The most dreadful (random) event?

[HoneyBadger]

Lab isn't as cataclysmic, in my opinion. Very bad, but not the "most dreadful event". More expensive to replace, ofcourse, and maybe harder to fix since you can't alchemize gems to pay for a new lab, but not having a Lab won't kill you outright-where not having a Temple can and often will, if you're playing Mictlan for instance, or a low Dominion Pretender next to a high one.

[chrispedersen]

Not true honey. Losing a lab first turn, with an imprisoned pretender, and no mage build is a disaster, especially for nations that *have* to build commanders that require the lab.

I really think that some events should not occur in the first 3 turns. Sure, I realize that people take bad luck - but... you go to a lot of effort to setup a game - and then someone drops due to getting truly horrendous random events in the first turn.

There are just 5-6 events that shouldn't happen in the first year.

[Ironhawk]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I really think that some events should not occur in the first 3 turns. Sure, I realize that people take bad luck - but... you go to a lot of effort to setup a game - and then someone drops due to getting truly horrendous random events in the first turn.

There are just 5-6 events that shouldn't happen in the first year.

No, I strongly disagree. If you take misfortune, you have to do it with the understanding that you are rolling the dice with your entire nation. Preventing the really bad events in the first year would make taking Misfortune practically a no-brainer since it extremely rapidly becomes less of a problem as your empire expands.

[Loren]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Not true honey. Losing a lab first turn, with an imprisoned pretender, and no mage build is a disaster, especially for nations that *have* to build commanders that require the lab.

I really think that some events should not occur in the first 3 turns. Sure, I realize that people take bad luck - but... you go to a lot of effort to setup a game - and then someone drops due to getting truly horrendous random events in the first turn.

There are just 5-6 events that shouldn't happen in the first year.

I think what's needed is most bad events shouldn't be able to happen in the capital, period.

[konming]

Originally Posted by Loren

I think what's needed is most bad events shouldn't be able to happen in the capital, period.

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.

[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.