Posts by Renuo#EN

  • Three Dragons Guide to Gaul, Part 3

    This one somehow got significantly worse than the previous two??

    I only agree with having a dedicated robber killer.. that is it..


    Will concur with Be2-e4, you do not city for CP.

    The city spam in this game is incredible and really boggles my mind, has nobody though it through at all?


    Two biggest reasons to make a city:

    1. You need a ditch for your capital (as defender this means 1 location - different if you are duke/king)

    2. You want to access GB and GS (primarily for offensive players)


    If you are trying to rush CP slots faster for your first 3-4 slots 'citying' your capital quickly - which you will need to do anyway (oops you would need to suicide settle for this) will let you celebrate at 500cp early on.


    Other notes on your key headings:

    - Troops are far more important to your survival than hiding everything

    - Yes oasis are useful but are not your sole reason for producing troops

    - Waiting for a grey to found your future capital is a sure way to be irrelevant entire game

    - If you are primary def gaul in a kingdom and intend to be useful to the kingdom you should care a lot less about your oasis bonuses and more about where to position for your kingdom

    - Unless it is early and you are scaring raiders away from your secondary villages you should not be focusing on defending your side villages (investing trappers and walls for side villages is an enormous waste regardless of day 5 or day 55)

    - 3 gaul crannies to protect side villages when you have trade routes is a waste of building time and resources. Building crannies is ideally reactionary.

    - Key defensive gauls (or any tribe) train troops in MOST villages if not all.

    - Smithy is to be in action at all times you can afford it (afford it means have at least 24 hour queues up).

    Quote from Three#US(1)

    Because you will only have to upgrade 1 smithy and 1 smithy only. To affect your entire army.


    Gaul is the only faction which can produce defensive troops from both cav stables and inf barracks at the same time

    Great army, you will have maybe 1/5 to that of defenders that played properly.


    Second part of the quote is too bad to even comment on.

  • How to play well as Gaul or as Roman in defense

    No, this is a terrible train of thought truly believed by far too many in the community.


    Troops are critically important from your first village.
    I keep seeing it everywhere, just building villages up and have no army - you're just building up someone else resource gain not your own (or not providing enough def for your team, and once your kingdom gets cracked you're all farms anyway).


    And if you intend to play pure offensively while also not significantly raiding you're already making a huge mistake.
    Beginners aren't having small armies all round because they didn't sim properly. That is last in the list for sure.

  • How to play well as Gaul or as Roman in defense

    There are very good reasons to limit your population.
    Population is honestly the most useless statistic in this game, and the fact that it provides you your key rank in-game leads to a lot of wasteful efforts and misleads beginners entirely.


    Simming is certainly not the most important aspect of this game.
    Building the rights things at the right time, particularly early is important yes, but building for population and CP alone is wasteful.

  • Cropkill

    While it is not the same to ruin a whole village, it is still insanely damaging.


    Taking out a bunch of level 18s alone can be enough to completely diminish the effect of a key enemy for the end game.

  • a certain limit for the number of players in the kingdom

    You kinda answered your own problem.
    You can't stop people from teaming up even if you stop them from joining under the same name.
    Many of us might recall one infamous server with TONKA1 -> TONKA∞... I'd agree that was a bit cancerous.
    Having said that, top gov numbers rarely win this game, always down to quality of players and having enough of them.


    Pointing at groups of players and blaming them for playing together in a coordinated fashion is just plain dumb. That is the main draw-card of Travian since first release.
    It is only in these dying days do you see threads asking for it to somehow vanish (which is a laugh).


    The real problem is dilution of quality players/teams and there is only one solution - less servers.
    There is not enough competition or players around for the amount of servers there is.


    The other elephant in the room is players are walking away from the game.