War and vasals

    Hi guys. I am new in this game. I played 4-5 servers and I didnt was so bad. I have some ideas that can make this game better.



    When two alliance are in bad relationship, they declare war, and they attack each others, war last after 4-5 days and, what happend? Nothing...
    I think that we must improve war system.
    My idea is to reward the winner of war. e.g. the loser in war become vasal of the alliance winner. Vasal alliance give percent of produced treasures and resourses to alliance kingdom. They cant attack dominate alliance. After 7 days vasal alliance can declarate war to dominate alliance and if win they are not vasal any more but the dominated alliance dont become vasal. When one alliance become vasal after 3 weeks,automaticlythey wont be vasals of that alliance and cant become vasal of any alliance 2 weeks.


    Now, how to see who is winner of the war.
    For each enemy unit killed you gain points. If unit eat 1 crop you gain one point, If unti eat 3 crop you gain 3 points...
    For each destoyed level of buildings and resourses fields, you gain 10 points.
    For each conquer village you gain 1000 points.
    For each destroyed village you gain 2000 points.
    Each player have his points, the summation of all players of alliance are the points of alliance.The alliance that have more points are winner. From that points alliance can gain victory points,too. To top 5 players in war ,of the alliance who win, system give reward in resourses or perscent of troops lost in war.


    I said many numbers in this text, That was all for e.g. Travian system will balance that.


    This will be great thing in travian, and this can make travian better game.
    Bye by Hun     :D


    The post was edited 4 times, last by Hun26 ().

    I like the idea, but I feel it needs to be more in-depth. For instance the mechanics of a kingdom going into multiple wars. As for victory points it sounds like it can be abused by two friendly alliances to quickly farm them up, crannies are cheap and fast to make. I don't think they ever can be intertwined. If you work on the idea to the point the game developers don't have to think of any flaws, it could push it into the game.


    One is more trustworthy when he speaks of his problems before his problems speak for him.

    Yeah, it's not a bad idea, I just think it's unnecessarily complex. I think we all want the same thing - attacking and war to have more influence on VP, and be able to potentially offset the current mechanic which is sim, sim, sim, and try and get WW to #1, because that'll generally give you the win. But this just has way too much detail involved to be able to manage, there will be way too many ways to game it etc... It's a good start, but it probably needs to be pared back quite a bit to be workable, understandable, and implementable.

    This proposal can easily be gamed.


    Get a friendly Teuton in the enemy kingdom to spam out cheap troops, then kill them for the points, you could even secretly push the village in the enemy kingdom so they can spam cheap troops even faster.


    Winning would not be about real fighting, it would be about the spamming and killing of the spam.

    Still better than what we have now. How long do you think that friendly teut would last when his king sees the first report of clubbies getting spammed and killed?

    What's the loss of one village? And long standing players like yourself can easily find a friend not currently on the server willing to start up an account and be pushed into a 2nd village, give them a sitter from your own alliance and they only need to login once every few days, this proposal, as it stands is just too easy to game. I'm not saying it cannot be made to work, but points for raw kills will always encourage people to do friendly fire, it's a practice that used to be common in T3 when levelling up the hero, Teuton scouts were perfect hero fodder.

    I like the idea of giving war some status between two (or more ?) alliances (or kingdoms if we go to merge those system, anyway). However the reward for winner shouldn't be too big otherwise it will create another snowball effect. Giving % of resources from loser to winner is clearly too much at my eyes, but maybe the loser might only give the victory point he generate to the winner for like the next 3 (or 7? or ? balance that) days ? And nothing else than that so the winner won't snowball on his development from a win, it would only gain VP at the expense of the loser.


    Good idea for some diversity about gaining VP...


    And indeed, the winner would be decided from killing/chiefing/destroying ennemy units/buildings/villages. However I would draw attention about the importance of possibilities for losing/gaining point if a player quit/join the alliance/kingdom. Obviously need to think about every situation to prevent abuse... Even if, for example, an infiltrate player sacrifying himself to give point to ennemy would reveal himself (quite fast as VVV said) and wouldn't have any more use afterwards.

    The other issue I have with this is that you'd have to formally open up a war. How many alliances would actually run that risk? If you were behind on VPs, sure. But I can tell you now, if I'm leading the #1 alliance, there is no way on earth I would ever accept a formal war. If you're producing more VP than your opposition, the risk/payoff just doesn't work. And what's to stop a large meta having a sizable, unconfederated wing and declaring war every time the bonus VP runs out, killing a couple of hundred troops to win the war? Then you get into unneccessary complexities about minimum troop losses required, pop levels catapulted etc...


    Just make it troops killed of opposing higher ranked alliances, or top 10 ranked alliances, for troops killed in villages inside that alliances influence zones in crop production * percentage of surviving troops from attacking force. Add that to regular VP production from treasures. Sure, you can get a friendly Teut in the enemy alliance to spam clubs, but if the village is in influence zone, the enemy's going to see it. If they stack the villa and kill all your troops, not only have you lost your hammer/cavalry force, but no bonus attacking VP for you.

    that is all truth, but like many guys said, when king see that his "teuton" are spaming clubs and gives them to kill, he will kick him but one alliance cant found one teuton to spam units every war, that can happend one time in 10 times. And about VP, if the war was big ( big loses, many destroyed buldings ...) you gain more VP, if war was small(just 2-3k units killed) you gain few VP

    Guys, I keep coming back to the main point. For this to work, it has to be a formal war, entered into by both sides. Why would any alliance take up a formal war with an alliance ranked below them? Other than being led by incompetent idiots who can't do maths, that is...

    War are started by one side, why would the other side get a say in whether there was a war or not? Sure both sides have to agree to peace, but you can unilaterally start war, indeed I can't think of any wars that were not started unilaterally.

    ChillingEffect,


    This is just a guess, but I would suggest that this format for war, with a formal winner and loser based on set statistics, set periods of time, and with VP consequences would be something that would be designed only if both sides agreed and set formal relations as war. Allowing this to occur unilaterally would run counter to pretty much every game design decision I've seen thus far.

    I agree what you say would fit with Travian's way of doing things, but it's war, is there any substantive reason that an alliance shouldn't be caught out, finding itself at war unexpectedly with more to loose than gain? And from a game play perspective, doesn't it force potential servers winners to play more strategically, try to lay low until the right moment? Surely this would produce a more dynamic game? (lol, even though I'm not 100% for the OP proposal, I am for war/attacks happening without notice at inconvenient times etc)