What Are the Drawbacks of High Misfortune?

[Zeldor]

Not annoyance. Misfortune, even 1-2 can eliminate you from the MP game. If you survive long enough with that scales you are fine. But you take HUGE RISK. You can get some nasty events during first 10 turns and you have no chance to win the war.

Examples:
- lab/temple lost without mages/priests
- huge unrest in capitol [you can get even over 100 in one turn], takes some time and money to get rid of
- Bogus, if you are unlucky he can attack your capitol, he beats 125 strong PD
- huge hordes of barbarians - you can get a group of almost 200 barbarians attacking at once

And if you mix it with Death 3 you will probably have population 10-15k in capitol after around 10-15 turns.

[Twan]

All these events may happen with low misfortune and some even with luck 1 if as a player you are unlucky, so taking misfortune 2 or 3 has no real special drawback.

I like to play with luck scale because it's fun, but I don't think it's actually balanced at all.

I think the main problem of the luck scale is the cap on the number of events coupled with the fact you usually own some provinces where your scales aren't maxed. So if you play a big empire with luck 3 turmoil 3 and are conquering new lands at the fronteer of your dominion, you will often get bad events from provinces where you have only turmoil, and these events will count in the maximum of 3 events per turn in your national provinces, limiting the benefits of luck.

[DrPraetorious]

The drawback to misfortune is that, on average it costs you a big pile of money and gems.

- You *don't* get a number of beneficial events (trade routes, so-and-so found a pile of gems, etc), which costs you money and gems.
- If you also take Drain, you get a lot of events where you lose gems.
- If you also take Death, you get a lot of events where you lose piles of population (as has been mentioned.)
- Regardless of what you take, you get a lot of events that raise unrest - hurricanes, that star that curses people, etc. These events can cause 40 unrest or more, which is (at least for a turn) a bigger income hit that 3 levels of Order.

Most of the effects of Misfortune are not, it is true, game-breakers.

However, as an income scale, in the short turn, Fortune is a better deal than Growth.

[Ironhawk]

Misfortune has its drawbacks, but its not that bad when coupled with Order. I take Misf 2-3 in every MP game. Its a gamble for the first couple of turns, until you capture 1 or 2 provinces, because you could get slammed in your cap. But once you get those provs the chance of a bad event in your cap drops drastically - and the truth is that bad events in the majority of your empire really dont effect gold output that much. They are only a problem if they happen in capitals and awesome farmland provs.

So, on the whole, unless you have a strong reason to take luck, I think that Order + Misf is always the way to go.

[Zeldor]

You are lucky if you are not severely punished for taking Misfortune.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Zeldor. You have just been struck with extremely bad luck. Most of the time you can take misfortune 3, and not receive anything that unlucky.

[DonCorazon]

I am playing an MP game with high luck and a lucky pretender. I receive gems, magic items and gold almost every turn, not to mention heroes begging to serve in my army. The downside is I get dregs of lame militia / arrow cushions who show up as well.

An interesting thought is that all these bonus events from high luck, such as merchants and tax surpluses, might generate more gold than the +x% you get from high order combined with misfortune. I haven't thought this out but just thinking that most provinces have pretty low income to start with, and then when you add on lost income from barbarian invasions and time to recapture, plus negative event income drains, High order may not be as lucrative as high luck.

Plus it is less aggravating and generates significant gem income as well.

[Meglobob]

DonCorazon said:An interesting thought is that all these bonus events from high luck, such as merchants and tax surpluses, might generate more gold than the +x% you get from high order combined with misfortune. I haven't thought this out but just thinking that most provinces have pretty low income to start with, and then when you add on lost income from barbarian invasions and time to recapture, plus negative event income drains, High order may not be as lucrative as high luck.

A player ran some tests on this and basically the upshot is Order 3 Misfortune 3 results in more gold income for the first 30 - 40 turns.

Then turmoil 3 luck 3 equals and overtakes it, giving you more gold overall.

However, the first 30 turns of a game is the 'crucial' part of the game usually as it sets you up how you are going to do throughout the entire game.

This is why order 3 misfortune 3 is often viewed as the best option.

The scale you after really avoid taking (other then LA Ermor) is death 3. Death 3 is just eventual suicide in anything other than a blitz, very small game.

[PyroStock]

Meglobob said:
A player ran some tests on this and basically the upshot is Order 3 Misfortune 3 results in more gold income for the first 30 - 40 turns.

Then turmoil 3 luck 3 equals and overtakes it, giving you more gold overall.

Anyone have a link to the thread?

[DonCorazon]

Interesting...I wonder how the tests were done and how you account for magic items, gems, heroes, no lab/temple burning risk, etc.

First part of the game is definitely critical but in my limited experience I have found I am often constrained by resources in the beginning of the game whereas later in the game it is $$$ I need.