happen and Luck doesn't seem to help you.

[Baalz]

Well, I think the issue is not so much with the "dude, that sucks!" events such as a cursed pretender, temple or lab burning down, or several turns of unrest in your capitol. Its more with the things that there is no way to prevent, no way to mitigate, and pretty much make it impossible to come back from. Its just a random roll of the die and you're out of the game regardless of anything you could have possibly done even if you knew it was coming. Strong indy's attacking (Bogus!), and big population killing events are about the only things I can think of that fit that category for me. Everything else fits more into the flavor category- sure it may make the difference in a very competitive game but that's always gonna be the case if you have any radom events at all.

On the luck side of the scale, I don't really see the same issue. There are no events that if you get them, basically ensure you a victory. It's not even close to the impact that one of the catostrophic events will have early in the game- Game Over Dude!

[HoneyBadger]

That's why I'd like to see it delayed a few years, because we're talking things that depend on the strategy you're attempting-if you're LA Ermor and all your pop dies, 100% in the first year, not a really big deal.

If Bogus attacks a province with really strong PD like Abyssia, you've got a good chance of repelling him, same thing with vampire counts.

I wouldn't want those events removed from the game by any means, but definitely a delaying factor on atleast some of them, and you're right about the good events. You could get 3000 gold etc on turn 2 and it doesn't mean you're going to win-it helps a lot, but it's not a certain thing. Again, if you're LA Ermor, not so much of a big deal.

Alternative to my previous suggestion is this possibility:

I'd be happy if-instead of 3 years with no catastrophies-you got 1 year with no good or bad luck events if you choose 0 luck. That would make Luck 0 a strategic choice instead of just a default, which is nice.

Then you could further the same restriction against those with Luck positive or Misfortune positive. Luck positive means no bad luck events for that many years, while Misfortune positive means no good luck for that many years, then it defaults to the current situation.

[Maltrease]

I like your suggestion HoneyBadger. But maybe luck 0... is exactly the default we have now. Luck 1 would be no bad events for a year.

I also think that luck should be completely uncoupled from the order scale. None of the other scales are reduced or enchanced in effectiveness by a selection in a different scale.

[HoneyBadger]

I prefer Luck 0 as having a year off of both, because otherwise, why would I ever choose Luck 0? Luck 0 should be a strategic option, but if it's just the same as Misfortune 1 or Luck 1 as far as solving the problem at hand, then why choose it?