Fire

[Elijah]

Bah you are doing very well Wyvern Very little player conflict except those troublesome Persians...

 

[unmerged(8915)]

hmm, thats true i dont remember the event too much since playing 1.05. lets i dont miss it too much either hard enough keeping manufactory provinces from enemy armies, added to it the random event, makes you reluctant to build them you know.

btw; did anyone complain about the unbalancing nature of a 'random manufactory in a province'?

 

[JohnMK]

Yes it's now dealt with. You won't get them anymore unless you're innovative.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
The fortification value does not necessarily mean city walls. It denotes the strength of the total fortifications and the garrison of the province, which may - or may not - be the fortifications of the largest city of the province, and, assuming it is the fortifications of a single city, will likely denote both the outer defenses of the city wall and the much stronger inner defenses of a citadel.

Thus it would seem a false assumption that the manufactory is within the fortifications.

You are basing your arguments against my opinion on the assumption that the manufactory is not within the city walls or everything other than a citadel could be under occupation before a province falls.

Given that ships and buildings can continue to be built, and troops trained (if the process is initiated before the siege) while a province is under siege, right until the province falls I cannot see how it could be possible the attacking army could hold everything other than a citadel. It seems to me that on most occasions the capital town is where these activites would take place and therefore it is the last bastion to be breached. I believe given the value and prestige of the manufactory, it is within the city walls and the capital's walls are the last thing to be breached in a siege or assault.

Even if the manufactory is not within the city walls it is extremely unlikely that an attacking force which is not even able to initiate a siege would be able to destroy a manufactory. Given its value (probably more than the rest of the province in most instances), a defending garrison would surely deny a ragtag little army that opportunity.

Plus, and this is the ace up my sleeve, if you look at the little display for a province, it clearly shows the manufactory safely behind the city walls

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
2) Random events only react based on a very limited number of triggers. Their frequency rarely depend on your countrysize at all - only their severity. This goes for uncooperative philsophers, peasant uprisings, sale of offices, random manufactories, meteor sightings (visible throughout your realm, but not through your neighbours' ), &etc. Thus, by this reasoning, nearly all random events are absurd* In other words, it is not a specific property of the fire random event, and thus not a reason against that one in particular.


* In fact, they are absurd. However, they add spice and unpredictability to the game, so that is all right

I think of random events of being of two types: province events (eg single revolts, fortification efforts, conversions to the state religion, etc) and kingdom events (stability/revolt risk events, diplomatic changes, etc).

Now all things being equal, each entity on which a random event can occur should have the same probability of that event occurring over specified time period. Thus every province should have the same probability of a province event happening every month (like revolt risk) and every kingdom should have the same probability of a kingdom event happening every month. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary I believe the chance of an event happening every month is roughly constant (disregarding triggers), therefore kingdom events, which are already scaled by affecting your entire kingdom are perfectly sensible.

However, events that effect one province in particular are absurd, as your own reasoning shows, because the probability of them happen is not based on the number of provinces owned (again ignoring efforts to correct this by changing the triggers).
A manufactory fire is one of these absurd events.

Finally your argument that it is no worse than other events is a not really an argument at all. Just because other events suffer from a similar problem does not mean it is not worth raising this problem. I know there's a complicated sounding name for this type of argument but I can't remember it. It's like saying speeding isn't wrong because everyone does it.

EDIT

Corrected some spelling mistakes.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by SJG

Finally your argument that it is no worse than other events is a not really an argument at all. Just because other events suffer from a similar problem does not mean it is not worth raising this problem. I know there's a complicated sounding name for this type of argument but I can't remember it. It's like saying speeding isn't wrong because everyone does it.

The argument "This is not wrong (about something that is generally accepted to be wrong) because everybody does it" is indeed a logical fallacy.

The equivalent in this condition would have been "The reasoning is irrelevant because it can be applied to other random events"

And that would, indeed, have been sloppy logic on my part.

Fortunately, I did not conclude that. Rather, I concluded "Thus, by this reasoning, nearly all random events are absurd* it is not a specific property of the fire random event, and thus not a reason against that one in particular." (In other words, I pointed out, that while it may be absurd, that is a property shared by many other things belonging to the same category, and thus not particular to the specific one mentioned - which is something quite different from denying the absurdity)

This is relevant, since you specifically singled the devastating fire out as a bad event at the time

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
In other words, I pointed out, that while it may be absurd, that is a property shared by many other things belonging to the same category, and thus not particular to the specific one mentioned - which is something quite different from denying the absurdity

It may not be particular to this event, but, as you have accepted, that does not render it irrelevant.

As the event under consideration is the fire event, I concentrated on this event rather than broaden the subject.

If the discussion were about another event which shared the same property, or even all events, then I would have mentioned the same problem for those.

I like the events, both good and bad, and you are right they certainly make the game more fun (especially the bad ones) there are just some that I don't like conceptually. The fire is one of them, for the reasons previously stated.

EDIT

Dammit, why do I always have to spell something wrong?