• No, 2 anvils put their (robber cleaner) hammers in as additional defence, including me. There is not much point having them at this point of the game anyway...

  • I see a lot of value in keeping the taxes high to allow the most active person to use the resources. I think this account proves very well that this is not only a viable way to play but can get you the top account in the game.


    The problem wit hthis statement is what is seriously wrong with even the T4 version of travian. Too many players who are only concerned with their own account, making sure it is top account and too bad for the rest of the members of the alliance unless you need them for something. Just like now, you feel your account is worth more then a fellow team mate who may only log in 2 times a day but will have troops protecting you never the less. In order to bring any type of team work back into this game then all the players who play only for themselves will have to grow up and play as a team.


    I am not saying you are not a team player and only basing this statement on what you have posted. Travian has a lot of fault in this as they are the ones who created the medals for single player achievements instead of a team based medal system. Just keep in mind that when you feel you are better then those you lead, then you fail at being a leader.

  • Marius, your account does not proof much, actually. It would be a proof if on the other side team oriented style was implemented and you beat them. But this is not the case as far as I know.


    You are saying that most of your governors are not active enough, but it's a question of what comes first - a chicken or an egg. Surprisingly, people are more active than they see that their effort counts, you don't know how it would play out if they were encouraged to be equal partners from the start. This is true for average player but especially true for most players who can potentially build good or even top account. Definitely true for myself and I doubt I'm unique.


    Even if we assume that you are exceptional player and for real know better way to use resources than majority of your governors, it's not the case for average king. So yes, there are exceptional cases when there are reasons not to low the taxes, but by default it's better to low the rate.


    Last but not least, a small detail which went unnoticed on beta because of oases influence. Without oases influence kingdom's area is smaller, with many gaps. If kingdom has lower taxes players have a reason to settle within the borders (and generate tribute) as they are getting more resources. Villages outside on the borders have have standard production. If rate is medium, villages outside of kingdom's borders are no different, better actually because there is likely less competition for oases bonus. So if I want my account be better with medium tax rate kingdom, I will be looking for a better spot regardless of borders. I'm simplifing it, there are some other factors, but I guess the point is clear - the king gets zero tribute from such villages.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by ELE ().

  • If there are people in your kingdom who are not actively participating, you should probably drop your taxes to low so the active people are getting benefit from it.




    Then kill the inactives and take their things. Way more resources in this method.

  • Oh please I am sure Marius is happy to tax his active governors highly and also raid his inactives ... .. .



    When he loses his mahoosive hammer (or two) they will all bow down and acknowledge they did not need a 10% resource boost during their travian journey, it was never about them, the King knows best.

  • Actually its about winning and so far I think all of you guys here are not winning right? Most of you are Samurai. So I think my statement proves exactly what I say. Alb had low taxes all game long we had high taxes. Talk with him, as I have now for a month, and see what he thinks. Both styles are viable and it depends on the situation. That is all I am saying. All of you arguing that low taxes are the best and the only way to go simply show how naive you are and inexperienced. this account speaks for itself and the success of the alliance and end game also speaks for itself.


    You are simply arguing to argue not showing a single point to prove that the style I used is worse in any way. As I said Alb used the other style and his account was no better and no worse than ours. It depends on play style and on situation and if you cant even admit that this is true you are simply being a stubborn fool.

  • I think what it's coming down to Marius is people just don't like you. I have to say, I can't blame them. That last post puts you in a really negative light. I'm neither for or against high taxes. I can see the merit in both high and low. Low has far more benefit than high. An example (per your request): Jim produces 1000 wood, you take his production down to 900 and take 225. Jim produces 1000 wood, you bump his production to 1100 and take 165, Jim goes ahead and sends you the extra 100/hr production to help you build your hammer. You get 265 wood. Teamwork.


    With that said, Jim is probably not going to send those resources to you. But the point above is a very valid scenario that shows that low is better than high.


    The other scenario is Jim doesn't send you anything because "screw that guy, he lowered my production" and you only get 165 when you should be getting 225 (more like 265).


    I've been playing Travian for a long time, longer than most. I have no interest in putting in the time it takes to do the things I used to do, but I say without a doubt that I would set my taxes to high. It's about who WILL use their resources efficiently, the odds are not good that everybody, or even most, in your kingdom are using the resources to their max potential. Yes it's a team game, and making sure that your kingdom/alliance has the hammers it needs is crucial to victory. So the resources that you give up for that cause will do more than the 10 fewer troops you produce that day...that you probably weren't going to produce anyway.



    I know above I say he should set it to Low, but that's in a best-case scenario.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Craux ().

  • Don't start getting personal or making disparaging comments about individuals here. This forum is for discussion, and you may agree or disagree with what another contributor has posted without calling them fools or expressing personal dislike.

  • Actually its about winning and so far I think all of you guys here are not winning right? Most of you are Samurai. So I think my statement proves exactly what I say. Alb had low taxes all game long we had high taxes. Talk with him, as I have now for a month, and see what he thinks. Both styles are viable and it depends on the situation. That is all I am saying. All of you arguing that low taxes are the best and the only way to go simply show how naive you are and inexperienced. this account speaks for itself and the success of the alliance and end game also speaks for itself.


    You are simply arguing to argue not showing a single point to prove that the style I used is worse in any way. As I said Alb used the other style and his account was no better and no worse than ours. It depends on play style and on situation and if you cant even admit that this is true you are simply being a stubborn fool.


    I am not Samarai, and I am certainly not inexperienced. I do disagree with you and with anyone else who places the good of his or her account before that of the team. Which is exactly what you are doing, whether you can face up to it or not. You are free to play as you choose, free to think as you wish, free to hold any opinion you feel comfortable with - but do not call me a fool.


    Many times, you have made it clear that it is your account and yours alone which you are concerned with - the words "this account proves..." shows clearly that it is your account and yours alone which you care about, and not the team to which you belong. It was when true team spirit and team effort was strong in Travian that the game was great. If you can't see that, then ... see your own comments.

  • So umm just out of interest why exactly did Horde sell out and join xtools, when your high tax account will win the server?


    So just to get this correct. we "sold out" when we joined xtools but had we joined Samurai, as alb asked us to do we would not have sold out? there were many factors leading to us dropping Horde and joing another alliance but the major one was that the 2 leaders that had management status both left the game and did not allow anyone else to have management ability.


    We were left with an alliance we could not steer in any way so we had to join another. We weighed our options and since we knew Jallu and ankur from the start of the server we went with them rather than with you. We were asked to join you guys so calling Horde "sell outs" is pretty stupid on your part I would say.


    As for this whole argument. My whole point from the very start is that saying one way is the only way to go is completely short sighted and inexperienced. I personally couldnt care less who does or does not like me. Actually I have 8 likes and 1 dislike here on the forums and I can certainly tell you that almost all the people in xtools like me as well as all our Govs. We bend over backwards to help our allies. Just because you happen to be our opponent (notice I NEVER use the word enemy) in this chess game doesnt mean we cant get along. However when someone REFUSES to even acknowledge that their original statement is clearly logically flawed when it so clearly is I have 0 respect for the view of that person. s for your experience in the game. I have no clue who you are so I cant intelligently speak to that, all I can say is that most likely the people on this account have more experience winning than you do as a unit.

  • First of all I never said that my account was infallible. This was our first go on TK. Next time we will do things very differently, especially with the oasis rules changing. Even here on this server if we had to do it again we would do it differently. Also, our taxes were not high the whole time. I would say it was about half and half depending on the needs of the Kingdom and the team (Horde at first and then xTools). Right now the taxes are low and have been for a few weeks.


    My whole point is that there are may times when high taxes are appropriate for the team not just this account. How many kings have I killed that would have attacked the weaker govs in this kingdom? Many many. Both from xTools and from Samurai. How many hammers were launched at me because people knew that I was the strongest here, that were not launched at my Dukes or Govs?.... and lets stop calling them high shall we? They are simply regular taxes. You guys talk like I said raising taxes to 25% was the best thing to do or something.... although I wouldn't rule that out as a proper strategy either depending on the situation.


    The mechanics of the game are there to play with so that you can develop strategies no one has seen before and surprise people. To say that having normal taxes is NEVER better than having low taxes is so beyond logic it blows me away that you people are even thinking to argue with that statement. I swear its like the arguments I used to have with my teenage daughter. It wasnt about the correctness of something it was about not admitting I had a point. Jeepers people, stop it. You're all acting so adolescentish (I made that word up heh).

  • Thats the decision we made. We wanted to see end game, knew Jallu and Ankur and decided to join them to fight against you. At that point you were winning and they were the underdog so why not join them. Its what we wanted to do so we did it. Its as simple as that. We werent going to be competitive alone. This game is not played in a vacuum. It was our move in this game, we made it, and we dont regret it. Why did Alb ask us to join you guys if you were all so interested in making it a fight rather than winning? Its kind of a silly question to ask in my opinion.


  • You are simply arguing to argue not showing a single point to prove that the style I used is worse in any way. As I said Alb used the other style and his account was no better and no worse than ours. It depends on play style and on situation and if you cant even admit that this is true you are simply being a stubborn fool.


    Coming back to the topic.
    You kind of argue against yourself there, If by using high taxes is by your own words "your account is no better nor worse thant the one using low taxes" you gain no extra boost from rising high taxes, but you slow your active gouvernors (and inactve ones don't count since raiding them is higher profit than taxes anyway.


    Son what you are saying :


    Pros for your account : High Taxes : 0 Low taxes : 0
    For your gov : High taxes : -10% Low taxes : +10 %


    So the choice for the kingdom is pretty obvious (your own observation says so)