I realize that without RNG things would be pretty boring, but it's over the top right now. Too many mechanics depend on it.
Battles, military leader generation, and rulers in particular are completely ridiculous.
If I've got three times as many troops and a better military leader and my morale is high and am defending in the mountains against a force that has crossed a river, I should win. Every time. Every. single. time. The influence of RNG should be only enough to moderately influence how many troops are lost on each side in a situation like that. RNG should never come close to determining who wins a battle unless the armies are fairly closely matched.
If I've got high Army Tradition, I should almost always get the good general I've damn earned and every now and then I should get a dud or a great general. The probability of getting a dud is way over the top right now (I've had uniformly bad luck personally so I can't speak to whether the odds of getting a great general are also too high).
Now, rulers are a little different. Unlike generals and AT, for example, there's nothing you've earned that you "deserve" a certain ruler. I'm fine with there being a lot of RNG here. But I think the degree of the ruler's influence is excessive. The economic production of the entire country shouldn't shut down if you get one doofus ruler. If it were me, I'd increase base MP generation about 50%, increase the MP cost of everything in the game about 40%, and leave rulers exactly the same.
Battles, military leader generation, and rulers in particular are completely ridiculous.
If I've got three times as many troops and a better military leader and my morale is high and am defending in the mountains against a force that has crossed a river, I should win. Every time. Every. single. time. The influence of RNG should be only enough to moderately influence how many troops are lost on each side in a situation like that. RNG should never come close to determining who wins a battle unless the armies are fairly closely matched.
If I've got high Army Tradition, I should almost always get the good general I've damn earned and every now and then I should get a dud or a great general. The probability of getting a dud is way over the top right now (I've had uniformly bad luck personally so I can't speak to whether the odds of getting a great general are also too high).
Now, rulers are a little different. Unlike generals and AT, for example, there's nothing you've earned that you "deserve" a certain ruler. I'm fine with there being a lot of RNG here. But I think the degree of the ruler's influence is excessive. The economic production of the entire country shouldn't shut down if you get one doofus ruler. If it were me, I'd increase base MP generation about 50%, increase the MP cost of everything in the game about 40%, and leave rulers exactly the same.
- 1
Upvote
0