Treasures and treasuries - Kingdom member can't take treasures out of active treasury

    Quote from Jak

    How does the little kingdom survive against the huge kingdom attacks (or even worse against multiple kingdoms attacks) if they don't have the option to move their treasures?

    It does not and it does not survive now either. You destroy their treasuries, so it will not profit from the treasures either. You take the treasures anyway, hidden or not. But the small kingdom will have a chance to fight back. The big kingdom gets no VPs from the treasures, but the small one does, so it tilts in their favor, as they will have a realistic chance of stealing treasures and VPs from the big kingdom.

    Quote from Revolution

    We do have times when we don't defend treasuries.

    Usually we would cover at least half of the governors who are under attack.

    I know some russian team also don't defend treasuries that much. They even protect governors more than the treasuries.


    Never put some assumption that you do on others.

    Right, everybody are free in making decision, what to defense. But anyway, thank you to agree with what we are saying, you agree that defending treasuries are now not so important for someone, because it doesn't hurt him, it won't change anything, when treasury is deleted. Of course we are not talking about main huge treasuries. So, treasuries have to be only place for making influence and free resource income for lazy dukes and kings, is it right? Nothing else, just tax colector?


    You are maybe right, that when treasures cannot be hidden, defense will be more stack in treasuries. But, and this is important, there will be much more fight against treasures, because they will become an important commodity to fight for and profit, to the governors and to the whole kingdom. So, less attacks to the governors, because the fighting will be concentrated much more on the treasuries.


    Hiding treasures is like taking treasures from robber hideouts and camps, do it, and immediately the interest in attacking them will drop, because you can't get a commodity that brings profit to everyone in the kingdom.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    It does not and it does not survive now either. You destroy their treasuries, so it will not profit from the treasures either. You take the treasures anyway, hidden or not. But the small kingdom will have a chance to fight back. The big kingdom gets no VPs from the treasures, but the small one does, so it tilts in their favor, as they will have a realistic chance of stealing treasures and VPs from the big kingdom.

    I disagree, we were always limited numbers (50-70 players) & being able to move treasures helped us stay viable & win against much bigger enemies.

    If there was no way to empty treasuries small kingdoms would totally get rekt with the zerg train & then midgame when large kingdoms have amassed enough treasures to just ride on them for the VPs they would turtle up & go def mode and small kingdom would never have enough fight power to counter it

    Quote from Jak

    I disagree, we were always limited numbers (50-70 players) & being able to move treasures helped us stay viable & win against much bigger enemies.

    If there was no way to empty treasuries small kingdoms would totally get rekt with the zerg train & then midgame when large kingdoms have amassed enough treasures to just ride on them for the VPs they would turtle up & go def mode and small kingdom would never have enough fight power to counter it

    What prevents the zero train now? If you empty the treasuries it does not become immune to attacks. They destroy one, then another, etc. What are the inactive treasures good for then? And it would be very hard to turtle with large amount of treasures, much harder than it is now.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    What prevents the zero train now? If you empty the treasuries it does not become immune to attacks. They destroy one, then another, etc. What are the inactive treasures good for then? And it would be very hard to turtle with large amount of treasures, much harder than it is now.

    nothing prevents the zerg train, but chances are you killed the armies & didn't lose your place in the game as they got no treasures, meaning you can "move" treasures to another active treasury of another royal who has room for them & VPs can continue whilst your rebuild your Cap/Treasury yourself


    so you would empty the treasures, but still defend the main Treasury

    the reason a smaller kingdom would build a 50k main treasury is so they have less places to defend.


    the reason a mega kingdom would have lots of 4k treasuries is because they have run out of room in their 50k main treasuries. If you restrict the max number of treasuries (as my proposal) these 4k ones would soon become 20k ones ;)

    As a small kingdom, you will have a chance to win your treasures back, along with VPs. This is not an option now, unless big kingdom messes up.

    A smaller kingdom should absolutely build up a single big treasury to make defense easier. But so could the big meta, only few more, but they often dont as there is nothing pushing them to. In my experience (speedx1), big metas just dont care and have the treasures spread evenly all over the kingdom in small piles. Not because they are out of capacity, but because there is absolutely no need to invest in big Ts.

    Also, remember that deactivation is still an option. This also punishes big kingdoms more than small ones as they need to turn off all treasuries, due to the way treasures move. And this hurts if you need to do that often.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    As a small kingdom, you will have a chance to win your treasures back, along with VPs. This is not an option now, unless big kingdom messes up.

    A smaller kingdom should absolutely build up a single big treasury to make defense easier. But so could the big meta, only few more, but they often dont as there is nothing pushing them to. In my experience (speedx1), big metas just dont care and have the treasures spread evenly all over the kingdom in small piles. Not because they are out of capacity, but because there is absolutely no need to invest in big Ts.

    Also, remember that deactivation is still an option. This also punishes big kingdoms more than small ones as they need to turn off all treasuries, due to the way treasures move. And this hurts if you need to do that often.

    There is no way back for the small kingdom once they lost their treasures, the meta has probably 4 or 5x the amount of players, with maybe 3x the amount of treasuries regardless of amounts in them & as the server progresses the problem gets bigger as more players = more troops to spread around their treasuries.


    Deactivation can always be worked around, but needs time for this to happen, it totally depends how far away the enemy is. Big kingdoms tend to deactivate less & move treasures less, as they have the Def to cover all posts.

    I can honestly say from experience that if it weren't possible to move treasures the small kingdom would suffer a lot more than the big kingdom & the meta ideology would grow rather than decline.

    As a small kingdom now, you don't care about VP so much. You never can achieve as much as a large kingdom and you cannot fight against them, because when you attack kingdom who is higher in the leaderboard, they hide treasures and you get nothing. So as a small kingdom, you care only about active treasures, whats give it to you another treasury slot and grain for govs and dukes.

    When you can fight for the treasures, i.e. also about VP, then VP become interesting for much more kingdoms, not only for biggest ones.

    of course you care about VP,s winning the game is fundamentally build around it,. If you don't care about VPs then really you aren't serious about winning & kinda makes this thread a bit pointless.


    "Being smaller" doesn't need to be "not viable", you just have to be smarter & think outside the box more. But there is always a way to stay small & stay in contention.

    Quote from Jak

    There is no way back for the small kingdom once they lost their treasures, the meta has probably 4 or 5x the amount of players, with maybe 3x the amount of treasuries regardless of amounts in them & as the server progresses the problem gets bigger as more players = more troops to spread around their treasuries.


    Deactivation can always be worked around, but needs time for this to happen, it totally depends how far away the enemy is. Big kingdoms tend to deactivate less & move treasures less, as they have the Def to cover all posts.

    I can honestly say from experience that if it weren't possible to move treasures the small kingdom would suffer a lot more than the big kingdom & the meta ideology would grow rather than decline.

    You are not right, just now on the com1nx3 was deleted Unreal king (queen) treasury city from the map from small kingdom. Its just an example, its possible and its not so hard, when you have good players and know, what to do. Just nobody do it because now you achieve nothing. No treasures, no VP. Small kingdoms have a strong power, just they cannot use it, because hiding treasures does not allow them to use it meaningfully. Bigger kingdoms have of course bigger power, but now they are not scared, because you cannot hurt them so much. They are protected by hiding treasures. But if you can grab their treasures and VP, they have to be more cautious, where they making enemies. Smaller kingdom can hurt them more then opposite, just because of the rule about leaderboard position in VP. Everything will have pros and cons. Not like now.

    I agree with your points, but I think there is just more to take into account here. Also, you seriously cant have any experience with the inability to move treasures as it is enabled now.

    Lets assume all players are equally good, then it is just simple linear scaling, the larger kingdom gains more treasures and has more troops to defend them. The major nonreciprocal difference is the fact, that large kingdom cannot steal VPs from the small kingdom. Naturally, Im assuming the larger kingdom is higher in the standings. Therefore, if it becomes easier to steal treasures, the small kingdom will profit from that change. That is my main line of thought.

    Quote from Cool and Crazy#EN

    I agree with your points, but I think there is just more to take into account here. Also, you seriously cant have any experience with the inability to move treasures as it is enabled now.

    Lets assume all players are equally good, then it is just simple linear scaling, the larger kingdom gains more treasures and has more troops to defend them. The major nonreciprocal difference is the fact, that large kingdom cannot steal VPs from the small kingdom. Naturally, Im assuming the larger kingdom is higher in the standings. Therefore, if it becomes easier to steal treasures, the small kingdom will profit from that change. That is my main line of thought.

    Thanks :) but I'm a visual thinker & problem solver & can see how this plays out .....

    it wont change anything, the larger kingdom will still have more passive treasures & more VPs because they have more members and therefore more robbers, generating more wealth to recover with. they would also have more troops & so can more easily run through the treasuries of the smaller kingdom, making smaller kingdoms poorer & less able to recover & whilst the larger kingdom is able to more easily defend their own treasuries against attacks because they have grown their own wealth faster than the smaller kingdom can ever do.


    as it stands at the moment a higher VP kingdom cannot steals treasures from a lower ranked one, so no change here either.

    Quote from Jak

    of course you care about VP,s winning the game is fundamentally build around it,. If you don't care about VPs then really you aren't serious about winning & kinda makes this thread a bit pointless.


    "Being smaller" doesn't need to be "not viable", you just have to be smarter & think outside the box more. But there is always a way to stay small & stay in contention.

    Ok, when you are talking about 20 people difference, than sure can be simillar, But when is more, you cannot achieve as much treasures and VP as the bigger kingdom.unless you can take treasures somewhere else. Popular way now is to take it from the wings or cooperative kingdoms can give it as a gift. I hope, nobody see it as a fun or strategy. We talking about the other way, you can fight against them. Or how you achieve as much VP as a double populated kingdom. Maybe also if there are bad opponent in the bigger kingdom and don't hide those treasures, when you attack him. But there we come to the our point, treasure battles.

    Quote from Jak

    Thanks :) but I'm a visual thinker & problem solver & can see how this plays out .....

    it wont change anything, the larger kingdom will still have more passive treasures & more VPs because they have more members and therefore more robbers, generating more wealth to recover with. they would also have more troops & so can more easily run through the treasuries of the smaller kingdom, making smaller kingdoms poorer & less able to recover & whilst the larger kingdom is able to more easily defend their own treasuries against attacks because they have grown their own wealth faster than the smaller kingdom can ever do.


    as it stands at the moment a higher VP kingdom cannot steals treasures from a lower ranked one, so no change here either.

    I disagree, but who am I in the face of God himself

    Oh no please, I am no god :(

    I just come from a different place & have always been anti-meta & have been very lucky & privileged over the years in team building with like-minded people & between us we had a lot of success beating much bigger teams, so I know that it is possible to do.

    Quote from Jak

    Thanks :) but I'm a visual thinker & problem solver & can see how this plays out .....

    it wont change anything, the larger kingdom will still have more passive treasures & more VPs because they have more members and therefore more robbers, generating more wealth to recover with. they would also have more troops & so can more easily run through the treasuries of the smaller kingdom, making smaller kingdoms poorer & less able to recover & whilst the larger kingdom is able to more easily defend their own treasuries against attacks because they have grown their own wealth faster than the smaller kingdom can ever do.


    as it stands at the moment a higher VP kingdom cannot steals treasures from a lower ranked one, so no change here either.

    Higher VP kingdom can always steals treasures from lower ranked one, i dont know what about you talking. Maybe you thought "higher VP kingdom cannot steals VP from a lower ranked one." Is it correct?


    Big kingdom autogenerating more treasures, so more VP through more robber camps and hideouts. They don't have to fight for them with another kingdom, they must only defend them.

    Small kingdom must win the fight against bigger kingdom, if they want to steal treasures and VP. And then, they must also defend them to not lost them,

    When big kingdom playing bad and lose a lot of treasures and VP, they can also steal VP with attack higher VP ranked kingdom.


    What is not correct for you? What do you want to change?