Posts by HappyTimes#EN(1)

    Its good to see some old friends and some new ones as well.


    I'd start by asking everyone to play within the rules (as I am sure everyone is doing). Next I would ask that people play within the spirit of the rules. What, you may ask, is this? There are two components to the spirit of the rules


    - the individual component. As far as I am concerned this is related to the principle that an individual account should grow within the resource limits afforded to a single account. Face it, the creators of the game could make tons more money by allowing people to have as many accounts as they wanted. Still, they decided that for the benefit of everyone who might play the game, that each individual (or group of duals) should only have the resources of a single account. The current rules allow for multiple accounts, started by multiple individuals, to contribute to the benefit of a single account (as seems to be the case for an account who was able to capture a natar village in 6 days). Within the rules, not within the spirit of the rules!


    - the team component. One group of accounts working together (and sharing resources to a limited extent) in competition with other groups of accounts to see who can achieve the greatest number of points and so 'win' a server.


    You may not agree with my definition of the spirit of the rules. I am sure this is the case for some of my opponents as well as for some of my team mates. My own most frustrating experience with people playing within the rules but not according to the spirit of the rules is when 6 months of my time and financial investment were foiled by a wonder flip at level 100. At that point it was within the rules, but obviously not within the spirit of the rules, as the rules were changed after this to make such a move impossible.


    So, I'd ask that every account and kingdom be willing to consider their actions on the sever in light of whether they are consistent with the spirit of the rules as they define them for themselves.


    I will say that I am not impressed by individuals or teams that achieve team victories or individual laurels by operating outside my own definition of the spirit of the rules. If you are insulted by this, then come and bash me. You won't be able to change my convictions and you won't make it impossible for me to enjoy the game consistent with my account name 'Have Fun'.


    Enough of a diatribe! HAVE FUN!

    Totally off topic, so shoot me.


    Mayo. I saw that army in your signature and I just want to congratulate you on more than 6 months of rams built on a Kingdoms server. The first Kingdom's server I played was open beta and one of the best rammers I saw had 4k built with an account of only 5 cities. I just wish that you could have had a better opponent to send those rams against and maybe a building strength arti to face as well!

    Great! A post about the biggest flaw in the design of Travian Kingdoms, a deadbeat king.


    I have played only 4 servers in the last 2 years. One time with a preformed kingdom and 3 randomly. Of the 3 random starts I got 1 real king and 2 deadbeats. One of the 2 deadbeats was actually a king in the 2nd rated alliance. I sat him and he wasted so many resources in overflow it was embarrassing.


    So saying, there is no quick fix to the issue of poor kings. The issue has been recognized since the first open beta in 2016. Giving dukes the kingdom is a start, but still, kingdoms are based on settling and a king's settling pattern is a major determiner in kingdom boundaries.


    Eventually, if people aren't going to have 4 months worth of expense and time screwed over then there will need to be a mechanism to actually transfer an absent king's account (and villages) to any kingdom member who is willing to take it.


    My opinion. Now tell me how it is wrong and unfair!

    I don't know how to touch this, even though I am just trying to get my monies worth from the game by responding to every forum post. Why should anyone object to those who smoke dandelions!

    Wow, a thread to respond to. And I didn't even have the level of respect required to read every post. So my post should get some juicy responses


    Teuts used to rule on offense. Now they play second fiddle to every Roman that can survive to mid game.


    No cranny dipping. Crappy TK cavalry. Maces are still the most efficient infantry in terms of resources/feeding, but not nearly so much as previously.


    Give me a roman hammer over a teut any day, except as an endgame rammer!

    Let me preface this post by stating that I strongly acknowledge that those individuals who work to make it possible for me to spend hours a day clicking a computer mouse deserve to make a decent living.


    When helmets and artwork were introduced to classic Travian, I resisted the temptation to buy CP and resources. I proudly displayed in my profile the following statement "Helmets and artwork are for wimps. I earn my CP the old fashion way, I steal it." Being a teut and building 200 maces in 3 days would guarantee a top finish. But I have become lazy, and it seems that in general most top players have as well. $90 on 3k gold up front makes it too easy to rocket to a position that, should you know how to actually play the game without any cash, that you will dominate those who don't have the $90.


    This is my apology to those who are just learning how to play. 6-8 years ago you would have had the opportunity in a 12 month server to learn all that you needed to to become a top player. Now you have to deal with the lack of information in the wiki, the lack of forum guides and off site alliance forums with guides on how to play, and with the fact that those who know how to play (and those who don't) being able to buy everything in the game.


    Please don't lose heart. Go into chat and demand that the experienced players tell you how to be a strong player. There is no secret formula. A consistent and moderate effort can make you a vital part of any kingdom. All of the advantages that you gain now from hero adventures, free card games and hideouts/camps make it possible for an account willing to learn to actually be a game changer!

    Good news, Jallu! It seems like maybe I will get an opportunity to play com2 next time around. If so I hope to convince you that the decision that you made as an xTools king, while being within the rules was outside the spirit of the game!

    Its always been the case. You start a new account, newbie or vet and you are asked to pick a tribe. You are told that Gauls are the best in terms of being simplest and requiring least amount of activity. Best for new players. As a result, the servers are 50 percent Gaul (or more). I claim that with the development of Travian Kingdoms this is no longer the case. Romans are the easiest tribe!


    What have Gauls got.

    - basic troop phalanx. Most expensive in terms of resources of any of the 3 basic troops. Poor attack strength which doesn't help with clearing hideouts. Poor carry which again isn't good for clearing hideouts

    - special ability, double cranny. In the old days when BP was 3 days and it took much longer to settle a no. 2, it was nice to have a little extra resource protection. Now, even well informed newbies can settle inside the BP

    - special building, trapper. Okay, its nice to build 10 traps to deal with guys sending their lone hero or 2 unit probes at you. Maybe a legitimate reason to say Gauls are 'easier', but most serious players I know don't build tons of traps so certainly not a game long advantage

    - wall palisade. Nice balance of protection and durability. Still, prior to time where people are building significant amounts of rams (which given people don't know how to use rams well, can be forever) durability is not as much of a winner

    - hero is faster. Great, you can finish an adventure quicker and rein with hero faster. Big deal. Again, not a reason to say Gauls require less effort.


    What have Romans got

    - basic troop lego. Most balanced in terms of offense and defense so good for clearing hideouts, reasonable for sending as reins. Slower build time but this downside doesn't kick in so much until midgame.

    - special ability, build building/field simultaneously. A major advantage, particularly if not rushing builds. Early game quest rewards rule account development. Being able to build fields/buildings at the same time can speed up the time in which you get the rewards. Throughout the game this ability makes account development faster and easier.

    - special building horse trough. no big advantage until mid game. then roman cavalry start to dominate. EL scout hammers are by far the best and EI's beat TTs in every way (offense and defense, in MHO) except speed. Smaller maps make speed less of an issue.

    - wall city wall. High protection, low durability. I say early game strength trumps and mid game lower durability is only an issue if attackers know what a ram is. I can't tell you how many times I've seen attackers forgo the use of siege hoping to take advantage of the slightly shortened travel time. It would probably be reasonable for every king to create a few simulations to show every member of the kingdom how important it is to build and use rams.

    - hero is stronger (assuming people are smart enough to put HP to strength rather than resources). Along with basic troop lego and special ability dual/build the reason why being a roman is soooooo much easier early game. Less damage on adventures and less damage clearing hideouts is a lot better deal than gaul hero speed.


    So, I've made my case for why servers should be 50 percent roman rather than 50 percent gaul. What do you say?

    Hey Renuo! I do indeed remember those misguided opponents of ours. Certainly with 10k treasures required for a slot they would not have been able to act so foolishly.


    And Jallu of xTools infamy. Are you on com4? If so I think I might change my goals for the server.


    I hear what you guys are saying about limiting the power of king accounts by limiting the number of villages they can draw tribute from. I also hear that keeping kingdom sizes down can make for more opportunities for competition throughout the life of the server. I guess you are telling me that if I want to play kingdoms and have a 15-20 village account that I'll just have to be happy being packed in with others like sardines. Oh well.

    So, I see that it now takes 10k treasures to open a new slot rather than 4k. Obviously this is just going to contract the map more and require players to settle more densely. Map contraction in the hopes of promoting action seems to be a theme that has been followed over the years, so no surprise.


    After a couple of weeks playing com4 I am thinking that the new treasures requirement is going to contract the map too much. Having just a little room so that one can have a decent size account within kingdom borders without having to have villages interspersed with several other players is something I'd still like to be able to do.


    So my question is, why the jump from 4k to 10k? How about trying some intermediate like 6k or 7k?

    Just completed a test account on com7 playing as a hammer. The conditions of the test were that I was only active during a 6 hour period 5 days a week and then available over a 16 hour period 2 days a week. In other words, I slept my normal hours and worked normal hours.


    My account was a serious and successful account, even with such restrictions. I finished no. 3 on the attackers list.


    However, I was only able to personally send attacks for about 1/3 of my kingdoms operations, because land times required that I launch during my normal work hours (which I could not do). For another 1/3 of the operations I was able to come up with a 24 hour dual to send for me. For the final 1/3 I just couldn't take part.


    Now, I'd say that it would be worthwhile to have a mechanism to allow such an account to be involved in 100 percent of the operations without having to resort to getting a dual for a short time just to send an attack. For those who are worried that delayed troop movement would be some advantage for those who only play part time vs. those who can play more, I can simply say that because of the restrictions of my life my original hammer village was zero popped. A delayed troop movement function would not have prevented that. I still finished 3rd on attackers list.


    The player base is shrinking. Dual accounts will still have huge advantages over those who want to play alone and have to live within time restrictions. However, those accounts that do want to go it alone can still build strong armies. They should not be restricted in making use of troops because they have to live normal lives.

    I confess, I hate Travian gambits, but I just used this one myself. Not to get a cropper, but simply to settle near the group I wanted to play with.


    The newest Kingdoms, with a single king and 4 dukes really puts restrictions on play style and so it is likely that people will turn to gambits more and more. Funny thing is that having started 10 days late I did this to move next to some friends but eventually accounts that spawned after me were given the option to move their original villages to the same area because they spawned near deadbeat kings.

    I don't want to put forth too many details because at this point in the thread it is clear that with the way people feel about the possibility of delayed troop movement all the feedback on any details would be primarily negative.


    Simply stated I would like to be able to delay a single troop movement by a fixed time. I have recommended fixed intervals of 2 hours up to 8 hours or delays of 2, 4, 6 or 8 hours. For example if I wanted to take part in an offensive that would require I send at 20:47:32 but I happened to be at work at that time, I could instead send my attack at 16:47:32 and specify a 4 hour delay. Fixed delays would keep all other aspects of troop timing as they are now.


    I would never recommend any type of mechanism to send raids in an automated fashion. There would also need to be limits to prevent the delayed troop movement being used to avoid a follow home or as a means of keeping ones troops constantly on the road to protect them. That would mean that delayed troop movements could only be set up for troops currently at home. Delayed troop movements couldn't be used to pull back reins. Only a single delayed troop movement would be allowed for a given troop so there wouldn't be any type of thing like sending reins to A, pulling them back and then sending them to B. Likewise no sending an attack on target A and repeating it after troops return. There has been some concern about what happens if the troops scheduled for a delayed movement are destroyed. If that is the case, they are dead. Delayed troop movements wouldn't protect the troops during the time of the delay. There are a number of other exploits that I can think of (like canceling delayed attacks and sending them a couple hours later with the hope of getting better cat waves) and so in fact a delayed troop movement mechanism would have to be pretty complicated to avoid these.


    There is no doubt that such a mechanism would cost gold. The concept of 'paying to win' is one that has always been a sore spot and is probably the topic for another thread (or an encyclopedia!)