A warriors culture

  • As it stands, the only way to build your culture effectively is by building up a lot of villages and holding a lot of celebrations.


    My suggestion is simple.

    For every unit killed in offense and in defense, grant the player who is responsible for that kill 1 culture point.

    So if you attack someone and kill 2000 def troops and you lose 1500 off troops, then you gain 2000 culture points, and whoever lost their def troops will gain 1500 culture points.

    A couple of exceptions would be that you can't gain culture points from killing troops from the same kingdom and you can't get any (or reduced) culture points for killing robber hideouts or robber camps.


    Why do I think this is a good idea?

    Sometimes players end up in the middle of an earlygame war, and because of this they end up being heavily impeded in their cultural growth since they are forced to spend all their resources on building troops.

    These circumstances makes it so that these players who fought for weeks on end will end up a lot weaker than players who were left alone and were free to develop their villages as they saw fit, even though the players that were on the front line have made a much bigger impact on the server as a whole. I feel like this is the opposite way of how it should be. The player who fought from day 1 is the one who has gained all the fame and notoriety, so their culture should be way more known, widespread, and thus more developed. There is a reason why none of the largest cultures in history is one that just wanted peace with everyone, but instead it was the ones who were waging war.

  • Wouldn't it still be unbalanced that way ?

    Given the scenarios that you described:
    what if the players that were left alone and go the simming/partying route start attacking when they have the eco to back up the losses ?

    Isn't that gonna make it even more difficult for those frontliners to compete with ?

    There are several game-styles that you can pick (attrition or simming and hitting later) but as a whole, even though I think that's an interesting idea I'm 100% sure it would hurt those players you are trying to help, instead of actually helping. But hey it's my opinion ^^

  • Multi abusers will love this idea.


    Besides the idea one need alot of villages in order to create a usefull account (off or deffwise) isn't necessarily true. Many different ways to play this game and be usefull. Its all a matter of playstyle, goal and how one works towards it.


    Those who don't last early game mostly won't have any effect later game either.

    Some things are better left unsaid.

    Which I generally realize right after I have said them.

  • this would bring the game more out of balance between offer and defender, like it still is
    the offer can decide to attack for the CP, the defender has to share the CP with other defender and mostly leaders decide, who has to defend which villa
    finally the defender cant choose to make CP in this kind, the offer can

  • This is an interesting idea. As Mycro#EN pointed out, there are various ways for this to be abused. Multi's have been known in the past to kill troops of their other accounts to rank up their heroes, so I'm not very on board with this specific idea.

    However, I do think that additional strategies for getting culture points would be a welcome addition to the game. Currently, there are a few ways:

    1. Hero helmet
    2. Buildings producing culture points / cities
    3. Using artworks
    4. Celebrations

    A mix of these can help a player attain large amounts of culture points if used effectively.


    An idea for expanding culture points activities, I think, would be something similar to "smithy upgrades". Currently, the Town Hall has a function that is somewhat similar to that, but only in terms of time (so the higher you upgrade, the less time it takes) and two tiers of celebrations (-/=500 small celebration and -/=2,000 for large celebrations). Maybe an upgrade that could add a certain percentage bonus to the max culture points that a village could produce - this option could be an *infrastructure* upgrade that could be located in the Smithy.
    The second way that I think this could be implemented could be through the Academy. Right now you are able to research different troop types based off of buildings. Maybe there are additional perks, such as, increased culture points, or maybe an additional celebration that isn't tied to the Town Hall. Other options could be explored for infrastructure Academy research items.

    These are just a few idea that *could* expand out the current culture point earning options.
    At the current moment, I am fairly happy with how the culture point accumulation works. There are plenty of different strategies for getting additional culture points - both related to Gold use and non-gold use. I think how it is implemented with buildings/cities bonus is very well balanced. My above ideas are more for "IF you wanted to expand, these might be some options", but in terms of things that I would want addressed in the game this would be at the very bottom of the list.

  • what if the players that were left alone and go the simming/partying route start attacking when they have the eco to back up the losses ?

    Isn't that gonna make it even more difficult for those frontliners to compete with ?

    If you did that then you would be attacking enemies who are already being attacked by someone else who has probably also been farming those same enemies for quite some time. It's not like you can't also do celebrations at the same time as doing this. It could be that if you wait too long with using your troops then the players who have been fighting will have already caught up to you in economy, and will have already surpassed you, so you would be the one catching up at that point. It kinda balances out. That's how it should be ideally though. I want to endorse more fighting, not more simming. The value of culture points fall off quite hard in the later parts of the game, so when the troops killed measure up in the millions, it will already be so late in the server that 5 extra villages will not gain you that much of a benefit.


    As it stands there is no actual tangible benefit for killing other players troops other than for hero xp unless you are trying to farm someone or if you are trying to destroy an objective or defend an objective. I just imagine culture points would be the best way to give something in return for spending large parts of your economy on military and to reward aggression.


    You should always build up your economy to some extent. You don't want to be building only military with the just the 1 level 1 cropland you are forced to build in the tutorial. But when the most effective way to play the game is to not interact with other players for the first 30 days of the server then I feel like that's not how it's supposed to be. It should be an option, but it shouldn't be the best way to play the game.

  • It could be that if you wait too long with using your troops then the players who have been fighting will have already caught up to you in economy, and will have already surpassed you, so you would be the one catching up at that point.

    That's exactly my point. Since you're playing attrition you'll never have a decent amount of troops since you are constantly hitting and rebuilding, therefore a simmer that has been fattening up will most likely be able to kill way more troops than the attrition player before he runs out of army, and he already has the eco to stack up the army again and probably can maintain parties going 24/7. I don't see an attrition player winning this fight on CP.

    And:

    Multi abusers will love this idea.

    Free resources, Hero XP and above that extra CP doesn't sound that good.

    Anyways, you probably pick your tribe based on the game-style you want to play right? Why would you pick Romans for an attrition game when Teutons exist and even Gauls give you more Attack/h (without HDT) with Swords + Haeds? At the end of the day you gotta plan ahead of the server and try to stick to the plan. It can be messed up to some extent because you're not playing alone but you gotta optimize the things you can.

  • Multi abusers will love this idea.


    Besides the idea one need alot of villages in order to create a usefull account (off or deffwise) isn't necessarily true. Many different ways to play this game and be usefull. Its all a matter of playstyle, goal and how one works towards it.


    Those who don't last early game mostly won't have any effect later game either.

    I'm sure multi abusers are having a good time already with all the crazy things they can exploit. Adding 1 more thing to the table that is also super easy to track shouldn't be an issue imo.


    You don't need a lot of villages to make a useful account indeed. One of the most useful accounts is the king accounts made on day 1 used to menhir players closer to the WWs, and you don't even need to settle a second village to change the course of the server with such an account. Being the first kingdom to get to 10 out of 12 croppers near a ww will secure that ww for you and severely set back any other kingdoms aiming for that ww, pretty much ending their server on day 1 if the server is competetive enough.


    Every player on the server has some kind of impact whether they like to or not. They take up a tile on the map at the very least, and that is enough to change things. It could very well be that the winner of the server was determined by a random player who joined the server on day 1 and left within 10 minutes due to the butterfly effect.

  • That's exactly my point. Since you're playing attrition you'll never have a decent amount of troops since you are constantly hitting and rebuilding, therefore a simmer that has been fattening up will most likely be able to kill way more troops than the attrition player before he runs out of army, and he already has the eco to stack up the army again and probably can maintain parties going 24/7. I don't see an attrition player winning this fight on CP.

    What does it mean to be playing attrition? Do you just suicide your troops on the enemy every single day? Do you try to cause as much damage on the enemy with as few losses as possible? I'm guessing that it means that you spend all your resources on troops and improving your troops, but if you are on the front line you will most likely be able to farm quite a bit extra which would give you extra production compared to a simming player, but you can't spend that production on parties like they can in the beginning. If you try to play safe and build up your army while only picking off easy targets, then you will be able to eventually have enough resources to spare to build a few settlers every once in a while to settle new villages, or even chief one of the villages you have been attacking and farming. Eventually, you can start putting resources into running celebrations as well, and you will be able to catch up to the players who have been simming in cp. because you have higher income with farming and higher cp income because you are killing enemies, while you also have an army and they do not.


    Also, you can build troops then spend them and start simming after. That is also a valid strategy right? Aiming for powerspikes then recovering. If you spend all your resources on building troops to fight then lose them all in an attack on an enemy treasury then you would get some cp back for every troop you killed and would be able to settle a couple of villages to help you catch up to your simming peers. This would also help you with spending some of the extra resource production you gained after freeing up a large amount of maintenance.


    Do you think that you should get punished for playing attrition? I think that if more players played this way, it would be way more fun to play. Early fights can be just as important as fights in tha later parts of the server, but the players who sacrefice their lategame to secure an objective early are usually rewarded with no recognition on the hall of fame, so most players instead choose to aim for strategies that give the largest amount of impact and points in the lategame even though they could have and should have spent their troops way earlier. This idea is mostly just to encourage players to fight more and earlier.

  • this would bring the game more out of balance between offer and defender, like it still is
    the offer can decide to attack for the CP, the defender has to share the CP with other defender and mostly leaders decide, who has to defend which villa
    finally the defender cant choose to make CP in this kind, the offer can

    It is very true that def players have a disadvantage compared to off players that they have to use their troops reactively, but def players can stack as many players as they want in just 1 village to overpower off players, and def troops are way cheaper compared to off troops once you get into the part of the game where off players have to run greats. If you are in a position where you have to spend all your resources on building def troops, then you will most likely be able to use them several times every day anyways, so you should get a bit of a trickle of culture points to let you get new villages a bit quicker instead of just having to wait for that super slow passive culture point gain or having to spend resources on celebrations.

  • Aiming for powerspikes then recovering.

    Attrition is more like this. Clearing targets, cooldown (because you never get the best trade 100% of the time) then hitting again.

    Hit + Suicide + Rebuild + Hit + Repeat

    Don't forget that simmers can also raid and build an army at the same time. I think we are focusing in very different game styles here ^^ Nevertheless I believe simmers would have an easier time enjoying this perk than actual frontliners, who short term you might think it gives them a chance to stay toe to toe but with your proposition the gap remains the same because the more troops you have the more you get to kill in robber hideouts and even if the bonus is not the same simmers have an easier time and also benefit from the boost.

  • Do you think that you should get punished for playing attrition

    It's not a matter of being punished or not. You choose your own style. I understand where you're coming from. You want more war throughout the server. But the way I see it kingdoms is fattening the army up until you start OPing treasuries and eventually the WW.


    A server without WW and only VP would make more sense than trying to balance the game and adding a feature that pretty much leaves the game the same. Even if robber hideouts/camps don't give bonus CP a simmer will be able to double army to pursue those bonus CP if he wants to. So it would not balance the game.