Posts by Aenggd

    I think it would be helpful to mark incoming attacks as fakes, so they are displayed differently to other kingdom members. This way the incoming attacks page of a kingdom could be way more useful. Maybe have 3 different types of attack.

    - Fake / Ignore
    - Default (Not classified yet)
    - Serious

    As it is currently you have to filter fakes out manually.

    I usually start small parties when the villages CP-production is at about 200. But if I am short on resources I may skip a party or two.

    I would say it depends on your circumstances. If you can spare the resources I would do as many parties as possible. If you dont have enough resources anyways, I would rather spend them on troops or buildings.

    The way I look at it is: In the long term I will have a lot of resources but CP are going to limit my growth.

    i want to play and test a full anti-infantry def style in next test server
    but i am not sure what tribe offers the best in this forte

    If you want to go for infantry defense the romans would be the first choice to come to mind, because of their praetorians. They are the most cost effective infantry defense both by cost and by crop efficiency. In terms of defence per buildtime the druidrider is the best followed by the paladin and the phalanx. The praetorian is 4th in this regard.

    i am planning to style my account as 1 anti-infantry anvil city and the rest feeders

    If you really want to go for a single def-village I would say gauls are the best, since you can produce phalanx and druids for a ridiculous amount of infantry defense per buildtime compared to both a roman going praetorians (cav doesnt really make sense here) and teutons (spears and paladins).

    Typically a def-account produces troops in many villages and build time is not that important compared to resource efficiency.

    Some other thoughts:
    Another advantage of romans would be their ability to build two buildings at a time and their excellent late game scouts.
    The teutons advantages for defense is their excellent cavalry defense with spears and their scouts cosuming only one crop. They are typically considered the weakest def-tribe, with their def clearly geared towards anti-cavalry.
    Gauls have a really easy early game, the phalanx as am extremely powerful all-purpose defense and druids as fast infantry defense. They are typically considered the strongest def-tribe.

    i can choose to play king/duke or governor depends on the best suggestion

    I dont have experience as a king or duke, so all of my advice comes from a governors point of view.
    If you are not sure what role to pick, I would suggest to go as governor.

    The kirilloid warsim shows 20-30 loyalty per roman senator and 20-25 loyalty for the other tribes. This also depends on the morale bonus (Your population relative to the other players population).

    I think I've read, that as roman you need 1 less senator to conquer a village most of the time.

    And legio isn't that good in making even with their versatility in offense/defense. The def scaling is still quite bad.

    Would you say it is worth making legios in the early game, or should a defensive roman go for another unit? I thought they were quite good, since they are decent at everything and dont cost that much.

    Hello everyone!

    I was wondering if legios are a good unit for killing robbers? For a def-roman they would seem like a reasonable alternative to building a small dedicated off. My thinking was, that the extra losses the legionnaires take due to their lower attack power might be less than the extra cost for a dedicated off. Especially in the early game when resources are scarce one could take advantage of the legionnaires versatility.

    Has anyone tried this? I haven't tested this, so any input would be appreciated.
    If this works: Do def-romans typically build a small dedicated off at all, or is relying on legionnaires more cost effective?

    Das umziehen dient meiner Auffassung nach dafür von einer schlechten Startposition wegzukommen. Nach dem Siedeln ist man ja schon "umgezogen" und hatte die Möglichkeit sich seine Position rauszusuchen, also besteht für mich kein Grund mehr das noch mal zu erlauben.

    Außerdem ist es so, wenn ich mich nicht irre, möglich einen anderen Oasenbonus zu bekommen. Die vorhandene Karte sollte sich meiner Meinung nach nicht mehr ändern.

    Für mich ist das mehr ein Exploit als eine Taktik. Ich finde nach dem Siedeln eines zweiten Dorfes sollte man nicht mehr umziehen können, auch wenn man das erste Dorf "los wird".

    I agree with a lot of what you say here.

    But I think what you are missing is, that spiking on a larger scale would mean massive losses for the person doing it. Additionally the losses on the farmers side would be split between a lot of people.

    I think what you are describing is not feasible. If it was, I think it would be done.

    I could be wrong, of course.

    Explain me what you mean for broken system, maybe we have different views.
    Not be able to fight invisible enemy is not an opinion you cant disagree. And worst case scenario can always happen, and about spiking is very easy if someone want make it happen. A system has a FAWL when that scenario ruin the game.
    And if you are aware about the level of how much friendly VP stealing is raising in TK, the skill average in TK of players, and human instinct to abuse the aspects/rules of a game, you should expect more impact.

    I think the curent system is not broken. Spiking isnt a big issue from what I can tell. If spiking was so gamebreaking, I would assume a lot of players to abuse it. I dont see that happening.

    A little OT but i need to answer.
    Yes you are right, terrorism (like holocaust, using chemical/gas bomb etc) would be a kind of allowed warfare in a world with NO rules. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for me and the rest 95% of pop we live in a world with rules and fundamental human rights, at least after WW 2...

    This is a wargame. Why not have some "terrorism" option? It is only a game after all. As you can probably imagine, I do not condone terrorism in real life.
    By the same logic you would have to disable features like shooting people in games like GTA. That is also against human rights. But again: It is a game.

    As i said you tend to simplify too much, you need to think also about the secondary effects of an aspect/rule and how they impact in the other aspects of the game, and how players could react to that. Otherwise you'll never have a balanced game.

    You should do the same. Do you really want risk free farming of inactives?

    Like Victory points,theorically is a broken sistem cause if you spike in large scale you ruin the game. But also pratically is broken too, cause you cannot counterattack invisible enemy.

    I disagree. If it was broken I would expect it to have a major impact on gameplay. From what I can tell it doesnt have.

    In a real war must be clear who are your enemies. Otherwise i cannot define it war, but likely terrorism.

    And to me terrorism is warfare.

    Last thing. You suppose that Spikers are not allowed to be also raider. Fail.

    Of course spikers can raid. But when you look at spiking, you should look into losses and gains for both sides. What each of the involved parties does beside spiking/raiding should not be taken into account, unless it directly affects the topic.

    Spiking abuses inactives <=> Plundering abuses inactives

    Spiking is too easy <=> Plundering inactives is too easy

    Inactives are just a way of giving active players free resources. I dont see a problem of that coming with the risk of spiking.
    As for the viability of spiking: The farmer loses troops. The farmer also gains resources from farming inactives. Currently the gained resources apparently outweigh the losses.
    The spiker loses troops and doesnt gain resources. That is probably the reason it is not more common.

    Some stats for anyone interested:
    If you assume a ratio of 1:1 infantry:cavalry, Praetorians start being more cost effective than Phalanx after 710 hours or about 29.6 days. At this point the cost per defence-point is equal between the two unit types if you consider the consumed crop. Until then Praets cost more for the same defence-value. After that they are cheaper.
    For Spears that point is reached after 1669 hours or about 69.2 days. For Legios it is after 427 hours or about 17.8 days.

    If you assume a ratio of 3:2 infantry:cavalry it is 11.6, 13.4 and 7 days for Phalanx, Spears and Legios respectively.

    If you send your troops to someone else and dont provide the crop yourself, this does not apply. In that case Phalanx and Spears are simply more cost effective than Praets.

    But this completely ignores the buildtime. Since Phalanx and Spears can be produced significantly faster than Praets, you have to produce Praets in more villages to get the same def-point production. This means more resources need to be spent on buildings and upgrades.

    With an infantry:cavalry ratio of 1:1 again, both Phalanx and Spears amount to about 1.5 times the def-point production of Praets. So in theory one would need 1.5 times the number of def-villages. I did not calculate the cost of this, though.