by Deacon Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:19 am
Let me add another example.
Plagues weren't that uncommon in the period, but yet don't really occur in game much. And yet, there exists an in-game mechanism to deal with that, by training doctors.
Famine, on the other hand, can only be answered with the commodity grain, which you have to either get lucky or be able to trade for it. If you can't, nothing you can really do.
I guess if it was 1710 or later and you've done nothing, maybe you deserve it. But in game 10, it's June of the first game year. Nobody has surplus grain. Those few that had good harvest aren't likely to be willing to part with their extra to save the unlucky who had bad harvests. They'll need that grain to plant and build their own stores against bad years. (This isn't a complaint, I'm not one of the unlucky, just made me think about the issue)
In game 8, I got lucky and got good harvests early, and have worked hard to build out stores across the empire to ensure I can answer any famine (or siege), but much of that was just the luck of getting a good harvest early. I've given away or traded a lot of that grain to other players with the in-game justification that my King has seen famine and doesn't wish that on anyone, but it is as much me as a player thinking that I don't want to see fellow players 'defeated' and drop to a random game mechanic that would just be frustrating.
If the goal is to force players to engage each other, I don't think it's working.
Consider as well that while the game starts in 1700, history doesn't.
Maybe it should be a start up option "reduce starting cash, start with grain stockpile"?
Or that you can buy grain on the open market at some price, so saving your people becomes an economic challenge, and not just a "watch people starve" thing. Open market price being higher than what you'd pay another player, so there is still an incentive to trade, but you'd at least have another option.