refuting common wisdom on scales everybody knows

[quantum_mechani]

Many of your points are valid- lots of gold without a good outlet doesn't do much good, taking sloth is not the best option for some nations, drain is useful mine when you need points - but I absolutely cannot agree that order 3 is not optimal in all but the most unusual of situations. While it's true it is possible to find yourself in a situation without a good gold outlet, that is very rare. Almost all nations can channel gold to immediate and significant effect- either buying the better mages that can boost research and provide an ace in the hole in battle magic, or simply worthwhile troops (this applies even for nations that benefit from prod- they benefit even more if they can afford more heavy troops). And as other have pointed out, even when supposing you have sufficient gold for your mages and troops of choice, building forts with gold is an almost universally worthwhile application.

This is not to say you cannot be quite successful with turmoil 3, with any nation. Obviously the gold available to each nation can vary a great deal, regardless of scales, but that in no way implies that stacking the deck against yourself is a good idea. The bottom line as I see it is that order is such an all purposely useful scale, that realistically there are very few things you could sacrifice those points for a better return.

[Gandalf Parker]

Great post. But then Im known for doubting the things everybody knows. One of the things I love about this game is that even in years of debate, no absolute winning strategy has been agreed on. I love to concentrate on the lost scales, the never used units, the worthless spells, and discover some tactic that makes them useful again

[quantum_mechani]

Gandalf Parker said:
One of the things I love about this game is that even in years of debate, no absolute winning strategy has been agreed on.

I would be quite surprised if this was the case for any game of significant complexity.

[Tyrant]

Well written and insightful as usual Baalz.

I've got a couple games going with Turmoil 1, Growth 2 and Luck 3 atm, and i'm liking it. Virtually no bad events in one, a single burnt lab in the other, decent cash, plenty of heroes and volunteers and the occasional big cash prize. It's both fun and viable and will use it again.

[Ballbarian]

A very thought provoking topic Baalz.

Gandalf Parker said:
One of the things I love about this game is that even in years of debate, no absolute winning strategy has been agreed on.

I would be quite surprised if this was the case for any game of significant complexity.

I wish there were more games of significant complexity, but I can think of very few compared to the number of 'tank rush' style rts's that have been on the market over the years.

[Baalz]

MaxWilson said:
The one thing that troubles me about your post is that your refutations all have the sound of knocking down straw men.

I'll go ahead and let QM refute this point. At any rate, I've no problem if nobody disagrees with me, I'm refuting sentiments that I feel are common. I'm not referring to the really odd scenarios like LA Ermor (order) or MA Ulm (drain), but the fact that it seems to me plenty of people take the scales I mention 95% of the time.

quantum_mechani said:
Many of your points are valid- lots of gold without a good outlet doesn't do much good, taking sloth is not the best option for some nations, drain is useful mine when you need points - but I absolutely cannot agree that order 3 is not optimal in all but the most unusual of situations. While it's true it is possible to find yourself in a situation without a good gold outlet, that is very rare. Almost all nations can channel gold to immediate and significant effect- either buying the better mages that can boost research and provide an ace in the hole in battle magic, or simply worthwhile troops (this applies even for nations that benefit from prod- they benefit even more if they can afford more heavy troops). And as other have pointed out, even when supposing you have sufficient gold for your mages and troops of choice, building forts with gold is an almost universally worthwhile application.

This is not to say you cannot be quite successful with turmoil 3, with any nation. Obviously the gold available to each nation can vary a great deal, regardless of scales, but that in no way implies that stacking the deck against yourself is a good idea. The bottom line as I see it is that order is such an all purposely useful scale, that realistically there are very few things you could sacrifice those points for a better return.

Yes, in a vacuum more order is always good, no argument. My point is not that you ever have 'enough' gold, and I certainly never meant to imply that not having a good outlet for gold was common. My point was rather that there is a opportunity cost to everything and 'automatically' taking order-3 in every build you do is not always the most optimal choice. This is amplified by the 'expand at any cost' mentality where you burn gold to get as many (perhaps more lightly armored than optimal) troops out as fast as you can. Don't get me wrong, that's an obviously valid strategy. My assertion is it's not always the only competitive one.

To reiterate, my point is that you can, in lots of situations end up with more gold in hand by taking ie. production scales rather than order. You can, in some situations have more gold in hand by taking a higher bless rather than order, or an awake pretender.

[quantum_mechani]

Baalz said:


To reiterate, my point is that you can, in lots of situations end up with more gold in hand by taking ie. production scales rather than order. You can, in some situations have more gold in hand by taking a higher bless rather than order, or an awake pretender.

Ironically, the key advantage of a prod scale, bless or awake pretender is... expanding faster.

Your own argument about reckless expansion seems to work against you here, taking order is the safe way to keep parity with fast expanding nations without spreading yourself too thin. And that is beside the fact, there are almost always something less important to dredge points from than order, given the large degree of diminishing returns where pouring more points into bless/pretender does not speed expanding.

[Xietor]

In alpaca I had 3 order and 3 luck, with 2 drain. With ma Pangaea no less. So yes unusual scales, with a plan, can prevail over traditional thinking.

[dirtywick]

quantum_mechani said:

Your own argument about reckless expansion seems to work against you here, taking order is the safe way to keep parity with fast expanding nations without spreading yourself too thin. And that is beside the fact, there are almost always something less important to dredge points from than order, given the large degree of diminishing returns where pouring more points into bless/pretender does not speed expanding.

If you're taking turmoil, you're taking equal or greater parts luck. Nations that have cheap mages/nationals or that can take advantage of gem diversity makes it an appealing choice.

But to free up points for a bless or something and not take luck, I think you'd doom yourself to death by random events.

[quantum_mechani]

dirtywick said:

If you're taking turmoil, you're taking equal or greater parts luck. Nations that have cheap mages/nationals or that can take advantage of gem diversity makes it an appealing choice.

But to free up points for a bless or something and not take luck, I think you'd doom yourself to death by random events.

I'm not sure we disagree here - turmoil without luck is a bad move. But my argument is that turmoil, even with luck, is still a suboptimal choice.