Misfortune 3

[wolfkinsov]

I don't want to start another debate about Order 3 Misfortune 3 vs. Turmoil 3 Luck 3. What I want to know is why would you do it.

Every time I try Order 3 Misfortune 3 I get hit but Knights, Trolls, Vampire Count, basically neutrals that were much harder then most independent 8 settings. Is there really a benefit that outweighs this?

[DeathDaemon]

Misfortune 3 means no heroes. Some heroes can change the outlook for a nation in trouble or at least become a surprise threat in the next deathmatch.

Luck 3 means adds 3% chance to get a hero every turn. So 6% w/ Luck 3

The frequency of events doesn't affect hero appearances - only luck/lisfortune. Am I right?

[ June 07, 2004, 21:00: Message edited by: DeathDaemon ]

[PvK]

I think people take Misfortune 3 because they are fatalistic and/or greedy for points to do other things with. They think/hope or want to see if they can do more with the points than they suffer from the misfortune.

PvK

[Cohen]

The problem is that National Heroes are limited ...

It should be nice that there're someone more powerful fixed, and a random national hero stock that takes one of your national leader base chassis and randomly pump up some stats or give him 1 or 2 empowerments.

So a luck3 is far more useful to get some free commanders a little pumped.

[PvK]

I wouldn't call that a "problem" per se... but your idea is a nice one I would welcome.

I think when you are out of specific national heroes, you get some sort of generic ones. No?

PvK

[odd_enuf]

i never take misfortune 3, not only do you never get heros, but some bad events require misfortune 3, such as the ancient pressence which reduces pop to a few hundred and attack the province with mandragoras and vinemen.

[Chazar]

The idea with never ending weaker heroes sounds pretty good to me as well and would certainly enhance the luck scale!

I usually take order 3, but still I always take luck 1: bad events are heavy upon MY morale...