Posts by Mike_COM

    But they have not only managed to prevent silver pushing, they have also managed to deter ordinary people who use auctions regularly (like myself) from bidding on items. They should really have thought harder about the situation - there are many ways to do it. You suggested a good one.

    I do remember, now, the master builder costing 1g. Apologies. But again, if you use the master builder far more than 50 times, then the 50g price for unlocking is worth it (and possibly the subsequent 75g for the next unlock), but if not, it is again unfair.

    I imagine this is all a trial, anyway, to try and perfect the systems they use.

    You know that might make an interesting twist of events in Kingdoms. having the ability to dispose of a gov, king, or alliance leader by a no confidence vote. Just thinking out loud, i don't think there is any real merit to it, i just like brainstorming every once in a while, maybe spark some kind of solution idea in others. i really like the historical facts that you bring to the table, like the salt to a meal.

    That's a good idea! Kingdoms is a great idea. If the kingdoms were somehow larger with more players, then a council of elders would be a great thing to introduce. And, vote of no confidence! Wonderful, haha.
    Well you're welcome! I love sharing facts. History is my passion! But I hate salt :P

    I don't know whether this has been brought up before - I didn't fancy reading through the many posts to find out.

    Silver Usage in Travian Kingdoms
    Does anyone else think the new rules guarding everything to do with silver are absolutely ridiculous? We are only able to sell things at an 'average price', rather than allowing people to bid on our items in an auction. This is terrible - I'll tell you why. A couple of days ago, I saw some artwork in 'auction' going for 7,000+ silver; just now, after glancing at some auctions, artwork is going for over 17,000 silver, but apparently I can only sell mine for 3,028. This is preposterous. How on earth is that an average? Let me tell you why Travian does not want us allowing our items to be 'bid' on: they want us to buy more gold - spend more money. This is evident in the exchange system, where you can exchange 200 silver for 1 gold; but you can somehow only exchange 1 gold for 100 silver. Unbelievable. This silly new auction system is stopping me from bidding on armour and items, as I refuse to pay more money to obtain the (unfair) amount of silver needed.

    Additionally, 3 gold (rather than the original 2) to complete building processes? 50 gold to unlock master builder? ONLY if you're a member of Travian Plus? Master builder used to be free with a Plus account, I'm sure... What the hell guys? Cut us some slack, please?

    One annoyed player.

    Is it at all possible to discover what the Gauls called their own ranks? If you like the keeping of tradition and meaningful names.

    @wtfh - you know you are the first and only one to bring that up. nice to meet you and all, but please don't shake my hand. wink

    Not much is known about Gaul at all, only what we have from Rome's accounts, etc. Gaul was a place, not a force. It was separated into clans, each having its own hierarchical system (Druids, Aedui). The clans all had a similar system. They were originally led by a king and a council of elders (similar to Sparta). They resorted to an annually-elected magistrate to watch over the king. :) :)

    Not to kick up an argument here, but...

    Satraps are not necessarily to be attributed only to Persia, it's just that Persia (and Macedon) were the only empires to have a system which Travian is trying to produce, so Satraps are perfect to replace the current title 'king'. If your point about satraps being credited only to things Persian, then surely Duke must be attributed only to Germanic tribes (as that is where the title came from), as Emperor should only be Roman, and Knight should only be.. well, none, as Anglo-Saxon tribes do not exist on Travian. It is necessary to choose a title which relates to the role best, not the location.

    I like the idea of Alliance founder. Maybe Travian should name the Vice King something that does not really relate to much, as 'King' in the Travian sense does not have the same kingly qualities that a typical king would have in the real world - as in Travian, kings follow alliance elites, and in the real world, they do not. For this reason, king should be replaced with satrap or regent, and alliance founders should be either kings or emperors (they're essentially one and the same). Thus, Vice King can be lord or duke, and governors remain the same. This way, you incorporate all locations without any bias, and the hierarchy system is retained.

    I agree with your preference of Grand Duke - technically that is a position which only a king is above (and a sovereign duke below). But they usually only reign over a closed kingdom, not an empire. Travian's gameplay is that of an empire - reigning over different cultures (Gaul, Roman, and Teuton). Once a kingdom is established, a Grand Duke is established, but once that kingdom expands into different territories and becomes an empire (like in Travian), the Grand Duke is usually diminished to a satrap over their original land.
    A regent, however, is the only word on this list, and possibly any list, that can make any sense. The simple definition of a regent (Roman - regens) is that they take control when the king is absent, and in the event of the death of a king, the regent becomes king. Chancellors tend to be only political, and not military.

    May I suggest the title 'satrap' be added to the list? In the time period in which the game is based, the closest thing to a king we have on record is a satrap.
    Alexander the Great placed satraps around his empire to manage his individual 'kingdoms' if you will, a tactic he obtained from the Persian monarchy before him; Cyrus the Great did it, Darius the Great, Artaxerxes, and even Xerxes (you know, from 300). Satraps were, however, delegated and the king retained ultimate power.
    If the role of 'Vice King' which you're enforcing does not imply a delegated role, but a more powerful role which has influence over the king, too, then 'regent' is the closest thing we have (again, in the time period in which this game is set) to a King - hence the term 'core-regent', a title given to the next in line to the throne. This, again, implies the current king's impending step-down, though, so a satrap makes much more sense.

    That being said, please avoid titles like 'Duke/Duchess', or 'Lord/Lady', as they represent something entirely different.

    As a side note, why not introduce a different name for each of the three kings? Roman kings will have a Roman Vice King, for example (such as an Emperor/Empress), whilst a Gaul king will have a Vice King with a different title suited to their location.

    Feel free to ignore this. I like to have fun with history, I'm writing a PhD on it!

    Best :)