Posts by Xayira

    Also a def teuton (with paladins in multiple villages) can be right up there on farming

    (Paladins are same speed as EI's)

    Paladins are same speed as ECs I think you got them mixed up?
    A similarly skilled gaul or roman should outfarm a teuton by a fair margin.

    And regarding not lowering resource fields when using menhir, that was a big discussion way back when menhir 1.0 was introduced.

    Could someone link that discussion please? Or just quote the major points? I was unable to find it, and currently I don't see the cons of re-introducing something very similar to "menhir 1.0" but limited to 4446 villages.

    (Additionally this could also help the unintentionally (?) introduced map expansion delay that current menhirs presumably cause. If that matters to anyone)

    ...I assume you've checked and it wasn't simply a player called "natar" who sent the invitation? :/
    Because based on the screenshot that seems to be the case

    You can be spiked even without visual attack notification.

    Yes. You can be. BUT where is it more risky to attack an AFK player?

    • On T5 where his whole kingdom will see that he has an incoming attack on their map? And in the kingdom menu? And also in the bottom right corner of their screen?
    • On T4 where (if he is offline) noone will know he is under attack?

    Geez I can't choose. Seems like the same things to me. T4 can be spiked. T5 can be spiked. There's literally no difference.

    Also LOL at:
    - "you avoid answering!!!"
    -"okay repeat the question you want an answer for"
    - "see? you are just mumbling again :cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing:"

    It is probably best if we both stop commenting here because this is going nowhere like this

    So back in legends you did not have the feature that displays the incoming attacks when X village is inside the borders of Y kingdom. But, you did had pre-server teams that organized the map so you could work towards a certain WW and you'd organize center, both borders and WW with the different types of accounts/players/styles. Which is kinda the same as being in an organized kingdom, where you don't pack all the Offers under the same treasury, you split them with deffers for obvious reasons...

    What you say is true but how is it relevant to the discussion?


    Back in legends you didn't have a visual notification but you did had 2 sitter slots, like you do in kingdoms. And every member of the alliance would be required to have the 2 of them occupied and to sit back other two members.[...]

    I don't see how it's a nerf since you wouldn't be farming much from average/decent players with villages outside kingdom borders anyway..

    My bad. Farming as a concept can not exist in this game since everyone is playing with 3 duals + 2 sitters, and is online 24/7. I don't even know what I was thinking, sorry for taking up your time.

    Like are you serious here? Maybe you won't farm active players okay. But have you never seen offline accounts during your 2 months of gameplay? I mean I understand you. Saying that "active players were unfarmable before, and are unfarmable now, so there's no issue here" and ignoring the less active accounts is convenient for you so why wouldn't you do that right?


    Like I said, this is a war game, your actions have consequences.

    Again how is this relevant?


    It proves the game is balanced and you should choose the tribe that suits your play style the best. As simple as that.

    It does not "prove" anything. It is literally not a "proof". How about removing stables from teutons? They'd still have their early game advantage over other tribes. The con here is that... well they can't produce cavalry. So they'll have pros and cons, must be balanced then! Let's do this! Remove stables, who is with me?

    Now I understand what I've just said is a pretty extreme example, but surely it illustrates what I mean when I say listing 3 "keypoints" for each tribe is not an argument neither with nor against what OP said?


    You're simply dodging the question here [...]

    I'm pretty sure I've reacted to every point you've made so far. Have I missed something? Please tell me what "the question" is that I'm avoiding, I'll gladly address it.


    I said "Off doesn't need a Buff" right at the end. Yet you don't see me talking about menhir feature like I did on this one so there you go, you can try again this time since I do talk about the menhir feature

    Sorry, could you rephrase this please? I'm really not sure what you mean.

    I feel like there's a bit of a confusion between us. Please do say if I'm wrong but I think when you read the word "off" you think of an organized attack from 20 off players, on another kingdom. If that's true then allow me to clarify:
    so far I've been talking about early game farming oriented attacks. I've literally said this. Multiples times already. Maybe you missed it? OP was kinda meshing up the 2, but surely when

    • he talked about clubs' carrying capacity
    • his proposed teuton buff was a move speed increase on clubs and axes
    • and movement speed increase on TKs too

    you must have realised he was not asking to buff his WW hitting siege attack?

    In my opinion telling OP that he just doesn't have enough off experience and/or never played with a competent kingdom is disrespectful. If someone takes the time to write down his thoughts about an issue (or at least an aspect of the game, since you don't see it as an issue) the least you can do is to not assume they are just incompetent about the topic...

    You say you want arguments, but I think we've already told you our problem. But I'll gladly repeat it once more: the menhir changed moved basically everyone's 1st village within influence zones where kingdom members will have a visual indicator/notification thingy about incoming attacks. On top of this, villages are more closely packed together than ever (within a kingdom) so more def can arrive, and sooner too, while attackers must cover the same distance as before. This is a huge nerf to attackers (early game farming mostly).
    ...meanwhile your "arguments" were listing the pros and cons of each tribe which proves nothing. I mean... let's take paladins. They have pros and cons too but you'll never convince anyone they are not a trash def unit

    I traded legends for kingdoms in April so I only know "menhir era"

    Now hold on a second. Just to clarify you've played this game for a total of 2 whole months? And you tell others that they have "little to no experience at all attacking"? Seriously?

    Like... independent if you are right or wrong in this matter... how arrogant does one have to be to come here with 2 months of experience and tell others who have played for years that they do not have enough exp to comment on topics?

    There are rules like you had in Legends, and they go as follow:

    • < 3h: 1 wave.
    • 3-6h: 2 waves.
    • 6-12h: 3 waves.
    • > 12h: 4 waves.

    So you are, indeed allowed to send same second waves.

    I am familiar with the game's rules, but thank you nonetheless :) You are allowed to send same second attacks... if your target is not too close to you. If he is you are not allowed by game rules. We shouldn't require def players to be active to be able to snipe waves after all

    but back to OP:

    I do agree that the new-ish menhir system reduces teutons' early raiding powers a bit too much. There are less villages outside influence zones, and - more importantly - kingdoms are a lot more crowded early game. Kingdom members are closer to each other therefore def can arrive sooner while the distance between attackers and their targets remained mostly unaffected by menhirs.

    However instead of changing troop numbers I'd propose an alternative idea: buff fakes.

    Sending just 1 attack to an AFK player (if he is in an active kingdom) is just plain suicide right now since his fellow kingdoms members will defend him... with minimal losses because they can all gather their def at 1 village. The obvious solutions to this (as an attacker) is sending fakes, so people don't actually know who the real target is. This means they have to at least split their def, and even if they catch you, they'll have more serious losses.
    Now the problem with this is that fakes are simply too expensive in the first weeks of a server. Sending 10 units fakes on the first week on some targets can result in sacrificing 10% of your army before the fight even started. (Same goes for siege fakes mid game by the way, but that's another discussion). I feel like if sending 1 unit fakes were a viable strategy (defenders couldn't spot that they are fakes) early game that'd be enough of a buff to raider players.
    It could also offer an opportunity to differentiate between good and... even better :) def players by letting them check scout def reports on the kingdom, and figure out who the real target is.

    So yeah, my proposal: Do not display incoming fake attacks if there are no siege units in the attackers' army.
    I say if there are no siege units because I don't want to nerf spy-glasses (which I imagine is a not-insignificant silver shrink in the game) and rally point levelling too much.
    (An alternative solution could be the rally point would only give benefits at lvl10 and lvl20 (the +10 and +20 fake detection thingy), instead of the +1 unit every level, so 1 unit fakes were viable before level10 rally points are accessible to governors).

    [...] changing Haeds to 150/60/155 from 140/60/165. I feel it's a shame that gaul offense armies are built up from light TT units.

    I feel like there's a ballance here. TTs are a lot better at raiding, while haedus produce more atk points / time. I like that you can choose between the 2 depending on your aim. Also TTs can sometimes be used to snipe enemy off villages, which is a fun playstyle. IMO buffing haedus' attack points would just make them the go-to choice over TTs and actually reduce options / variety. Had disagree for this change from me

    Also the proposed buff to imperians (-15% training time) would just make romans the off tribe. ...and let's not forget that the HDT is the roman thing in this game. The close to 1:1 inf cavalry ratio can be attributed to that building alone, but I feel like that's kind of the romans' identity in this game. Teutons are early game club armies, Romans are late game cavalry (...and Gauls are a whole-game-round off joke :P)