Posts by Pacifist001

    Ok lets compare these 2 units and see what you are getting @Aillas


    EC-(232.4ATK+20ATK)/58MIN=4.351 ATK/MIN

    Total difference is 3.911/4.351=0.89 for a grand total of dum dum dum 11% faster ATK/MIN.

    So for 11% faster ATK/MIN you are:

    1. Paying 36% more in total resources. (790/1220=0.64)

    1.1. Meaning unless you are NPC-ing you cant queue IMPS effectivly meaning you ARE losing ATK/MIN because your IMPs wont be able to go 24/7. After 14.43 hours if I am correct(I did it in a hurry will go double check later).

    2. Getting 2.2% less ATK/Crop if equiping sword.

    3. 29% less speed.

    4. 54% less carrying capacity.

    You cant lie math. Math and strategy win the game. ;3

    • First: I didn't check your numbers. Whether they're correct or not is irrelevant, because you're asking the wrong questions. It is completely irrelevant, whether EC are better than clubs in terms of any offensive point. You do not have the decision between EC and clubs. You have the decision between Imperian + EC + Ram vs. Club + TR + Ram.
    • You should always by all means check the numbers. In every game(and especially in Travian) numbers are the key to greater understanding and victory.
    • Roman EC hammers (with that I mean Imperian + EC + Ram - this will count for analogue cases in the following aswell) are the second best hammers in the game, in terms of attack force per time. And attack force per time is the one single stat, that is relevant for hammers in most cases. You want to train hammers quickly, because unlike defense you can't put two hammers together to fight as one.

    Correct, attack per time is important but only as long as you are able to keep producing EC-s 24/7. The more downtime you have the worse they are. If you look at EC-s the main problem is not just the fact they are more expensive. It is the fact that they dont balance out the resources to allow you to keep barracks and stable producing 24/7. (Unless you are NPC-ing, but gold only feature should not have influence on macro gameplan) That one does not build EC as defense unit should be crystal clear. I will not explain in depth why, it's just obvious, they suck at deff. But so do most offensive units. EC just don't suck completely as def, so some people build them as def, whyever.

    Also correct, however I commented on the in game description of them, not weather or not they should be used in def(of course they should never be used in def). They are described as: The Equites Caesaris are the heavy cavalry of the Romans. Well-armored and heavily armed, they are however slower than the Imperatoris and can only carry few resources.

    This is more of a remark on how developers see them, which is in my opinion incorrect. Resource costs don't matter too much aswell, EC off costs roughly 8% more than an EI off, but that's only around 2k resources per hour. You will be able to afford this anyway, also your hammer's supply will quickly cost way more than it's production anyway.

    Again, as I said above the cost itself is not the problem it is the way that cost is combined with other units. EC-s are Iron-Clay heavy. If you are building them you are also building imperians which are also Iron heavy in terms of cost. So you will have little to no Iron, medium amount clay and no wood. Again as long as you are NPC-ing this is not a problem, but for a F2P player it is much more appealing to have EI-s which compliment Imperians better in terms of cost. You also don't really want to farm with horses if there are so many farm spikers around, like I heared it in com to be the case. One could opt into training EI in a support village for farming only, but that's another topic. So their carry capacity doesn't matter that much. Maybe a bit, if one is taking the risk of being spiked, but farming with Imps should be better there. Can't speak from too much experience here though, I always opted into either a support village with farm-EI or into a tertiary off with EI (EI's attack force per time is only a few percent below EC's, so it felt okay-ish to do so for a tertiary).

    Yeah however for a troop used primarily for offense it is disgusting to know that almost every single defensive troop in the game is able to outcarry them. Also if there are spikers around it does not matter weather you are using horses or infantry. Nobody will ever use EC-s for any form of farming. The point was made to showcase how counterintuitive and paradoxal the unit is. By the way: You CANNOT make ANY conclusions without HDT. HDT is THE building for romans, if you train roman off, you ALWAYS have one. Calculating without one is useless. Also, calculating with level 0 units is nonsense, for the very same reason. You always upgrade your hammer to level 20.

    If you had read the post you would have seen I did not calculate, I simply took the information from relevant site. However all of the other things apart from 1 were in fact made with Horse Drinking Pool in mind. And even then EC-s are awful. Before you spend X thousand resources on maxing a Horse Drinking Pool they are even worse. That is why I said you should always check the numbers.

    You must have made some error in your calculation. ECs have the highest Atk/(training time) in the game. Ye, they even beat clubs.

    Also, the size bonus does not apply to the number of units, but rather the total Attack power of your OFF army.. so its not correct that you rather want 3 EIs than 2 ECs to get advantage of a ”Horde Bonus”.

    Yes ECs are expemsive, but if you can afford it you can enjoy training ECs with the knowledge of that you are training the unit with the highest atk/time in the game.

    My bad. I used this tool as a source, so it probably did not calculate max horse drinking pool level into account. (I completely forgot it was a thing as well)

    Better in what way? What I meant there was just that the "Horde/Size Bonus" does not have anything to do with the number of attack units. Hence the choice of 3 EI vs. 2 EC is not affected by that. I think the most useful way to this about the EI vs. EC comparison is this:

    EI's are better in: Atk/Cost (including crop upkeep), More suitable for Ghost hammers due to their speed, Better at farming due to speed and capacity.

    EC's are better in: Atk/Production time ... and having #1 Atk/Production time in the game makes them a really Great OFF great unit.

    If you check the wiki 3 EI.s will get +45 ATK +45 DEF from the weapon, meanwhile 2 EC-s will get +40/+40 that is what I meant as a horde bonus. That might seem insignificant but quickly piles up.

    Look at it this way. 27/24, 36/32, 45/40 are all 1.125, meaning EI-s get 12.5% more increase from hero weapon. This is even more true during the early game when Romans dont have enough resources to raise the Horse Drinking Pool to max level.…t+hand+Items+%28Romans%29

    First lets list some stats.

    I will be giving comments along the way.

    I used the tool for these stats but you probably already know these already.

    ATK per cost: Rank 8/15

    Worst attack unit in the game in this aspect. It is even beaten by a leggionaire which is a hybrid unit.

    ATK per training time: Rank 2/15

    ONLY place where EC-s shine. The only unit that beats them is clubswinger.

    ATK per crop: 6/15

    This is of course without having a LV 20 horse drinking pool. If you have it maxed this unit becomes barely decent by sharing the 3rd place with Equites Imperatoris and axefigther.

    DEF INF per cost: 12/15

    DEF CAV per cost:8/15

    Overall DEF per cost: 11/15

    This is what I am most bothered about, the description and picture depicts EC-s as heavily armored units. This is in my opinion a trap for new players who might consider using them as def after reading that description. They are not good for def. Scrap that one they are not good for anything except depleting your resources faster when you see an incoming attack.

    DEF INF per crop: 11/15

    DEF CAV per crop: 8/15

    Overall DEF per crop: 11/15

    Same as what I said above. Dont look at the big number on their def rating and think to yourself they might be good for it. They take 3/4 crop.

    Efficiency of stealing resources per cost: 14/15

    Their lowest. They are beated by phalanx, spearfighters and druids.

    Efficiency per training time: 11/15

    Even here they are beated by defensive units. Their raiding ability is abysimally low.

    Troop speed:10 Barely outrunning imperians even with horses.

    *Why EC-s do not fit Romans:

    1. They have real fast training time, Roman units are supposed to take long to build up. So thematically speaking they are only unit out of place.

    2. They are outshined by EI-s in every single aspect except one. Their fast training time is only thing they have superior, but without any other uses they are just bigger resource sinks.

    3. Even though they have same attack you will always rather want 3 EI-s then 2 EC-s because of way combat system works. 1200 units compared to 800 units will have a bigger horde bonus. IIRC* Add the fact that EI-s are faster, carry more and cost less and EC-s just look like that retarded kid you had in class and had to deal with the entire elementary school. Hell even resource wise EI-s are better since they are not iron heavy like other Roman troops so they help you

    balance out your resources better.

    4.They dont fit into the Roman end-game fantasy. (Keep in mind that this is just my opinion :S)

    *Ways to make EC-s usefull:

    Keep in mind romans are already in a pretty good spot so we dont want to add too much power to their unit, even if it is underused one.

    1st proposal: Turn it into a purely defensive unit. Transfer a fair bit of that attack into infantry defense and we might have a thing or 2 we could use it for. That attack is wasted anyways.This buff could look like something like this:

    180 Attack-> 60

    80 Defence (Infantry)->140

    105 Defence (Cavalry)->165

    2nd proposal: Increase carrying capacity, speed and redistribute resource cost. (The less invasive approach I would prefer) This would allow EC-s to contend with EI-s. They dont have to beat the EI-s in any of these aspects, but they just need to stop being so bad compared to them. This buff could look like something like this:

    SPD 10->12

    Carrying capacity 70->90

    Redistribution of resource cost to something more appealing.

    Bonus opinion on EC:

    Waste of such a cool name. ^^

    I remember that 3-4 years ago on RS forums of TL you would see a youtube videos pop up after a round is over and victory is declared. People would compile things like biggest hammer, biggest anvil, most deaths etc. It was amazing to watch and I was always searching for them on forums whenever a server ended. Dont see them nowdays.

    Thanks for sharing @Starx !

    I still wonder though if there are some kind of "spill-over" mechanic that pushed some people choosing a certain quadrant over to the adjacent quadrant if the one they choose is to "full". This is at least what I remember happening on one server to the team I was in.

    Or algorithm might be looking for a set of parameters before placing a village in selected quadrant. Like X minimum Y maximum distance from oasis, Z kingdoms nearby, N players nearby, and then searches for a spot with those parameters closest to the desired coordinates. So when the map expands no more people will be "spilled".

    I put this in the 15c discussion but no one really responded so I couldnt gauge whether it was a bad idea or not. Perhaps someone with more experience in this game can tell me whether they think it would solve the fast settle or not:

    Why not simply make beginner protection end once you settle a second village?

    I don't think there is anything wrong with the fast settle strategy in itself. I think there are sacrifices being made to execute it. So I think that by removing beginners protection, the player just has to live with their sacrifices. Maybe it wouldnt matter?

    I love this idea. It is easy to implement and I think it would solve most problems, also allow us to leave beginner protection early if we want.

    Instead of having to spawn randomly and let RNG decide if you are lucky why not just allow players to drop their village on the map where they like it. Right now RNG controls these factors.

    1.Good Oasis

    2. Overpopulated/underpopulated area/kingdom

    3.Closeness to a 15c-s and 9c-s.(Dear lord I got lucky on x3 server in this area)

    4. Closeness to WW./somewhat RNG, not completely to my understanding.

    They dont seem a lot at first, but they do add up really quickly. Menhir system is a good way to combat this but I think we need to push it futher.

    I would prefer if Travian was more like a game of chess, where player with superior moves wins, not player that got lucky on their map placements, adventures and card game.

    The game has pushed into a heavy early-game defensive meta, meaning that Gauls are best tribe to start the server with, and since they are defensive even if you have a bad start you can easily come back with them and being the first to settle is easy with them.

    My question is why is their cranny so powerful? As a Roman that cant dip into that cranny like a Teuton, cranny is more annoying. Especialy since in the early game they can just pop 2 of them and dodge every attack free of charge for like a month. I doubt there are so many new players to warrant Gauls being this strong. Oh well, what can you do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I hope they never introduce that system it is dogshit, also in my opinion u can easily just build an army and chief the 15c u want later once u have chiefs - u can do that in a few days on speed no problem if u raid nicely. Anyone who can't get a cropper simply isn't good enough at the game and need to accept that :) I play teutons and romans regularly and have no problem taking 15c with either tribe using the fast settle guide or waiting to conquer one.

    You say you have no problem chiefing the village and that it is easy if you raid nicely, yet you dont want new system. You are contradicting yourself right here.

    If you are so good new system will pose no problem for you, right? It is just a few days like you said, it would mean nothing to you and wont influence you at all, so why are you making so much fuss about it? :D

    Oh, and btw I just started a x3 server, dont know if you are there but within 10 hours of the server 12 best 15croppers with 150% bonus were taken(that is not counting the other croppers). The guy from my kingdom literaly cried to me how his settlers ended up just returning 3 times because people kept getting ahead of him because of 1-2 minutes. Which leads me to my next point.

    Not a single game should be decided by a set of COMPLETELY RANDOM factors. Who knows if my teammate spawned 1 square closer he might have gotten that 150% 15c, he didnt so he ended up wasting 3 travels with his settlers, losing him even more places he could have settled. This is not only extremely frustrating but unbalances the game.

    Fast settling strategy should be removed all together and I cant wait for the new 15c that are controled by Natars to be introduced. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

    800CP quest is really BS. It devolves the game into who spawns first and clicks faster (with minor luck on the place you spawned). Which the game should not allow. I should not get punished for joining the server half an hour late by having all the 15 crops and 9 crops in my 30x30 taken away from me.

    Game version: 0.91 - The menhir era begins.
    Is it 1%?)

    This is a new game and new features that you do not know.

    Menhirs did not change any of the skills important for playing Travian. Planning, organizing, timing attacks and defenses just because a king can now put a menhir does not mean this is a completely different game. Trust me the moment I made my account I read all of the patchnotes there were since I left and I am kind od dissapointed by how little the game progressed.

    Why not penalize having huge borders instead/bigger kingdoms? Here are some examples of how having bigger kingdoms could end up being problematic.

    1. Make kings have to expand res in order to keep big borders. Even something as marginal as 10*RES for every square after (Example)x(Example) can add up pretty quickly. This will make growth of a kingdom more linear then exponential, allowing smaller kingdoms a chance to catch up.

    2. Reduce maximum amount of squares king/duke can control by 10-20%. That way positioning of villages and cities will matter a lot more and would really be an indicator of how skilled a king is. It will also make it so that kingdom cant just accept everyone into the kingdom blindly, instead kings would have to choose people and position their villages the best way possible for maximum effect.

    3. Reduce the amount of dukes or their efficiency. Pretty simple solution that is almost equal to the above one. The difference is that if the amount of dukes is reduced you will have huge amount of treasures localized in a single place, meaning the protection of the treasures would be a lot harder and it would change the pace of the game.

    4. Make the robbers have higher strength the bigger the amount of players in a kingdom is. This is truly my favourite one, and the solution is clean and simple. The bigger the kingdom the more rewards you can reap from killing robbers and you will get more treasures. However the problem arises when the kingdom is growing so fast you just cant keep up with it. That means governors would look for stable slow growing kingdoms to join, because otherwise they might end up being killed by a simple NPC army. Higher risk-higher reward for bigger kingdoms, as well as a chance for smaller kingdoms to catch up.

    This is just my 2 cents, keep in mind I have not played T-Kingdoms in over a year and T-Legends in about 3 months so I am still getting back into it.