Posts by Two fools#RU

    The game will not let you activate second treasury if you don't meet requirements (meaning if you are a duke or don't have enough villages as a king), but as soon as you start the process of hiding the active treasury the option will be available.


    If you are a king, treasures that were in that treasury will automatically move to other treasuries if there is enough space (I believe only to king's treasuries, treasuries of dukes are excluded, but I'm not sure). If there is no room treasures will stay in the same village like a tribute in some sense, meaning they can be stolen, all of them, not just 30%, and they will not generate no influence or victory points.
    If you are a duke, treasuries will go in tribute fund and the king who covers the territory will collect them (most likely not your king) with tribute. They will not move to new active treasury.


    This is my understanding, I'm not sure about it actually. If someone corrects it or confirms, that will be appreciated.

    On the second thought I got even more confused. If/when you cata the treasury that means you attack the village and as result it should be kicked out of the kingdom. If it was a duke with active treasury the village would be out of the kingdom to begin with. So instead of kicking out attacked village the game adds it?


    - - - Updated - - -


    Daniel, yes, you can attack, but you still will have to wait 48 hours to chief after.


    Well, I thought that's the case :) It's a bag of bugs. I agree then, 48 hours limit should not apply to independent villages.


    Still I'm absolutely sure you don't need to destroy treasury to chief a village, done that.

    He will not become your governor, the village will be in your kingdom and you will collect tribute from him, but he still will be other king governor. Plus you don't have to cata treasury to chief a village.

    Right.... because naming your alliance as XYZ and then me naming mine as XYZ-east would never be used as a simple work-around for diplomacy.

    If real advantages were given to allied players only (like only allies can rein or send resources to each other) this undercover diplomacy would shrink significantly.


    - - - Updated - - -


    And that has been done before. On US1R4, our group really didn't want to deal with a wonder building, so we didn't build one to win [we captured several] but our goal was a natar win, and we keep the other alliances from winning and that natars did win.


    There are many such groups around, I played for a couple of them. You still did not win the server. I thought it will be achievable goal on kingdoms but with latest changes it looks like designer want to remove such possibility from the game.

    In order not to build WW and win the dominating alliance needs to have 3.83 times more victory points than next competitor. I don't think it possible with 4K limit per treasury (not to mention they have not lifted 7 treasuries limit yet). In theory possible of course, but I'm having hard time imagining it.

    No, they are not. I was a governor without a kingdom and had hideouts, I was a governor outside of a kingdom and had hideout outside the kingdom.

    Tineren, thanks. I have some 6 as I did not want to NPC much. I was aware about the reward so I went to residence before academy. I guess I will stop at 5 next time.

    It's now possible to build the Great Stable and the Great Barracks in cities including the capital


    From change log. Ouch!


    - - - Updated - - -


    The production bonus of the treasury has been changed into a crop-only production. As a king you received 1 wood, 1 clay, 1 iron and 1 crop for having 10 treasures in your treasury. After the patch you will receive 10 crop when you have 10 treasures in your treasury. This will lead to better balancing by comparing the resources that are available for governors and kings.