Posts by Gianus#COM

    This is an issue which I will have to say hurts those who are limited in their gold use much too much, early server at any rate. I think this was a bad decision - and I am not one of those who complains about having to use gold, remember. Unless the devs have adjusted the adventure rewards to dramatically increase the winning of ointments and dramatically decreased both the cost of reviving a hero and the time it takes to revive one, it places an undue burden on those who use little to no gold. (ie:buying buckets and ointments)


    I can't begin to guess what was intended by this change, where the idea may have come from, what the intended effect is, or why it was even considered when there is so much else needing attention. I can see what the outcome will be. I urge the devs to reconsider this one and change it back.


    All that said, it would not bother me if the hero were completely removed from the game - perhaps going back to the days when we chose among our own troop types and developed our own heros. Equip the old style heros with hero items you have now??? Or remove them entirely???


    The cost of reviving your Hero for the first time has been decreased, as wlel as the health it loses during the first 20 (or so) adventures, both mentioned in the changelog.


    Set this back to the regeneration on leveling. That made sense can't understand why this was something that needed to change


    It didn't make sense.

    If this were a bug, it probably would have been hotfixed long ago.


    It's probably a new addition to kingdoms. A good one, may I add.

    Hello,
    just tested all the codes and they work fine. Please note that you have to use the village/cell/alliance ID, not their names,probably that's why it didn't work for you.


    Kind regards,
    Georgi


    Yep, works with the ID-numbers. Thank you!
    And couldn't this be told earlier? >_>

    I've noticed that as well.
    It could be a bug, but I think they've intentionally done that, as alliances and villages often get destroyed/deleten or have their name changed and when any of that happens, the generated link will become void or something...


    I'm not sure actually..

    Whaaat? Another blind spot for the Govs??? RockumSockumRobot!!!


    Nope, that would explain everything. Thanks again DH...I am beginning to hate being a gov just because of all the blindness, they should change the name Govenor to Mushroom Cyborg - it would be more apt.


    So if a king cannot collect before an attack because the treasury isn't big enough, is there no place for the treausures to go besides the attacker? if there is a Duke around, could he attack for the treasures? Could a regular gov attack for the treasures?


    Governor: Giver of various easily renewable number of resources (?) (aka a farm but not a farm.. Perfect name!)


    Even is your treasury can't fit any more treasures, letting them disappeear is better than having one of your opponents take them. Any king should always empty the tribute fund before an enemy attack lands.
    If a Duke attacks, I'm pretty sure the treasures will go into his treasury. If another Gov attacks, the treasures will be moved to his tribute fund, which can in turn be collected by your king.

    Attack the village that's holding your hero captive and hope it doesn't die while being freed (because some amount of the freed troops will die), or send the player that's holding him captive an in-game message requesting the freeing of your hero. And don't forget to be friendly! n_n

    And let's be really creative and make female units have a cycle, where they can fight on day 1 and 2 after being trained, have their speed and capacity drop on day 4, 5 and 6, have them be incapable of doing any fighting at all (not even defending) on day 7 and 8 only to let you gain 1 population on the 9th (because of reasons..). Then on day 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 they gain some amount of speed and capacity back each day until their speed and capacity is fully restored, only to have this cycle repeat again.


    Also, each day during a "period" of 6 hours let them rage. What this means is that if you send them to any location, they'll do whatever they want no matter if you send them as reinforcement or raid or whatever. They randomly choose what they do during this "period". If enough of the females (say 1/4th of the total amount of females you have) gets into this rage-mode at the same time, they'll accidentally kill 1-5 troops. If like 1/2 of all the female troops go into this rage-mode one of your buildings will drop a level because they've decided to smash it to bits and in the case of a city 1/6 of those 1/2 raging females will drown in the Water Trench because they got into a fight with other raging females.


    And to top it all off, why not make an incoming attack of females be colored pink in the Rally Point?

    More fighting = less chance for the less active players to make something of their account = fewer people playing travian = fewer people using gold = less money


    Travian Kingdoms is business-wise the most logical way to go compared to the classic Travian.
    I honestly don't see any major changes (notably ones that encourage more fighting) happening to TK.

    This is a great idea, and has been suggested before. It is certainly worth a try. Perhaps having the game automatically adjust the tax rate according to players' individual level of activity or usage of resources would work as well, taking the decision out of our hands.


    I'd actually like to have such control. You could for instance stear newcomers to using most of their resources to train troops and only then decrease the taxes.

    With the amount that you raid why do you even care about the tribute? I consider it fairly insignificant, nice boost sure, but it's just some extra decoration.


    Him using it is better than letting warehouses overflow. It's not about HIM using the resources, it's about the resources being used at all.

    Can't we just end this discussion and suggest a feature should be made to make kings be able to change the taxes of their governors independantly of what the taxes on the other governors are? That way you can set the taxes for active players to low, those of casual players to medium and those of the very very casual ones to high.


    This way less resources are lost by letting the granary and warehouse overflow and more of them spent by (generally speaking) the most active player in a kingdom.
    This could also drive the more casual players to become more active by knowing there's a reward for doing so.

    I'm pretty sure an aliance gets disbanded automatically once all the managers quit the alliance.
    To be safe, try kicking every king in the alliance before quitting yourself. :P

    The easiest way would be to send an attack using your hero and some amount of troops from the village you want the treasures to be in to the village the treasures are currently in.
    Then move any troops you have in that village away before the attack hits.


    Note that you can only steal up to a maximum of 1/3rd of the amount of treasures in your treasury.

    I noticed that when my king lowered his taxes, my cities in the kingdom gained a production boost and produced more resources than my cities that were in the wilderness while they never paid any taxes at all. I think that low taxes is even more than no taxes at all.


    "Normal" taxes don't affect the production of a governor. It is like paying no taxes at all. So a village inside a kingdom that has its taxes set to normal will produce as many resources as a village outside any kingdom (not affected by taxes), given that the resource fields are at the same level.


    What if a persons king has gone inactive as mine has?


    I'm pretty sure that a kingdom will disappeear once the king (or his sitter(s)) hasn't logged in in 3 days.