Buildings are same. Map is same (just different look). Tribes are same with the same stats (just different costs, because kingdoms have cut down production of the village). Attacks are count same. Whats different? Only treasures, robbers, menhir and artifacts. And more tribes in legends, now they are working on 6th tribe. Different version of the game, yes, different game? No. Different goal? Yes. Different gameplay? No, just different strategy. Balance of the tribes is allready tested, no one made change with the first three tribes and its working, so where can be problem with another, when they are allready balanced in the game?
there might be no next round , and the other one might not play next round . how you can trust ?
Most of main travian friends are also real friends, so, I dont have a problem to do it for them, as well as they for me. Thats happening now also, many people playing sometimes support account, just to help somebody. If you want to do this, you have to change game mechanics.
Right. Upgrades work different in Kingdoms. Somehow EC gets 46.25% bonus when leveling to 20 and a druid only gets 26.08% bonus. In Legends its all roughly 35%.
Still, Haeds > EC
Haeds > EC > Druids in terms of training speed.
Yet... EC cost so much more that you'll hardly be able to keep up training them. If you want to train cav for def you'd better be playing gauls.
If you reach late game with wonder def and have more crop income than def, you've not been training enough.
Last time I was def with romans I had a 150% 15c with fields 18, and 18 other villages, total crop production ~137250/h. 100k in wonder (50k upkeep), 30k in treasuries, 20k on hand, and a 20k scout army. 120k upkeep + you gotta send more to wonder cause there are always people who don't send enough crop. You have crop to spare for npc into resources so you can fill queues?
Maybe you just play speed servers where pop and upkeep don't cut that deep in crop production but in 1x servers you should have pretty much all your cropper income go to maintaining your troops by the time WWs arrive.
And yes, ofc you make TK if you build one big hammer. With Brewery they are good enough for pure power. But is that really all you use it for?
Good off cav is fast and allows you to hit enemy off troops at home. You just can't do that with TK. TT are amazing at it and EI are good enough. Have you ever hit a Teuton hammer at home with a TT or EI hammer? I doubt it, otherwise you would have thought of that factor.
The bottom line is still that EC are bad. You should never go for EC. If you go off you go for EI. If you go def you go Praetorians. If you want enough cav def that is also fast enough to actually do its job then you should have played Gauls.
If you know better, please, post your own calculations.
Ok, lets make a math for speed 1x
Haeduan full upgarated def numbers :
88,1 + 208,8 = 296,9 .... but, there is no weapon (+15 and +15), lets continue with math ...
103,1 + 223,8 = 326,9 thats the def number of the one Haeudan with weapon.
Training time is 421 sec, so you can make 205 Haeduans in one stable.
205 Haeduans x 326,9 def = 67 014,5 def number per day per one stable.
Now, lets do the same with EC
117,5 + 146,2 = 263,7 ... but EC will get the weapon also, better one, +20 and +20
137,5 + 166,2 = 303,7 ... till now yes, Haeduan have a better number per unit, but EC are train faster thanks to Horse drinking building.
Training time for EC is 380 sec, so you can train 227 of them in one stable per day.
227 EC x 303,7 def = 68 939,9 def number per day per one stable .... so, here is it, better then Haeduans.
About the crop for standing def. I never say, EC are good at this, as well as Haeduans, they are bad for this too. You have to do it with praetorians, spearmans, phalanx, legionars are good also and for crop are just one good cavalry, druids. Anything else have to just come for the time and go back.
Fot this, we can have a oposite look as a example, have a look at praetorians.
They are best in def number per unit, so per crop. But they are the worst def unit at def number per time, they are at 8th position, axeman is very simillar with them in def number per time and EC and EI are far more better then them. So if you care about standing def, you do praetorians, if you care about defending number, because you using them every day for defending players, you have to think, if praetorians can do it well.
About the TK. Its about, what you want to do. With TK you will do better off number than with axeman, Clubs do it better than axeman and TK, but at the cost of crop consumption. TK do about half of Teutons off number, so you have to do them always, except the situation, when you play a bit hardcore and you train clubs in every village to punish your neighbours everyday. Thats fun, but difficult.
About the EI ... yes, I did, EI are fast enough to do this. Also are very good for steeling treasures from not full defended treasuries. Also they can be good defenders as well, not best, but good. But again at first, you need to have enough resources to do it, after is going easy. Thats why EI winning as a best unit, because you can attack with them, they are fast, they are fantastic at farming and they can defend good as well. ALL in ONE unit.
And as a last thing .... everything counted here is for active players, who can use the potential of it. For many players are those numbers unimportant, because they cannot reach them, so they play it easier way.
You have a nice ideas, good luck with them. All of us hope, but no one believe. This will be only another unimportant treed. But I am fan of your ideas, don't take it bad.
Maybe you should check the numbers.
Unupgraded def power (inf+cav) per second training time:
Upgrades favor the ones with the lower training time (the flat increase per unit) so druids benefit the most, then EC, then Haeduan. This effect won't be enough to push EC above Haeduans.
Upgrading stables has the same proportional effect.
EC is worse than druids and haeds.
And I don't know what you were thinking when you added EI in that list but hey, lets also calculate those.
While we're at it, lets add the paladins.
So... Haeds > Druid > EC > Pala > EI and that is with HDT, without HDT palas are better than EC.
Capacity * speed / cost:
TTs are the best in the game in this stat. Closely followed by clubs.
Capacity * speed / training time:
So when you have HDT EI become better. But until then TT are better.
If you are able to raid peacefully you will get to upgrade stables and other training facilities faster with TT raiding income.
This means you get to max raids faster. When you are at max raids the carry capacity matters less and the speed matters more. Then TT are better again.
EI are very good raiders, but TT are better
Max income gov city no gold:
Crop is for upkeep. Oasis varies, lets assume crop oases so you can actually sustain enough troops. This is especially the case when the WWs are there.
12 fields, 375/h, 25% bonus from buildings
Lvl 20 barracks training praetorians consumes train 3600/((29*60+20)*0.14)*(80+100+160)=4968 resources per hour.
That is 657 surplus per hour. Not enough for even one EC. With gold you'd have a surplus of 2063 which is enough for 1 EC, but not for 2.
So yeah. Most roman players won't be able to train EC for def. IF you farm you are better off having no cities, just more villages and using the extra income for more praetorians.
Yes, TK are terrible off cav. Teuton hammers are good because of inf, not the cav. The only reason you build TK is because it is better than nothing.
There have been multiple servers where I chose not to make any TK but instead make many smaller pure inf hammers with some catapults. And it was well worth it. This was back when we still had the 1k raids/village limit instead of the 2k in total.
OK, how I see, forum is ocupated by new players, so ... talking about unupgrated units is really joke.
Dont do it, never. Count with full power, so at 20 lvl upgrade, with weapon and with Horse drinking. I am really hope, you are upgrading your troops. Trust me, help you a lot.
Also, when you made calculate raiding with speed, you need a bot. Because without them, you cannot use full power, just try another count or try it by your self in real. Then, write here, what numbers you did in farming, I am really interested in. With your count, paladins are also good in farming, so, try it
About defense. Choose, what you want to do. You want to do high defense number (about by half) and faster to move? You do cavalry. You want perma def? Then do prets. You know, how to do both? Do it. But count only with village production is really bad calculate. You have much more income, treasures, oasis, farming, your main city with high crop fields ... I dont want to learn you here, but how I see, you need to check game options much more.
About the TK. You say they are terrible, but they can do about half of german OFF power. Is it so bad for you? Everything, what you wrote, is not from your experience, so try it, then i like to see, how you do.
Don't take it personaly, I just answered to your feeling about upgrade troops, numbers are allready know after many years, but you try to change them.
Its allready changing, you dont see it?
Many years ago, devs says, they will do something with few cheaters, who's damage the gameplay.
Now, the number of cheaters is every year growing up and now is the basic condition for players in kingdom, who want to win. So, they did a lot, they made it more popular.
Maybe many years ago we did mistake, we does not asked for stop the cheating, we asked to change something. And here it is.
Regarding the general thread theme, it is difficult, yes they had a joined start, one was the "child of the other", but, as iribuya well mentions, they are very different in feel and play style.
It allows you to choose one or the other, play them concurrently or just jump from one to the other when you feel a different play style.
Thank you very much for all the opinions and ideas, I see that iribuya gave 4 well defined items of things to improve Kingdoms, allow me to go over them since I see them very interesting and current:
Yes, we understand this needs to be worked on, and we are doing so on the background.
This is a difficult balance, we believe we have the right one, when I see and try other games I actually appreciate the balance in general TG achieves on its own games. I cannot mention here other games outside of TG, but there are some that MAN! If you don't pay you are not able to even raise your building levels for a long long long time! Believe me, in comparison we have done a great balancing act here.
We have to remember, as Sant7-br#EN mentions that TG needs to survive if we want to keep enjoying Kingdoms.
But, I am not saying there is no room for improvement, if there are specific ways you have in mind, please let me know! I am all ears.
Again, as Sant7-br#EN mentions, it is a companion app, so for that, with the current aims or goals for the App, it fulfils it role.
But I take on board that a more complete App is desired and will speak about it with the team.
And this is the most interesting point I think we can take something forward... do you have any specific goals in mind?
If anyone else has any in mind that we could study, please let us know!
Yes, there is something what can be interesting in the midgame. And Travian allready know about it.
They wouldn't have to be the same as in Legends or T4, but it would bring fighting and fun to the game at a time when virtually nothing is happening.
I dont agree with the CP bonus for romans, but I think the above comment is a cool solution to the weak roman wall.
It would mean roman capitals can be usefull for mega treasuries without making it too OP, since it's only capital that can build this building.
As a mostly roman player I would like to see this also, just on the other hand, there will be only roman big treasuries, you know it.
Druids and Haeduans are better def/training time than EC
"third best cavalry unit per resources in off" is... bad. They are tied with TT in cost per power but TT are the best raiders so they make up for that. Haeduans have mad cav def. Given that they are tied with TT, you could also call them 2nd WORST off cav.
Buffing the def of the EC like I described will still mean they are a lot worse than Druids. They will be roughly the same as Haeduans but with more inf def and less cav def.
They are still very slow. They consume 4 crop when stationed at a village without HDT, making them the worst standing def of all def units.
Training speed isn't that important for def units anyway cause the cost of keeping barracks going 24/7 is going to be roughly the production of a city. This means that if you train def in stables you will only train very little.
All in all they would still be bad, just not absolute garbage.
Also, TT is better than EI in terms of raiding.
Ok, maybe first check the numbers how they are and then write here.
-Per training time in deff is like this: 1. EC, 2. Heaudens, 3. EI, 4. Druids. If you cannot calculate by your self, you can find many pages where they did calculate for you, just check it.
- third place is not bad, when in other satistics they are better, you must have some advantages and disadventages. At this case, you can say TK are bad, because they are third in OFF per traning time, but first in cavalry OFF per resources.
- TT are fast, but with EI you can farm much more, because you build them faster so you have a more of them, they have better capacity, also better off number, so less dying when farming. But I agree TT are good as well, its about your style.
- We talked about cavalry def, not about standing def. Cavalry def is mostly used for quick defense or they are sent on time, not for perma def, crop cunsumtion is not so important here. Again, advantages and disadventages.
- If you are not training 24/7, your comment lacks meaning, training 24/7 is the basic of the game. So first learn how to do that, its not difficult, you can easy do it in every city as a governor without help.
If you can feed them and not lose them, there is no problem to make much more then 100k cavalry defense unit per server with much more infantry defense troops.
When you learn about incoming resources, you will have a better gameplay, trust me
- Yes, gauls OFF cavalry is very bad, worst in the game, thats true. And also nobody want to change that.
As I say, I think game is balanced very well, you have to find your playstyle, what do you like. There are many of them, many ways, how to play each tribe and how you can help your kingdom. But that does not mean to change balance of the game just for what do you like.
I don't think this is a good idea. Romans have many strengths which just need a little tuning. No need for completely new features.
Romans used to be, and to some extent still are, a very balanced tribe that really starts to perform when you have big armies. Romans have the lowest crop upkeep per power both offensive as defensive. Their cav also trains very fast. Problem is, cav def is cheap and there are more options. With so many gauls in the game cav off is always worth less than inf off.
Romans have the extra building queue, which makes them very good for non gold users. Romans would be a lot stronger on any server where gold usage would be limited.
Another big problem with romans is that their wall is so extremely easy to destroy. This means you have to make ditch to effectively defend in the late game.
Maybe a good change would be if romans wall could be a bit more resilient at higher levels.
But what I really think the problem is with romans is their cavalry options.
I think what would be better is if EC got buffed to 185 attack (5 more than current) and got the iron cost reduced from 600 to 550. They can hand in some def points to make it more balanced. This would make EC the best offensive cav unit per crop consumption. Current best is EI by only a little cause of the way the smithy works. EC would have second highest power/training time (HDT at 20), highest power/crop (HDT at 20), and manageable price. Many players will still go EI cause EI are so much better at farming. Maybe EC should just have 35 carry capacity, make them terrible for farming.
OR make the EC better at def. Rework to 120-150 attack, +/-110 inf def, and +/-125 cav def. Bit like the Resheph Chariot from Legends.
This essentially makes them a lot like the legios. With HDT at 20 you have a unit with 50/36.67/41.67 stats per crop. (legio has 40/35/50)
Another good thing about romans which might be buffed a bit more is the senator. If buffed by 5%, 3 senators will be a guaranteed chiefing.
While we're at it, lets get rid of the randomness from chiefing. There is almost no randomness in the game, why do we need it with chiefs.
- best cavalry unit per training time in off
- best cavalry unit per training time in def
- second best cavalry unit per crop in off
- third best cavalry unit per resources in off
- their weakness is crop and resource cost in def
- when you buff them in def, they will shoots up in crazy numbers in def and no one want to play anything else, because roman cavalry will be best in everything, raiding, off and def.
- best raider unit in game
- best cavalry unit per crop in off
- second best cavalry unit per training time in off
- second best cavalry unit per resources in off
- third best cavalry unit per training time in def
- again, their weakness is crop and resources cost in deff
- Roman cavalry problem is they are very similar, just EI are much more better in raiding.
If you know, how to use them, they are strong in both, off and def, crop consumption in def is no problem for active def player, because you are still losing some of them.
- Buff CP for romans is crazy, when on the end of the server are most roman players in the top of population.
- Roman wall is best against raiding and solo attackers, you cannot take out some weakness.
Game no need to tune the tribes, they are perfectly balanced. This game need to tune gameplay.
Yes, the other PVE bonus suggestions are great and we definitely keep them in mind. Maybe for additional levels if we'd change them to be exponential instead of linear. And yes, at the same time, the fealty system should be meaningful and not too small. Thanks for pointing it out for this one. Maybe there is a way to make it count as well
Like combining them with daily quests or so called kingdom quests? How could they look like without the feeling of being repetitive or boring? What I try to avoid is for example that daily quest of annexing an oasis even though you can't because your villages are too close together (do you know what I mean?)
I wrote before, for me the best idea how to combinate is rework weekly TOP 10 for kingdoms.
TOP 10 for kingdoms can be simillar as now, just with this changes:
1) There will be attacks, defense, population build (no position in ladder), robber. Maybe can be also VP steeled.
2) All kingom numbers are recount between number of kingdom members, so when you have 100 players in kingdom and they have 1000 attack points for week, in the ladder they have 1000/100=10. So there you need activity of all members of the kingdom to be high in the ladder, no just be big, small kingdoms have high chance to be in the ladder.
3) All members, who is on the recount time in the kingdom, who is in the top 10 (same as now, sunday midnight) receive fealty points. When the new member come to the kingdom, numbers are recount between him also and his numbers are count from the time, when he join the kingdom (i think is same as now)
4) At sunday midnight, players from kingdoms in the top 10 recieve fealty point, that depends on the position in the ladders. Numbers go down from the first one to the last one (like 100, 90, 80, ...) for every position in the ladder. Numbers are just example.
For me it looks fair and fun, its a price for active kingdoms.
Using bots is less beneficial then Multis because you only use the res you already have. Multis create res you didn't have.
Yet using bots has a harsher punishment.
Many multis using bots, so they have autobuild, autododge, autorecruit. Going hand in hand ..
No, village is deleted, when its population is 0, so all building or fields what gives population must be deleted (destroyed). Wall and crop fields does not have population till level 5. Last village cannot be deleted. Army from the deleted village is lost, forever.
If you need the skill to be able to win, it cannot be called pay to win, a pay to win is a game where no matter the skill, if you just throw money at it you will win.
This is not the case with Kingdoms, with skill, even without paying you can win and be at the Top.
But I will agree that having gold on the account saves you time, if you invest time you get almost the same benefits, or may be even the same if you are lucky in your adventures and you know what you are doing with the auctions.
You are only half right. How you call it, if you make a big kingdom action, use many of your troops, spended time, resources and you delete kings capital CITY from the map, so there is only empty squere. Its look as good move. But, after few hours, the CITY is there with exactly same population. After few hours. Is that no P2W? Is that skill? Or how you call it?
It could also have participation fee and the amount of gold useable during server would be pre-determined so you can't just whale your way to victory.
Agree, when you call it championship, there must be rule of the gold spend ... fee is a good way, per server, per week, so register to the server will be by credit card. No P2W. Also with numbers of kingdoms it look undoable. When 6th kingdom will be created, no one can make a new kingdom? But i understand the way and the idea, i like it. And all people in my team also. I would like to play fair battle again in this game.
Interesting step. Now i would like to see, when the kingdoms week ladders (attack, defense, robbers, builders) are recounted to the number of players in kingdom and players in the best 10 kingdoms of the week can get those points extra. Activity will be rewarded.
I'm not sure why you felt I was making fun of you and so off topic when I said exactly this. Creating a kingdom isn't something that people should do without playing in a larger one first if their goal is to be competitive. A new kingdom is hard to build. It requires experience. Experience you won't get through just the forums and not something that should require game mechanic changes. Examples are easier to see than they are to describe. Maybe that is ok though. Or maybe enough people think it would be wise to lower the bar for leading a successful kingdom. But that is very far away from the problem brought up in the OP.
Either I didn't communicate well (it happens) or you misunderstood my point to Jak about the "good ole days." It wasn't to suggest that they do not understand changes are inevitable or that evolution has happened. It was to hope they would jump back in and lead through example to compliment all the hard work in the forums encouraging people and "righting the game."
I also think menhirs had the right intentions fwiw. I just think there are other changes that need to happen to make welcoming new people better. Topic for another thread. As for the idea, I would encourage you to read through some other ideas on how TK can reduce kingdom sizes to help build a fuller picture.
Brief discussions here:
- Catapulting Stats and Bonuses (full disclosure, mine)
- No Union, smaller Kingdoms (familiar name, Jak's)
I think we can all agree that we think there are some potential imbalances and we should focus on that instead of attacking each other ideas and personalities. What if, instead of this thread being about stealing treasures from your own treasury, we created a thread about kingdoms becoming too large and powerful, leaving only 2-3 in any given server to actually be able to compete. Smaller ones (small meaning <80 people, new leadership, no wings/pre-agreed union) simply cannot compete. That could pull in all of the ideas that have been discussed around it and more. Allow people to freely discuss those and provide an environment where we can always pull back to the original problem, not why a solution is "bad." Example: "I don't think that will actually help solve the problem because it will lead to X and Y" and "If we were to implement that, how it would interact if we also did X to further create balance." Both of which are very constructive. They focus on solving the problem we all agree on and help to communicate without trying to win an argument about one solution.
Just about the kingdom i think you understand wrong, we were talking about steeling VP by attacker without kingdom. How i understand that was answer for this:
No, it's there for a reason, can you imagine the abuse that would happen if every Tom, Dick & Harry could randomly steal VPs without a kingdom? these abusers you are suffering would have a field day, some already do but at least they have to make a kingdom before they can steal VPs.
So he answer : Yeah, because making a kingdom is too hard to do now.
Also i answered this: Suffering? Kingdom is created instantly and you just have to enter the kingdom just before the impact, immediately after the impact you will return to your kingdom.
Thats how you can steel VP from kingdom, who is ranked in VP below you.
So are we, there is nothing stopping you reaching this goal at the moment, do it, have fun, Carry on making Op's twice a week, start one today, plan them well, don't be predictable or just aim for the jugular (remember you're only as good as your last Op) you can have weeks & months of fun on any server if you have the mindset for it.
The change that needs to happen is not about game mechanics, it's stopping gamers abusing game mechanics. One day change will happen (I stay positive on this one) & we will have our beautiful game back, instead of this ugly version everyone is suffering atm
I do it same, I don't understand what it has to do with the possibility of stealing treasures and VP? Or you think you found the Holy Grail?
I agree about this - stopping gamers abusing game mechanics. But something they cannot stop, for example multiaccounting. Its so easy in these days, to have more devices and internet connections. Hope may die last, but it seems to me that it is her turn.
No, it's there for a reason, can you imagine the abuse that would happen if every Tom, Dick & Harry could randomly steal VPs without a kingdom? these abusers you are suffering would have a field day, some already do but at least they have to make a kingdom before they can steal VPs.
please take a step back, think for a moment about the consequences of change. Look at it from 2 extreme perspectives .... The New Guy/Team on the server verses the Abusers/Multies that are rife at the moment, that is the gap we have to close to make progress.
@Leo#19 is totally correct, some of us dream of being endlessly attacked to suggest we have fear or no vision is just a ludicrous suggestion.
Suffering? Kingdom is created instantly and you just have to enter the kingdom just before the impact, immediately after the impact you will return to your kingdom.
Sometimes your unswers sounds as if you were convinced that you know the game better than those you write with here, but then you write things that even a newcomer will refute you. Don't be as a Qwr, please. So calm down, if you want to discuss, let's go back to the normal discussion that is in this topic.
The concern you mentioned till now:
- A small kingdom will not resist a big one - the same as now, it depends on the capabilities of the kingdom and their allies.
- The small kingdom will lose both the def and the treasures - now they will lose their treasury and the treasures are useless to them, only a change for the better, they can get them back by attack or somewhere else.
- A kingdom that will have a lot of treasures will be a target - of course, there is always someone who can get something. You want to have a lot of treasures, you have to be able to defend it.
- Small kingdom is easy target for big one - bigger kingdom is easier target for small kingdom (although it has more units, but def must be spread over more places). Also there will be more fights against treasures, this also brings greater losses. Thus, the battles between the larger kingdoms will be more frequent, and thus the numerical advantage of the larger kingdoms will be reduced.
heck they won't have to be in any kingdom to get treasures and since they are not in any kingdom there won't be VP loss
I think we wrote it somewhere few pages ago, kingdom will always VP loss, when they are attacked from lower ranked kingdom or from anybody without kingdom. Just this player does not get VP.