Posts by Gianus#COM

    So as a Sitter I don't have permission to use gold features on the account I sit and finishing building/resource field upgrades is a gold feature. However, we all know that if an upgrade takes at the most 4m59s, you can finish the upgrade for free.

    However as a Sitter you still can not. I think this is pretty weird and shouldn't be the case as it does not require any gold to do so.

    I think it should be updated so a Sitter could finish such an upgrade.

    Message as shown:

    "Apart from the sheer weight of the stone, a druid's rune makes it impossible to move the menhir away by anyone other than it's designated owner: [name]"

    What it should be:

    "Apart from the sheer weight of the stone, a druid's rune makes it impossible to move the menhir away by anyone other than its designated owner: [name]"

    If Im not mistaken you dont need a small celebration. You get 800 cp for building the town hall and thats enough to settle.

    You need 1k CP for your first expansion slot to open. Just the Town Hall (and not holding a Small Celeb) is enough if you wait about 2 days, but 2 days is way too slow to get to the few 150%/125% 15cs.

    So, A few years back I had posted the same question on the NL-Forum and had gotten a half-assed response, so I thought I'd post it again here. My apologies if it has been already, but here goes:

    Why is the Northern quadrant more favorable to pick when in the Tutorial it's clearly stated that choosing one quadrant over another doesn't affect gameplay in any way?

    Please see the following picture of the WW located at (0|0) and the distance between it and the nearest fields surrounding it.
    Notice how the fields up top are much closer to the WW than those at the bottom. This makes for some unfair gameplay. The players located North have an easier time settling their villages north of the WW (where they are closer to the WW) than players whose initial villages are in the Southern quadrant. From those newer villages (which, again, are closer to the WW than those south of it) they have a better time conquering and defending the WW once conquered than players South of the WW would have.
    Is this fair?

    When I first asked this question, the answer went something like "Well that's the design choice we went for and with it comes its pros and cons.", but then I'd ask do we really put asthetics over fair gameplay?

    And then there are some who might think a difference of 2 fields isn't a big deal. To you I'll ask, do you send in a siege attack before or after your raid? After all, what difference would 1 second make, right?

    thank you :)

    another question about the natarian wall. wiki says that the natarian wall will remain in the village. but will remain in the village even if i destroy it when i go to clean the natarian troops ? or not ,,

    If you destroy the Natarian Wall as part of conquering the WW-vill (which you probably would, because who in their right mind wouldn't?), the wall will be destroyed completely.

    After conquering a village of a tribe different from your own, the village will switch over to your tribe. For example, if you are a Roman and you conquer a Germanic village, you won't be able to build an Earth Wall after having conquered the Germanic village, as it will become a Roman village.

    What the wiki means, is that even after conquering a WW-vill, the Natarian wall will remain in the WW-village (as in you won't be able to build an Earth Wall in a WW-vill). You do have to rebuild it again.

    When a King goes to Kingdom > Influence, there's an overview of his villages and how they influence the surrounding fields. I thought it'd be absolutely amazing if the influence produced by the King's Dukes' Treasure-villages would also be shown, so the King knows even better what changes have to be made and how he has to adapt to grow his/her Kingdom. I'm also pretty sure that it wouldn't be too difficult to do this in an organized way, see the picture below:

    As you can see, the Dukes' Treasure-villages can easily be put on the right side of the Influence-tab while the King's own villages stay on the left side.


    I was honestly just trying to be smart and funny in a way that shows that I disagree with where the game is heading.

    How about pay2much2play2little? Doesn't roll right off the tongue :S

    I'm actually happy that gold prices are going up though. The more it costs, the less people use it, the less pay2win it is. Sort of. My issue was more with there being more and more features revolving only around gold and not around actual gameplay, less with the costs of those features.

    It's slowly but surely becoming pay2play, which I don't think is better than pay2win at all.

    what happens then if my original king goes inactive I've settled in a new location, where there's an active king, but, I attack from the city outside my kings borders? Does the king still get the treasure because if I go to sell stolen treasure I get from bandits from my original city then it doesn't go to my active king. It goes to bandits, is it the same with treasure I take from players (my city attacking has to be in the border of my king)

    Treasures you obtain (either by selling stolen goods or by stealing treasures from another player) will always go to the tribute fund of the village you've sold them in or the home village of the troops that stole the treasures. If this is a village/city outside of the borders of any kingdom, the treasures will just sit in your tribute fund until your settlemment is within the borders of a kingdom (after which the king can collect your tribute fund) or someone attacks your settlement with their Hero and steals the treasures.

    I must say that I don't like where this is going.. I'm personally not playing on the TEST server, but the sound of this update makes cringe.

    I thought Travian Kingdoms was designed to give the less active players a meaningful place in the game? Yet now we're beginning to implement features that reward activity even more?
    Why not give 3x as many Prestige Points to Kings? That way everyone wants to become a king and everyone must play much more actively to secure their crown.

    I'm not saying that it is a bad feature, I just don't get what you guys are trying to achieve..


    Junior Member___0-29 posts
    Member_________30-99 posts
    Senior Member___100+ posts


    If I'm not wrong then the Travian: Legends forum has Pikeman, Thorned Warrior etc. which is quite good. Anyways, thanks a lot.

    Title______________# of posts

    Thorned Warrior___.100-249
    Natarian Knight____.DanielHart

    EDIT: Anyone else in favor of crowning Georgi Natarian Emperor? ;D

    you lose 1/3 of your total. {and some of us really do need that extra wheat]

    You can lose up to 1/3 of the total amount of Treasures you have.
    Just send the exact amount of troops needed to pick up the excess Treasures. Say that you want 1k treasures to be stolen, one should send something like 20 Axemen + Hero.
    Treasures are prioritized over resources when both treasures and resources can be stolen.

    lol, I don't keep count of my posts. I have used the same name since the beginning however, so the number will include all posts since we changed over to this forum.

    If you can find a single post which is spam I promise never to bother to post again. I have tried to be helpful as much as possible, to my fellow players and to staff as well. If PMs and igms in game were included, the number would, at minimum, double I have also encouraged others to post here if they have any thoughts, whether they agree with me or not, as I believe it important for TG to hear all the feedback possible.

    Didn't say it was a bad thing. If only more people would post as much as you do, but DAYUM. 1k+ though...