Can you get the best random events w/o Luck +3?

[Tough Guy]

My bad events are as bad as anyone's but my good ones are usually pretty light.

I get a few gems(never many) and I once got 200 gold.

I did a search and people w/ luck+3 seem to get the best luck events(1000 gold, magic items, etc).

Has this been confirmed??

[ March 25, 2004, 18:04: Message edited by: Tough Guy ]

[Teraswaerto]

Luck is needed for some events, like the 1500 gold & magic items one.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Some good random events are only possible at +3 luck. This is confirmed.

[DarkTears]

I allways take Turmoil 3, and Luck 3.
This cost 0 design points, and you got a huge advantage. (More frequent and better random events.) In a multi game I'm only in 15th or something like that turn, and got a total of 1900 gold from random events. (Once 1000, once 500, once 200 gold, and two times 100 gold. And since I got magic 3, in every single turn I get some gems/pearls, so I got something to trade. (Means more money.)

[The_Duke]

Hmmm,

I really love random events, especially positive ones

BUT, I have played several games with +3 Turmoil +3 Luck and other with +3 Order, and I just cant make up my mind what is better, monetary wise.

Does the positive events really make up for the –21% in income? (I know it is not exactly 21%, it depends on a lot of things). Yeah, the +1500 pesos every now ant then is great, but a loss of income for every province you own every turn.

Secondly, does the +3 magic give you gems? Isn’t the gems just a positive event, nothing to do with your magic setting?

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by The_Duke:

BUT, I have played several games with +3 Turmoil +3 Luck and other with +3 Order, and I just cant make up my mind what is better, monetary wise.

Does the positive events really make up for the –21% in income? (I know it is not exactly 21%, it depends on a lot of things). Yeah, the +1500 pesos every now ant then is great, but a loss of income for every province you own every turn.

The income difference is much, much, more than 21%. At +3 order you get +21% at -3 you get -21% for a span of 42%.

Assuming for a moment growth=0, production=0, the relative income factor between a +3 nation competing with a -3 nation is (1+.21)/(1-.21)~1.53, i.e. the +3 nation is earning, on a daily basis, 53% more than the -3 nation. This is the factor you will notice in the income-graph in the ledger.

Now, how does that compare with the extra income from luck? Well, for 42% of base income to exceed 1500g requires the base income to total 3571g. In other words, if your base income is, say, 500g, then you need a 1500g gift at least every 3571/500 ~7 days for the gifts to be worth more.

This is, of course, voodoo mathematics

I have not taken into account that +3 order costs 120 points while -3 order, +3 luck costs 0. Nor have I taken lesser gifts into account. Yet, even so, you can see that if gold is your yardstick then you need to earn a LOT of money from random events (by direct gold or gem events) in order for luck to be more profitable economically.

Going with the same 42% span as before and with the base income being the income at 0 order:

Daily base income 300g. Average daily luck-income needed 126g
Daily base income 500g. Average daily luck-income needed 210g
Daily base income 700g. Average daily luck-income needed 294g
Daily base income 1000g. Average daily luck-income needed 420g
Daily base income 1500g. Average daily luck-income needed 630g

Do YOU earn that kind of money on average from luck events - even if you alchemize all the gems? I sure do not.

[And remember, while you get a maximum of 3 random events per turn, your order/turmoil scale affects the income of each and every province]

You save on nation points and you get all sorts of interesting events, many good and many bad, and you gain an exceptional amount of gems if you also have a +3 magic environment, and you gain an occasional windfall of money but do not, for one single instance, believe that it pays off in the gold economy to go turmoil 3, luck 3.

It does not.

Go turmoil 3, luck 3 should probably be reserved for maenad-Pangaea, AE/SG Ermor, and Michtlan.

[Waiting for counterexamples ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Go turmoil 3, luck 3 should probably be reserved for maenad-Pangaea, AE/SG Ermor, and Michtlan.

[Waiting for counterexamples ]

CW Pangaea also benefits from Turmoil/Luck, for the same reasons as Dead Ermor: Bad events can only kill population....losing 1/4th of your zero population hurts! (Yeah, right). So you can shake loose a fair number of goodies from Turmoil/Luck as a dead nation. Craptastic events happen about as often in Turmoil/Luck as they do in Order/Misfortune: You get a lot of random goodies on the side, but the greatly increased event frequency will increase the frequency of crappy things, as well.

Mictlan, however, is not a natural turmoil candidate. While you can control the spread of your dominion somewhat, which can reduce the effect of harmful scales, it's not a no-brainer.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Good point on Carrion Woods. I did not think of that theme as I have never played it, but I thought that the Carrion Woods had a combined gold recruitment/undead recruitment basis?

Originally posted by Norfleet:

Mictlan, however, is not a natural turmoil candidate. While you can control the spread of your dominion somewhat, which can reduce the effect of harmful scales, it's not a no-brainer.

Well, none of the combinations are no-brainers - e.g. I prefer Ermor with turmoil 3, misfortune 3 over turmoil 3, luck 3, but both are certainly viable.

I find Mictlan a natural turmoil candidate - but perhaps that is because I focus on blood-summoned troops to the near exclusion of everything else and, more importantly, have not played them in MP yet (where the lower gold income might slow down initial expansion too much).

[Wendigo]

I prefer Ermor with turmoil 3, misfortune 3 over turmoil 3, luck 3, but both are certainly viable.

Disagree, at least regarding competitive MP. Missfortune Ermor might be viable playing with rare events, but on standard event settings it's a poor choice IMO.

Without even considering the bad events (lab/temple losses, master thief...) you would be giving up on Money events, mine events, gem events & Etimmu.

While Ermor has lower monetary needs than live nations alchemy & pillaging can only take you so far to cover these...you have to pay for forts, temples, labs, indep wizards to expand your narrow magics & scouts. Which of those would you sacrifice? How can a few more magic levels on the pretender compensate for such sacrifice?

The pretender can still only search one province per turn, cast one ritual per turn, forge one item per turn or fight one battle per turn.

[ March 26, 2004, 09:45: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Wendigo:

quote:

---

I prefer Ermor with turmoil 3, misfortune 3 over turmoil 3, luck 3, but both are certainly viable.

Disagree, at least regarding competitive MP. Missfortune Ermor might be viable playing with rare events, but on standard event settings it's a poor choice IMO.

Without even considering the bad events (lab/temple losses, master thief...) you would be giving up on Money events, mine events, gem events & Etimmu.

---

Etimmu's usefulness depends on whether you are playing Ermor AE or SG. For AE he is an enormously beneficial hero - for SG he is only slightly better than the standard Wraith leaders.

You would still be getting some gem events, e.g. the ones where the witch curses your troops (who cares)

I only play with standard event frequency and have not felt real pain with misfortune 3 as Ermor SG. It costs a few temples every now and then but that is certainly survivable, so long as you have a good alchemy based economy going.

While Ermor has lower monetary needs than live nations alchemy & pillaging can only take you so far to cover these...you have to pay for forts, temples, labs, indep wizards to expand your narrow magics & scouts. Which of those would you sacrifice? How can a few more magic levels on the pretender compensate for such sacrifice?

We are talking about 240 points difference here. That is more than a "few" more magic levels. It is enough for an extra path to reach 9 - or, to my mind preferable, boost a few extra paths up to 4.

The pretender can still only search one province per turn, cast one ritual per turn, forge one item per turn or fight one battle per turn. [/qb]

Completely true. However, the pretender with 4 in most any path will find all magic sites in the province he searches including the rare sites that reduce spell costs. The pretender with 2's and 3's will not.

And while the pretender is only able to do one thing at a time, the pretender is able to do very nearly anything. Summon any unit (including all the high-level spell-casting uniques) and cast any global (with the possible exception of astral if you chickened out of high astral). You are able to adapt to any magical situation on hand, assuming you have the magical gems. You are never in the "I have to boost my pretender two levels with items in order to summon a monster than with a mere three boosts from items is capable of performing the summon" situation.

With the pretender taking a province and searching it on alternating turns for the first many turns, the better magic pretender can create a huge initial advantage in gems and good sites.

The utility of this is highly dependent on map size and the expected game length and it goes without saying that turmoil 3, misfortune 3 is risky: turmoil 3, luck 3 is certainly safer.

...But try an SG Ermor with -3/-3/-3/-3/-3/+3 some day. It is an interesting experience