The most dreadful (random) event?

[Edratman]

Herode, that is a very useful analysis of luck/misfortune. I've never encountered a post that even vaguely quantified good/bad events.

That is a study worthy of its own thread.

[Edi]

Originally Posted by Agema

I think he means balanced in the sense that luck is as good for you as misfortune is bad.

I'd certainly say I found Misfortune 2 rather aggravating, mostly for repeated rebellions and the occasional demolished building. You'd be surprised how beneficial it is to not only have a stream of extra gold/gems/PD but be very unlikely to have disruptions across your empire.

True, and depending on what nation you play, even the militia events might actually be big boosts, especially early in the game. LA Abysia comes to mind, they get some of the light Abysian infantries from a militia events, so getting something like 70 of those in one go in the first few turns for example is an awesome boost.

[VedalkenBear]

Re: the Kirke-Skogu event, KO, I assume this is a negative event, and can thus be stopped by Fortunetelling?

I say this because I've had Kirke and Skogu in the same province for many many turns (my capital) over many games (I like Sauromatia), and I've never ever seen that event.

Also, isn't one of the Partholonians (I think it's the relatively new Queen hero added to Sauromatia) also related to Skogu somehow?

[Kristoffer O]

> Re: the Kirke-Skogu event, KO, I assume this is a negative event, and can thus be stopped by Fortunetelling?

Aha. Most likely. How clever of you

Skögu was born in the swamps of Pythia ages ago. His mother left him in the swamps to die, but he was found and nurtured by a Pythian serpent. When he returned to his tribe, he could still not speak a word. He was not accepted and wandered the land until he came to a strange island and met a beautiful enchantress. She took him as her lover and taught him three languages that are spoken today, three languages that are dead and finally the language spoken by the dead. She must have loved or hated him greatly, because she also taught him the dark art of necromancy. When the witch finally got tired of her young lover and banished him from the island, Skögu was maddened by rage and turned his dark arts to practice. He returned to his tribe with a host of ghosts and slew and ate those who opposed him. He sacrificed women as he would his former lover, should they meet again, and made his tribe do the same and he made his tribesmen eat those they defeated in combat. Soon the Horror of the Androphags spread across the steppes. He took seven wives, three living, three old and one no longer living. The sons of his wives were taught the dark arts and he called them Witch Kings. Skögu has since retired into the swamps of Pythia where he feasts upon the flesh of men, awaiting the arrival of his former lover. Skögu rides a Pythian serpent reanimated by vile magic.

Once, long before the arrival of the Amazons and the Witch Kings, there lived a highly magical race in the Sauromatian steppes. They are called Partholonians by the few who still remember them. With the emergence of the Witch Kings, the few remaining Partholonians were driven from their lands and the Witch Kings stole their knowledge and ate their flesh. Delgnat, daughter of Sera and an able sorceress, stayed and witnessed the passing of her remainingin kin. With growing despair, she watched her last kinsman die. In defiance of the old traditions, she turned to dark sorcery and reanimated her brothers and sisters and created a court of the living dead deep in the misty swamps of Sauromatia. Here she was approached by Skögu, who wooed her, slew her and ate her. Her dark practices had prepared her for this and she returned in flesh to haunt the Witch King. Skögu was enamoured and took her as his seventh and final wife and together they built a castle for the dead. Delgnat is immortal, but her body slowly withers if she leaves her castle of dead memories.

[Loren]

Originally Posted by konming

Misfortune is already good for points, basically every guide you read out there points to misfortune. I do not see how removing one thing misfortune can possibly harm will help balance the game, or do anything else useful.

The problem is that as it stands it's a big risk-taking. Maybe you get knocked out by a bad event early, if not you gain from having the points. You get imbalanced games when a player is taken out. The player who loses the gamble doesn't lose much because they quickly see they are dead, the player who wins the gamble has a better chance of winning.

I believe this sort of thing is harmful to the game. Remove bad events from the capital but make luck/misfortune have more of an effect elsewhere--perhaps raise the maximum number of events per turn, add some nastier events--Bogus II, just like the original except every turn he attacks what he thinks is the weakest adjacent province.

[Zeldor]

Unrest events early on should be more balanced though, especially multiple unrest. Being unlucky is 1 thing, getting eliminated by it is another thing. And no, that risk is no reason to go for Luck.

We all know that biggest problem is that Luck does not work well with Order 3. And 90% people take O3. So they naturally take misfortune as it also does not scale with size and is useless if you conquer enemy provinces [and well, that is your goal, isn't it?]. It can of course work nice on smaller maps, when you take a risk of lower income for a chance to get nice gold/fort/gem events instead. Hard to build any strategy on it though.

[Aezeal]

I agree Zeldor misfortune gives bad events... sure, that is known and accepted and the whole point, but getting ruined by it on the first (or first 3-5) turns is not balanced

[Edi]

Bad events are the whole bloody point of misfortune. If you take it, then you run the risk of being ruined by that misfortune early on, tough luck. Even if it does cost you the game in the first few turns. On the other hand, with Misfortune 3, you just got 120 points extra to spend on dominion, magic paths and/or other scales which should presumably offset the problems of the misfortune scale.

Misfortune is already one of the most widely used scales, so why the hell should it be nerfed just so people can feel they can safely take it? Can anyone give me any actual viable reason why this should be?

The best solution I can see is increasing the maximum number of possible events per turn, as that would scale both luck and misfortune a lot better, especially in large games.

[Zeldor]

I am only talking about getting for example 120 unrest on turn2 in your capitol. Order should decrease unrest events. And I am talking about that not in context of misf-luck balance. As I said - not scaling of it + bad events from enemy dom replacing your good ones is a thing that makes it unbalanced.

[Herode]

I don't understand. Why would 90% people take Misf if it is unbalanced, that's what I cant' figure. If Luck is not worth its price and Misf unbalanced, then 95% of the players should take Luck 0, I guess