refuting common wisdom on scales everybody knows

[kasnavada]

Just to add some little facts instead of speaking about theoriminions...

As far as Order 3 goes, run the following test :
Common setting : start with 9 provinces, awake god.
Setting for test 1 : order 3.
Setting for test 2 : luck 3 turmoil 3.

Just wait for 30 turns without moving and see what you get... some people are going to be surprised.

[MaxWilson]

CUnknown,

I habitually take Misfortune-3 along with the other scales being pretty good. The only time I have ever had seriously game-killing events was during a brief period when I was experimenting with Death scales. Under Growth, Misfortune has never been a real problem even if I'm sometimes curious what heroes I'm missing out on.

I can certainly imagine that some people would prefer to take Sloth, but I wouldn't. I like Prod. Bear in mind that I play SP.

-Max

[Zeldor]

You were just lucky. Misfortune 3 kills people in MP games. Of course someone needs to come and take their lands, but that is just finishing what was done by misfortune scale [yes, it happened to me with MA R'lyeh and Order 3 Misf3 and I have seen other people getting killed that way]. The worst things are cumulated unrest events in capitol.

[Ironhawk]

Zeldor said:
You were just lucky. Misfortune 3 kills people in MP games. Of course someone needs to come and take their lands, but that is just finishing what was done by misfortune scale [yes, it happened to me with MA R'lyeh and Order 3 Misf3 and I have seen other people getting killed that way]. The worst things are cumulated unrest events in capitol.

No, I dont agree. I almost always take Order 3, Misfortune 2/3 in every game I play. There is only a *very* short period in the game where misfortune is actually dangerous rather than a nuisance. Only turn 1, 2, and perhaps 3 are the truly dangerous ones for a Misfortune player. Beyond that, you have enough provinces that the chance of anything terrible happening to your capital drops off to practically nothing.

IMO, the only reason not to take Misfortune is if you really want your nations Heroes.

[CUnknown]

Ironhawk said:
No, I dont agree. I almost always take Order 3, Misfortune 2/3 in every game I play. There is only a *very* short period in the game where misfortune is actually dangerous rather than a nuisance.

Well, I take Order-3, Misfortune-2 quite a lot myself. It's just that Misfortune-3 scale in particular that is a killer for me. I just don't think the 40 points are worth the extra chance of catastrophic doom.

[Sombre]

kasnavada said:
Just to add some little facts instead of speaking about theoriminions...

As far as Order 3 goes, run the following test :
Common setting : start with 9 provinces, awake god.
Setting for test 1 : order 3.
Setting for test 2 : luck 3 turmoil 3.

Just wait for 30 turns without moving and see what you get... some people are going to be surprised.

That test doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 9 provinces is not the average size of a dom3 'nation'. It doesn't factor in the difference in the early game. It isn't fair in that order 3 costs points whereas turmoil 3 luck 3 doesn't. It ignores a major disadvantage of luck turmoil (that it doesn't scale to large territories) and ignores a major advantage (that early gold event that lets you double your expansion rate).

I just don't see what it really tells us.

[kasnavada]

That test doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 9 provinces is not the average size of a dom3 'nation'. It doesn't factor in the difference in the early game. It isn't fair in that order 3 costs points whereas turmoil 3 luck 3 doesn't. It ignores a major disadvantage of luck turmoil (that it doesn't scale to large territories) and ignores a major advantage (that early gold event that lets you double your expansion rate).

It tells me you haven't run the test. And try to refute facts with theoryminions.

I did run that test. What it tells me is that the average gold given with such as test rivals the gold gotten with order 3, and that you get a lot more gems too.

The link to the test is in the other thread about luck.

[Sombre]

kasnavada said:
It tells me you haven't run the test. And try to refute facts with theoryminions.

I did run that test. What it tells me is that the average gold given with such as test rivals the gold gotten with order 3, and that you get a lot more gems too.

The link to the test is in the other thread about luck.

Why would I run a test I see as essentially flawed in application to this thread? Besides I'm not refuting the results you posted in the other thread. Just the conclusions you draw from the test.

You don't seem to have actually read the post of mine you quoted.

But that's ok judging from your response I don't have any interest in debating anything with you.

[Zeldor]

Ironhawk:

Yes, first 1-4 turns are really a problem. In that R'lyeh case I had 120 unrest in my capitol from events.

[Endoperez]

Sombre said:
That test doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 9 provinces is not the average size of a dom3 'nation'. It doesn't factor in the difference in the early game. It isn't fair in that order 3 costs points whereas turmoil 3 luck 3 doesn't. It ignores a major disadvantage of luck turmoil (that it doesn't scale to large territories) and ignores a major advantage (that early gold event that lets you double your expansion rate).

I just don't see what it really tells us.

I think the point is that Turmoil/Luck can come near Order in gold income, even though it costs 120 less points, and comes with all the perks of Luck.

I know that the test if flawed. It's the only test that is easy to run, though, and that's why I have run it (or similar ones) and I think that's why others have done the same. If I can bother, I could modify my test map so that two nations start the game own equal, unconnected areas of about fourty provinces, temples in all provinces. It would only provide two samples at a time, so generating data would be very slow and very boring.