Posts by bozo_COM

    So you want to make it even harder to conquer an enemy village? Most players I want to attack or conquer are not in my own influence or even close.

    It's really hard to conquer a village... if you do it yourself. An alliance working in tandem makes villages and cities conquering much easier. It basically becomes easier the more fakes people send.

    Is it logical that you take in troops from an enemy, think if this was in real. You get 10 troops to your castle that was from your enemies would you say ahh welcome in join us.
    I know that its just a game but is it logical ? Don't take this to serious though its just a though.

    This is precisely what I have in mind. Also, how would it work for the troops? "I want you to reinforce our enemies" "OK, sure, just make sure they let the gates open"

    Influence over a village should affect the conquest algorithm.

    Makes sense, since the people of a village/city would resist more against a conquest if they are under influence from its king, and wouldn't resist if they are inside the conqueror's alliance's area of influence.

    So, enemy chiefs attacking a village under the influence of allies would receive a penalty. If the village is outside any influence, or inside an influence of a third party, they would act normally, and if the village is under the influence of the attacker's alliance, the chiefs would receive a boost.

    This would prevent "backdoor conquering" as it just makes no sense (why would a population be prone to accept joining another side and being surrounded by enemies?) and adding another reason to destroying treasuries BEFORE conquering villages under influence, and more important, a reason to store treasures in the front line, where they actually help influence against enemy borders.

    Neutral alliances only boosts their own chiefs, they won't affect a neutral village.


    2 players (A and B) are neutral/at war.

    If A tries to conquer a village from B:

    - If the village from B is inside the borders of it's own alliance, the chiefs from A will receive a penalty.
    - If the village from B is outside the borders of it's own alliance, the chiefs from A will act normally.
    - If the village from B is inside the borders of another alliance (that players A and B do not belong), the chiefs from A will act normally.
    - If the village from B is inside the borders of A's alliance, the chiefs from A will receive a boost.

    It would be logical if you were only allowed to reinforce villages that were allied to you. Would stop a few other dirty tricks as well.

    It would only make sense. No one would really like to reinforce an enemy. Let we reinforce only neutrals and allies, too.

    - - - Updated - - -

    You all know that your troops would starve before the troops of the owner of the village.

    Reinforcements always starve before the troops that are connected to a village.

    But they still consume crop, without the permission of the owner.

    That's why i'm suggesting that we have an option to "deny reinforcements" to block such attempts.
    It could also be like the "attack marking", when you receive a reinforcement, you could mark it somehow to send it right back home without allowing them to enter the village.

    That wouldn't work as bozo points out. However, I played another game, now defunct, where a Siege meant precisely what it says - you stayed in place at a city and if you were able to stay there long enough you captured the city. I think that would be cool. I'm not saying in place of the current siege, but that the current siege should have a name change - Charge! seems to fit it better in any case.

    I agree. But charge gives a wrong idea, too. "Charging" also means running against the enemy at full speed - quite the contrary, in this case :)

    There should be an option in the rally point to "deny reinforcement". It would prevent people from sending troops as "reinforcement" - or else, sending them back when they arrive - so it would not consume the crop without permission. That would prevent exploiting farm spikes and eating crop from others without permission

    It's not about wanting big hammers or having high level cropfields. The problem is that there used to be a strategic trade-off between being able to build your hammer faster (but having the possibility of it being chiefed) in a regular village with GB/GS and building it slower but safer in a capital village that couldn't be chiefed. Now, especially since wave restrictions are so harsh, it's almost impossible to take down a capital (in particular with stonemason), it's impossible to chief capital villages (and honestly, already very hard to chief a city in general). So, you'll have a city-capital with stonemason 20 and a moat AND with GB and GS? Where's the strategic trade-off there? You'll have an indestructible, non-conquerable, super-safe high-speed troop producing city.

    I agree, but some points should be made:

    1- There was never much of a trade-off in the 1st place. all high-rank players ALWAYS picked non-cap to build their main hammers (GB and GS trumps everything else in T3 and T4, for sure) leaving cap-hammers to less experienced/active players, since it requires much less managing

    2- The only difference now is that the capital is the main choice for the main hammer - Other hammers will be made on non-cap cities (with max crop lvl 12, it's easier than T4). The difference between a city and a capital city in TK is smaller than the difference between a capital and a village in T4, too.

    3- I think the capital city is something "granted" to us: 1 village where we can build an offensive army without the risk of being chiefed. And it is really supposed to be MUCH harder to siege a capital than a regular village/city. it never made much sense having any advantage building main armies outside the capital village.

    People suggesting this are new to the game. They didn't know what pay-to-win ("P2W") really means. There was a time (many years ago) where you could buy +10% atk/def power to your account, just like the resources bonus. That's something close to "P2W". 25%+ resources, travian plus, finish now, npc merch, card game items... none of these really give an advantage like the late +10% atk/def. They're mostly make the player's life easier, and it certainly won't define who'll win a server.

    secondly: most kings buy gold (and use it) so it kinda balances out the game, making it fair. also, online time has much more importance than gold using to determine the sucess of kingdoms and alliances. even the king's leadership capabilities are above the +25% resource production, since farming runs yield much more res than production.

    Last but not least, why would anyone buy gold without receiving any advantage at all? No one would buy gold and therefore, no one would support the game. It would be bad for business AND for us. Many games go defunct for lack of support, and everyone loses that way.

    that said, i fully agree that a non-gold server would be a nice addition. The starting fee would also make multi accounting less desirable than it is. TG could give it a shot.

    - - - Updated - - -

    25% + res sounds like a neat advantage, but it isn't until mid game at least. Most res in early comes from farming, which won't benefit from the bonus. Being active AND offensive compensates much more than it. And even in mid/late game, farming is a strong source of income.

    The problem comes when you click but sometimes it doesn't take (prolly lag). Removing the default wouldn't solve that unfortunately.

    It WILL actually. since you'll have to click and wait, and if lag does its thing, you won't train anything - so no resource or training time wasted.

    We should have new icons for attack and defense... right now we only have green/yellow/red, with a unique gray for when a defense didn't lose anything.

    Red means "lost" (not that all troops died - losing more than the opponent in a raid achieves a red shield)
    Yellow means "won" but with losses (from 1 troop to 99% of the army)
    Green means "won" without any loss.

    We could add a new color (orange) so that yellow takes a new meaning "with few losses" (from 1 mere troop to 25%*) and orange, "with considerable losses" (25% to 99% of all army). Red means all of the troops were wiped, not only that you "lost" (the tool tip could say "Lost as defender, wiped"

    *The optimal % would be, i think, the % that determines revealing defense numbers when an attack does not come back (25% I guess). So if someone attacks you and kill 20%, yellow shield. 30%, orange shield. If it kills all def, red shield.

    Adding separate icons for raid/atk/siege would also be helpful. Raid = a club or wooden mace; Attack = the actual icon, crossed swords; Sieges: a battering ram's head/face/point;

    Or just change the verbs on the reports:

    "X attacks Y", "A raids B", "Alfa sieges Beta"

    "A reinf. in 123 was attacked/raided/sieged"

    10 squares is so little that ghosthammers would be way too op, if your hammer were home for an hour it would probably end up dead :D If it were 15 sq it would still be a huge buff. I don't think i have ever used TS for other than farming or tweaking traveltimes..

    They would not. because, as I said, the % bonus would decrease dramatically. There's just not much use for TS on a small map - considering enemies will be closer anyway

    As everyone already knows this, the map on Kingdoms servers is waaayyyy smaller than legends/travian4/etc, as it increases with total players (so no -400/-400). So it makes sense that the TS on these servers consider this, and provide bonuses that range better with the map size.

    Giving only bonuses after 20 squares is quite useless considering many enemies are inside that radius. Besides, sieging a target that would be affected by TS (>20 sq away) will always take at least 10:00 hours (13:20h with cats) making TS a farming-only building in 99% of the cases. And even that would be quite inneficient as there would be much less farms to benefit because of the map size.

    So, why not revisit the TS bonuses for kingdom servers?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Another suggestion: Besides it's own bonus, TS could increase troop speed at levels 10,15 and 20 (kind of like the HDT works for roman cavalry). That increase could be simple (+1 speed). At level 10, infantry +1 speed. At level 15, cavalry +1 speed. At level 20, siege units (ram/cats) +1 speed.

    Minimum distance could be, like, 10 squares, but bonuses increase at 5% increments. So a max level TS would provide +1 speed to all military units and +100% speed for army after 10 squares.

    Yes, I don't think you need two diplomatic entities. Kingdoms are pretty much the defining feature of the game. So we should focus on them, make them more stable, make the structure and teamplay within a kingdom more meaningful and interesting etc. And that might be way easier without alliances getting "in the way". That's basically the core idea this thread is about.

    Then, just remove all Confed/NAPs. It's the same thing. Make alliances (max. 3 kings) the greater group. Each alliance for itself!

    Giving dukes more treasuries just moves the problem. Players still get screwed if their duke goes inactive. Kingdoms losing influence when players quit the game is really frustrating and demoralizing for the players who are left behind. (This happened to me 3 times on US4... I never had more than 2 villages inside my kingdom's influence where I could sell stolen goods properly... usually only 1, and even that was only because I kept building new villages just for that purpose, as my kings kept abdicating.) I don't see an easy fix for this.

    That's why they state clearly in the tutorial that Kings should be active players, not newbies. And anyone that quits often shouldn't be allowed to register as King again - Travian games could implement a BAN-system when someone registers as kings and then deletes his/her account. When they do this, people could report it, and then those will get a "ban" as in they should not be allowed to register as king again... on any server.

    Hi. Players want to know how many active treasuries dukes will be able to construct in this new system. We are running a parallel discussion on Ru forum, so I'll be your "voice from the other world". Ah, and how many dukes will one king possibly have?

    I would suggest duke spots to increase like culture points do (not linear, neither exponentially, but have a fixed amount. Most alliances "stagnate" between 16k and 32k. It could have a more complex - since it is stated in the kingdoms tab, no one needs to calculate lol - just like CPs). Also, after some server time, it would be allowed for dukes to activate a second treasury. So that the expansion. It could be a lot better, if the duke spots were DECREASED in total, from 7 to 5, maybe, and then after mid-server, to 10 (2 villages for every duke). The 7th duke spot comes just "too late", a kingdom with 32k treasures won't have much need for a duke spot, when everyone will have 5+ villages and the strategic map is already defined

    What if we merged alliances and kingdoms so that there was only one diplomatic entity in the game, while giving the duke role more power and its own tributes?

    Personally, I think the combination of kingdoms, alliances and treaties all on top of each other creates quite a lot of complexity, that can be really hard to understand and follow, especially for new players and governors in general (...)

    For example by making dukes more important and differ more from governors by allowing them to collect their own tributes. They would then give a share to the king who would only collect from his dukes (making the tribute collection a lot less stressful). Basically we could position dukes closer to the king's role, so that they could even replace an abdicating king without too much trouble.

    About alliances... i don't think it is even remotely complicated. Area of Influence = Kingdom, 3 Kingdoms = Alliance, 3 (or 4?) Alliances = Confederation (between themselves).

    Not to mention kingdoms and alliances propositions are not the same. Comparing them is like comparing alliances and secret societies. This separation between kingdom and alliance is good because each king has more freedom to lead their govs/dukes, chosing where to settle etc. This is actually crucial when kings are well apart from one another.

    About dukes, noooooo please don't do that. the amount of people already asking for a duke spot is too high, even when being a duke is nothing but trouble (has to lvl treasury, people will go for your treasures... has to keep defense 24h/day... and no bonus besides crop for each treasure). This will just increase. The duke spot should not give any benefit, really. It should be given strategically to those who really meet the criteria (near an area that needs influence, active player, can defend treasures etc)

    edit: Oh and by the way you could totally change the name from dukes. It gives people the wrong idea of "importance": A duke must be important for alliance goals, not a vip-like importance. They are supposed to "take one for the team" as in levelling a treasury through the game and having a target painted on their backs. Same as kings, that need to settle away from each village to expand the borders, and thus are weaker (individually speaking) comparing to other players. But since dukes get no tribute, they could just be named after something else