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).
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.
Every player that I've targeted that plays your way abandons and deletes (particularly when playing as Teuton).
This is not the way to survive let alone thrive, and if you do survive it is luck or allies and you've just stunted your growth unnecessarily.
I don't see any hammer for dukes in 3x in the post yet, while for some 1x i see hammers noted for kings, dukes and governers
My understanding is that the only distinction is those that receive tributes (king/duke) and those that don't.
Happy to stand corrected though.
Your title suggests that this is for a strong start, but it is honestly a compromise replacement for those that know they won't put in the effort required for a strong start.
Well once we start making things "OK for casual" you can say pretty much anything.
That hammer melts on a WW ditch, could aim at MB but certainly not a WW late in.
@ApT#EN thank you for the flow-chart on how to win the game until now I had no idea.
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.
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.
Based on this guide I am a bad player. Uh oh.
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.
Should still be unique to both of you regardless.
As I recall, in Travian Classic there was a certain limit to the number of players in the alliance
Forcing alliance to form sub-alliances
The smaller players are transferred to it as penalty for default
It means you can establish sub-kingdoms
but at least only 100member will take the medals
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.
BM has never been anywhere near close to that large.
I think the point was to make it so you can't have a large amount of waves on the same second. However, they could just add a second delay after every 3/4 or whatever they want.