The worst thing about Kingdoms is the Kings. Discuss.

  • My latest server has left me once again questioning the balancer of power between Kings/Dukes/Governors. I've played all three, so I have a reasonable perspective I think.


    As long as he is active, you are stuck with your King. Sure, if he was really bad everyone could gang up and boot him out, but I've only ever seen this happen early on for Kings who didn't know how to play. Leaving and joining another Kingdom is only even thinkable early on also if your King knows how to play the game. But knowing how to play the game doesn't mean that they are good, or compatible, Kings.


    Generally Kings appear to trust no-one apart from any pre-existing clique (and I understand why, but this doesn't make it any easier to take), so most of the Kingdom are kept in the dark and have no part in decisions that affect them considerably. Given that, in a decent Kingdom, Kings get more resource and don't have to waste troops acquiring it, I feel that they owe the Governors something, and let's face it, it's not protection like it says at the start of the game - the Governors protect the Kings/Dukes, not the other way round.


    At the moment I don't feel I have the time to play King and I'd rather not be a poor King. Others don't feel the same reluctance; maybe that's because the advantages of being King are so large. Therefore I suggest that there needs to be an advantage for Governors that's not available to Kings (or probably Dukes). I'm not sure what that might be, as I'm sure Travian wouldn't want anything that might cut gold use. For now then, I just want to make the suggestion that there needs to be something to make being a Governor more attractive.

  • Kings make units from the tributes but lacks the crop to feed them.
    Governors make units from normal resource production and a part from stolen goods but they have no problem in crop which they can NPC it for troop making or other building.


    I'd say governors have more benefits than kings because as a governor
    1. You are not a priority target of coordinated hammer attacks
    2. If you are in a good kingdom you can sleep safe and sound w/o worrying about your village
    3. If you are in a good kingdom then Crop problem is not an issue due to stolen goods so you can make a lot of units w/o worrying of starvation
    4. Governors can pretty much do whatever they want in the game, unlike kings who has to do everything for the kingdom
    5. If the king you are serving gets beaten you won't get destroyed and the enemy kingdom will possibly welcome you unlike your beaten king that will get rekt :D


    Btw King has lots of stuff to do than governor and even disadvantages
    1. A King should be the most active player in his kingdom,
    2. He must coordinate the entire kingdom, plan expansions, and decide the best course of actions for his kingdom
    3. He must always ask for crop and raid for crop because he has no stolen goods to feed his armies and allies reinforcements.
    4. He must deal with concerns of his kingdom
    5. He must deal with diplomacies of his kingdom

    "You can do a hundreds of good deeds but everyone will remember the 1 mistake you will do."

  • Being a king is the worst. It takes so much time, so much gold, so much dedication. I've had dozens or maybe hundreds of sleepless nights due to being a king in kingdoms. Being a king is only good for you if you made it to top-5 kingdoms, and even then you have to spend half of your days babysitting your governors. Make sure governor X doesn't smack his hammer at enemy kings capital when you want him to save it for WWs, make sure governor Y doesn't delete out of boredom when he's the biggest provider of your standing defence.


    It's like trying to control a kindergarten alone. I would never want to be a king again, much rather be a big duke or just a solo governor. Also better not forget those nights where you are screaming calls for defence but barely few people are online out of like 100, so lovely <3

  • The worst thing about being king is that everyone Expects you to do EVERYTHING.


    -Is there a argument between a cropper; ask the king
    -Is there a argument about oasis; ask the king
    -Why dont we attack another alliance; the king has to plan this
    -Who do we defend; why does the king not make a defchat and make defcalls
    -I'm being attack; pm the king for help


    When I was a king (1 time, but with great succes; Go North ;) some of my dukes never wrote messages from their own accounts, but always PM'ed me to write it or did it themselves as sitter so people would actually listen. I realised at that server that being king is awesome, because you get LOTS of tributes, but it also takes a lot of time chatting and organising.
    I wrote all members almost weekly a personal message about off actions or their defense quota's for when the wonders came. I organised small quiz's for resources and let everyone know as often as possible what the game-plan was.


    It was fun work, but not always. Like @Jallu said it's 30% babysitting and finding traitors. I think if people want to be king they should have at least 500 prestige or get some kind of "duke-badge" first.

  • Well good Kings do the things that you guys have been saying. Maybe I've been unlucky, but I can't say that I've seen some of these in evidence even in Top 5 Kingdoms. In particular:


    1. I'm usually more active than my King and I'm nowhere near active enough to be a King in my own estimation
    2. Kings often try to duck out of making decisions or make very bad decisions when it comes to dealing with player disputes
    3. Kings have to be bullied into making defchats etc. Well, it's not as though Governors can do it.
    4. Kings don't seem to be very apt at spotting potential traitors; they are too easily taken in, e.g. by flattery ;) and instead suspect everyone, which cripples communication
    5. Kings generally say, "We only defend Kings and Dukes, because they have the treasures"
    6. Kings are lousy at picking Dukes
    7. etc.

  • I totally agree Aeneas with your original post. Basically kings keep building hammer for WW time and then abandon the kingdom due to the VP shenanigans. Kings only get attacked by other players, but governors get attacked just as much in addition to robber camps getting exponentially larger lol. I honestly can't see 1 perk of being a governor in the current system other than wanting to play with other players and only being allowed 1 king and a few dukes.


    On top of that, when all the governors work hard to get treasures for the kingdom, the king will just give all treasures and victory points to another kingdom through a loophole and every single governor in the kingdom ends the server empty handed and nothing they can do about it.


    No Governor can change kingdoms after the 2nd or 3rd at most village and have any real success, but the current system gives kings all the power and resources.
    Fix the loop hole to prevent VP swapping.... Treasure swapping is unavoidable, but VP swapping ticks me off.... 2 servers in a row it's become a huge problem.


    Thanks,


    RandAlThor


    I had a while to think about this post and wanted to clarify the main point. Governors have no control over End Game and are often tossed aside due in large part to the ability of VP swapping. Why should 90% of a Kingdom be tossed aside in the last week and get nothing? 3+ months of working towards a goal and then getting left behind because of VP or WW swapping. I wish a server had no WW and had a VP goal ending of lets say 5 million. A timer of 90 days Max just in case. Hammers would be used to get treasures instead. Lastly, I think to make Governors have a real perk would be to bring back Arti's for Gov's only. That way even the 200% durability arti would be fair since a king or duke can't protect treasures that are earning VP. If you brought back Arti's for Gov's only and made a few more but with smaller perks, it would at a minimum make the end game content for Gov's exciting instead of just logging in to train def... send resources to WW.... read reports of attacks on WW.... then do it again in a few hours..... very boring if not a WW holder or king/duke......


    Thanks,


    RandAlThor

  • "As long as he is active, you are stuck with your King. Sure, if he was really bad everyone could gang up and boot him out, but I've only ever seen this happen early on for Kings who didn't know how to play. "


    In regards to this, on the most recent Comx3 server the #2 ranked alliance "OxY" was lead by a king named "ImperatoR" he treated his players terribly and I lead a rebellion which almost everyone joined our side due to his terrible treatment of us. The rebellion caused him to delete and 3 of his dukes to delete, although one submitted and joined us.


    Then I ruled over the new kingdom :P and this was in week 6 of 8 weeks by the way. ^^

  • "As long as he is active, you are stuck with your King. Sure, if he was really bad everyone could gang up and boot him out, but I've only ever seen this happen early on for Kings who didn't know how to play. "


    In regards to this, on the most recent Comx3 server the #2 ranked alliance "OxY" was lead by a king named "ImperatoR" he treated his players terribly and I lead a rebellion which almost everyone joined our side due to his terrible treatment of us. The rebellion caused him to delete and 3 of his dukes to delete, although one submitted and joined us.


    Then I ruled over the new kingdom :P and this was in week 6 of 8 weeks by the way. ^^

    True. But he was really, really bad. ;) The exception that makes the rule, so to speak.

  • The complainants point of view will 100% change when they get the chance to play as king and lead a top 1-4 kingdom. :whistling:

    "You can do a hundreds of good deeds but everyone will remember the 1 mistake you will do."

  • Been a dual for a top 4 king before after I smashed my hammer. When there were still alliances in kingdoms. The question is.... Do we cater to only kingdoms 1-4 now as you mentioned? What a cop out comment Archer in regards to this discussion lol. Luckily since I met your cop out comment requirements. I can say, "NO, my opinion has not changed". lol again just for good measure.

  • From a king's POV I would happily play governor than king if I have a reliable king that is as good as me. IN ALL HONESTY. :)

    "You can do a hundreds of good deeds but everyone will remember the 1 mistake you will do."

  • The question is not leading a kingdom or alliance as it sucks... it's the current system and how the leaders you follow basically ditch you at the end for VP and Treasure swapping shenanigans. The entire End Game needs to be modified to basically play out.... This is your kingdom, this is your WW if it's still insisted. I mean, 60+ people build a kingdom and then 50+ get thrown away in the last week or 2 and all the points generated get artificially added to a completely different kingdom.

  • Well then its not a king's problem but the game itself.
    Its not the king's problem if they want their kingdom in order for them to win.
    My solution to this. Restrict any kingdom to disband their kingdom, abdicate, and remove dukes and even restrict them from removing members when the wonders appear.

    "You can do a hundreds of good deeds but everyone will remember the 1 mistake you will do."

  • In this case we do have a problem with the game. However, this is merely indicative of an underlying problem. Even without these specific instances we can still have these problems:


    1. Kings who are not active enough
    2. Kings who never consult with their Governors on anything (which covers a wide range of things from endgame strategy to constantly inviting people you're farming into the Kingdom)
    3. Kings who appoint poor Dukes because they know them (either IRL or through the game), rather than because they are active and know how to play


    And I've both been a top 4 King (in TL) and been a winning Duke (in TK) where I was the King's sitter (and where he became very inactive in the endgame). I know that if you do it right it's a huge amount of work, probably especially now there is only 1 King and 4 Dukes (even more important to pick the right Dukes!).


    I'm saying that this needs to change. Maybe there should be more Dukes; maybe there should be some new position(s). In the game I used to play before Travian you could set a War Leader, a Trade Leader and a Diplomacy Leader, for example.

  • I'm saying that this needs to change. Maybe there should be more Dukes; maybe there should be some new position(s). In the game I used to play before Travian you could set a War Leader, a Trade Leader and a Diplomacy Leader, for example.

    well some kings do it all themselves because they have in the account different people who are in charge of diffirent items.


    but on the other hand it would be nice if you could appoint leaders and make it visible for the kingdom (like in TL, or you could do it at least in T3.6 after that i didnt play TL anymore)

  • It seems that Kingdoms is really designed for pre-made teams. I have basically only played kingdoms as a dual on an account that plays in a pre-made team. We don't have any of the king problems mentioned so far, mainly because we only choose as kings the people who have played in the pre-made for a server or more and proven themselves. The leadership core is a TEAM.


    Usually it goes that nobody really wants to be the king because of all the work, but then somebody has to do it and kings and dukes are selected ahead of time, then in we go and join a server together and we more or less don't have to worry about the kingdom shenanigans.


    I think the advice for governors ought to be: get in the game, use your first server to discover a team or band of players that you would like to play with in future servers, sit through the first server together and develop some camaraderie, then join the next server as a pre-made and be prepared to do some real damage!


    Perhaps Travian needs to more explicitly explain to new players that this is how it works best.