Posts by Curtain

    If you want to play roman offense I recommend


    1) build legionaries till you have about 1k and use them to clear robbers + they are your cheapest unit for your troop building quests

    2) add EI as soon as you can afford and raid greys with them if you are active

    3) As soon as your infantry is about 1k switch to imperians and keep building those till the end

    4) catapults are your friends try to get about 400 of them if you want to play as general attacker or as many as you can (5000+) if you want to hit WW at the end


    Then it's all about building yourself a good capital to support a large army and of course lots and lots of side villages with that roman double build bonus.


    Some additional things to do:

    - Don't build EC, lot of people see the high attack but it's much better to use the EI for their greater cost effectiveness and better raiding capacity

    - Don't build legionaries outside of the first bit, you can either use them to defend or station your oasis using them, they won't be needing levels

    - Speaking of levels level up your troops including your catapults as you go

    - Rams aren't needed outside of handful (you need one to siege robbers for instance), just make imperians, EI and catapults you will pair up with teuton rammers most of the time, if your kingdom has no teuton rammers then that's a different problem you can't really solve by doing rams, rams also won't need levels if you only have like 10

    Wall is still useful and generally speaking wall and ditch have bigger impact on defense result than the population difference outside of extreme cases but why not simply have both?

    You can use the combat simulator to figure out what kind of losses you would take defending a small kingdom mate you know has no or very low wall against an attack for instance, just use the account populations of the attacker and the defense village owner in the correct slots. You can play around the numbers there to see what kind of effect each change has

    The bonus (or rather attacking penalty) only considers the difference in population of the attacking account and the defending village owners account. This makes small players good places to defend since they often have big penalties for attacks while your troops operate at full power no matter where they originate.

    It's a classic it depends question but here are some of my thoughts into it and some guides on choosing how to decide yourself.

    The 2 main questions you want to ask yourself are: "What I will want to do with my troops" and "How safe do I think my position is (in terms of your actual cap location but also your kingdom and your role in it)"

    If your answer to the first question is more in the lines of "WW hammer" or "late game defense" then you want to build fields first and troops only after you have got yourself some basic income (raid units you can build if you farm enough to justify them)

    If your second question is "very safe" then you want high level crop fields (like 16 or maybe even 17)
    Reverse is true for both


    Generally speaking the greedier plays you can get away with the stronger your account will be, if you can afford not to train defense for first 2 months then you can prepare a very strong account for later and be the top defender in your team, if you get destroyed because you had no troops then that obviously is a big problem. The only exception to this is what I would consider max size WW hammers which need to build troops from at least day 30 with all lvl 20's to get to the proper size.

    Generally speaking it's better to commit into troops, make a hammer and defense use it and then make more later or to just ignore troops sans farmers, power sim your account to maximum and then produce. The middle grounds tend to be where you see the weakest accounts but sometimes you need to take the middle path since it's the easiest and safest in the short term to mix things up from both sides.


    One thing to not is that if you have to ask this question you obviously won't be going for the maxed out WW hammer. In that case chances are you are better off starting even that as late as day 60 with a solid economy instead of trying to trickle in some troops here and there and then lose equivalent or more later in the game when you can't feed your army anymore. Even starting that late would give about 5.6k catapults for a WW hit which isn't the best but definitely usable. If you can squeeze catapults in earlier but leave infantry last (horses pay for themselves) then that would be even better. If I were to advice a new player on how to build a WW hammer I would tell them to get lvl 16 (or 17 if they are feeling good and safe) fields, only horses till like day 40-50, start catapults and then start infantry (beyond the early games 1k to siege hideouts with) maybe day 60-70 and put all other resource into just simming your account up until that point. Don't try to run greats unless you are sure you can run them for the rest of the round (if you can only run greats for say 30 days total it's best to do that at the last 30 days so the troops cost as little as possible in upkeep). If you have extra resource after you finish your fields at around 80 to 90 then you can just increase queues and when you get them maxed out (as in they reach to day 140) then you build greats and start to run those. Just keep investing into the income as fast as you can for the entire first half since the last crunch will always be difficult


    If you plan to fight the entire round building fields shouldn't be too big of an issue since your army resets every month or so meaning you have those windows where your consumption is low allowing you to power in field upgrades while you recover.


    Regardless of what strategy you take it's always important to leave some resources to boost your accounts fields up at least until they are around the 16 mark. For some benchmarking you would want your capital fields to be done between days 80 and 100 to still have enough time to for them to pay themselves off, the earlier you can manage the better it is.



    If you play defense then it's mostly the same with the big difference that at any point you can simply stop troops for a week if you need to because you aren't on a clock so judge how the situation is going, overbuild your actual production capacity and then just make troops based on the current need.

    You can spread around your units in all of your villages to utilize your entire crop production. If that isn't enough some might starve during a long vacation which you can combat by periodically filling granaries or you can send some as temporary reinforcements to a friend or kingdom member with their permission.

    Ye it's not neccessary so if your treasury works better if you place it bit further out just go for it. Usually you want to have couple treasuries next to the wonder to cover all the villages that go there so it tends to be quite easy to make sure the wonder tile itself is also covered.

    If the holder isn't a king you can also sell treasure there though it's not going to hold off the starvation for long :D

    2h in 2h out would just combine the bad portions of both night truce and non night truce.


    The point of night truce is to allow people to play accounts by themselves without sacrificing sleep and what not by ensuring you can't be attacked during the night. Making it so you can get attacked during the night but only at certain points would entirely defeat that purpose (since if I'm night player I don't have a problem attacking you 2h later or what ever) but at the same time making the system needlessly complex for everyone. The 6h truce at least makes bit more sense as that could be managed by dual account but even then I just don't see the point. At least the original night truce has a clear purpose and a strong point everyone can agree to even if some might not like or play those rounds.


    The original point of having an american time zone or asian time zone night truce round is pretty fine in my books though.

    No normal attacks don't act like raids, the raid phase is entirely simulated and only used to determine the wall level for the actual fight.

    It's what allows rams and catapults to do damage even though they all die during the attack.


    Normal raid doesn't allow rams or catapults to do damage at all.

    Yes if offense is somewhere in the same ballpark then wall should have an impact even if it goes down to 0 in the end. That being said the later wall levels are lot tougher so if you can only get it to 15 or 10 then that reduces the amount threshold where offense is so big the wall doesn't matter.

    Also it's not about "enough to defeat the defense" rather it's about "how many rams survive the simulated raid". This is why ram count is very important because in big defenses the raid might only let a very small percentage of your rams to actually hit the wall.


    You can play around in the simulator with different force levels and different amount of rams and different wall types and see how it all stacks up. So long as the enemy isn't overwhelming the wall should boost your defenders power up so it's quite good building for every location you seriously intend to defend.

    It's a bit complicated, short answer is that you can use the battle simulator to figure out how much you will lose (which is really the important number)


    The actual ramming mechanic is that first there is a simulated raid played out and then based on the raids results the remaining rams do their damage first time and this wall level is used to then determine the actual results of the battle.

    Basically what this means that even if the wall goes down to 0 it can still have some impact vs not having the wall there at all but at the same time if the force difference is sufficiently large even lvl 20 wall could be reduced to 0 in that simulated raid phase which means the actual battle is fought at wall lvl 0.


    Few examples will help



    Here the wall goes to 0 but it's non 0 for the actual fight


    924d90798d.png



    Compare above to below where the wall is removed, in both cases the end result is lvl 0 wall but the difference in casualties is big so the wall is clearly doing something.


    b9582f73ca.png



    If on the other hand the attack is much larger than the defense like this


    bf60b20a19.png



    7d88861656.png



    Here we can see how the wall changes nothing. This is because the attacking force is so large it takes the wall down to 0 in the simulated raid phase

    It compares your account population to his account population, the formula is bit complex but you can easily test the effect with the in game battle simulator, and it's not actually a defense boost but rather it makes the attacked weaker.

    If you are serious about attacking then yes you should keep yourself somewhat on the smaller side. Being smaller than the person you are attacking offers no bonus though so ideal size would be about the same as the type of person you are targeting. That being said if more villages increase your army size then you want more villages. Just try to not build anything too unnecessary and you will be fine.


    Morale bonus doesn't effect wonder attacks so if you are making a WW hammer or plan to own a wonder you don't have to worry about your account size.

    Brainstormed few solutions to the defense problem here with guys


    1) Weapon that gives NPC attack

    When defending the stage 2 attacks you could be rewarded with a weapon for your tribes basic defense unit that buffs their attack by say 50 or 100 meaning you could use your Praetorian or spears to attack the NPC in the final phase. For obvious reasons this attack power boost would only work against the NPC. Could technically be a adventure reward too but probably underwhelming to get one from there so better as a defense reward.


    2) Defense gives "Proof of Victory" consumables

    You would earn a consumable called Proof of Victory every X units (lets say 100) of the NPCs you kill on defense. These would only be given out on stage 2 attacks if necessary and not stage 1 raids. Each consumable would give your hero a temporary attack boost of say 10k (equivalent of 150 swords) that again works only against NPCs. You can use these to help you clear the NPC along with your robber clearer force. It makes thematic sense too as you win battles they will start to respect you more and eventually surrender.


    Both of these options could work independently or together and would help defense players clear the NPC's but not make them stronger at it than offense players.


    3) Natarian horn could also effect NPCs

    Not really a defense thing but would help regardless.


    Just some ideas not sure how good these are or even if they are possible to implement :D

    I would like to chip regarding the whole "only clays, crops and forests" thing. I would just enable them all purely because it's better balance otherwise the capital meta will just be to settle a 3 iron field site for maximum gains. Regarding realism (which isn't very good argument against pure gameplay like balance to begin with), most medieval areas weren't fully cultivated or utilized like they are today. In fact you can see it in the greater map around your village when zoomed to the field level. There are couple lakes and bigger mountains and lots of forests around. You could pretty easily make the argument that the field limits aren't really about the natural resources but rather a question of labor utilization and from that perspective it's easy to see why you should also be able to switch to and from iron fields. Let's say that the normal layout represents the "natural" resources most easily utilized by the village but with this "surveyor/farmer/terraformer" building built you can stop working that iron mine near the village and turn more of the outlaying lands into farms and send workers there (for a small or not so small price of course)


    Noob trapping is a bit of problem but I don't think denying the ability to switch your irons out would save the noob either when he starts pushing the clays-be-gone button. It's somewhat of an inherent problem with this idea but sometimes you just need to let players make bad choices so long as your design isn't intentionally leading them to stupid positions.


    Limiting the building to a capital CITY would be a good help as that prevents first day uses of it. Another would be to keep the levels of the field when you use it (as that enables for a quick back switch) though that might be bit OP. Another would be that you just set the max number of crops (or any field type if you want to enable 1-15-1-1 villages I suppose) to 6 at lvl 2 and then go up by 1 every 2 levels finish up at 15 fields at lvl 20. Each type shouldn't be able to be reduced below 1 either. You could also make it so that it's cheaper to convert from something with a lot to something that has less so if you make a mistake you could undo that bit easier.


    Also I don't think the field revert is needed if the capital changes (be it because of attack or because of you switching it). You can pretty trivially price out the "I will make 2 croppers" option from players (you could tune the building to work even tighter granting max 5 of same type at lvl 10 and then going up by 1 per level if it's too cheap) and with everyone having access to a cropper the multi abuse or players attacking others to gain their croppers wouldn't be such a big deal. Afterall you could simply chief a natar if you wanted another 15c as there's way less competition.

    This is just a suggestion right or is this a feature that will come with maybe minor tweaks?

    Regarding the proposals I need to think about them more carefully but here are some initial thoughts on each part semi separately.


    >15cs behind NPC cities


    I do think 15c's are something that needs looking at and at least I personally hate the 24h settle strategies even though I do use them. The main problem is that it separates the "good" players who use these strategies from the "bad" players who don't or perhaps don't know about them because they are new to the game which creates a big power gap between these two groups. I think the problems have been getting worse too considering 3 rounds ago it was a curiosity and on the latest rounds whole teams are doing it. I have not played on the Menhir worlds which should solve at least part of the issues as the newer players can be invited into the kingdom with them if the core decides to abandon their spawn area in search of croppers.


    Locking all 15c's and 9c's behind NPC's i'm not 100% sure off though. I can see that it could help in some regard but hurt in others. For a thought experiment let's pretend they would just be current natars in every way. In this scenario me as experienced player would start from a level playing field with the new player in getting a 15c cap but it would give me clear advantage in actually acquiring one. In fact an experienced player could probably chief several of them before the average player is ready to take the first one (assuming no team play shenanigans I don't even want to think about quit yet). So I'm on the fence about what the result would be from that direction. ´


    Some things I'm not on the fence about is that it would clearly be a nerf to offense (namely the WW offense) unless the NPC's were trivial and came with like lvl 12 fields. For comparison in my latest game I had my fields at lvl 13 in my normally settled cap when the decent players started getting their natarian villages together and that's when natars cost only 1 culture slot. If the NPC's were trivial then I guess the situation would be relatively the same since you could compensate on the late start with the greats you might be able to more easily afford in a wholly or almost wholly prebuilt city. Systems tuning would also be considered carefully. Tune it more towards the average player and the experts chief all of them before you get to sneeze. Tune it for the expert as more challenging natar essentially and you nerf the offense greatly and potentially make it impossible task entirely for the small players. Another thing is that while it does nerf offense more than defense it also means defense players can't actually get a 15c at all without the help of their team which is something worth considering as well, if you don't have a premade that trusts your abilities how are you supposed to convince them to give you a 15c?


    It would also shift balance naturally to favor more Teutons (though this is imo a good thing they are bit on the weaker side as it is)

    Depending on the tuning it might force people to build non capital hammers lot more than they do now which i'm on the fence with. It leads to more target rich environment but is that good either? And I bet most people would choose to bypass the risk anyways just by waiting with their main offense stack until they get one of the NPC cities so just leading to smaller WW hammers.


    Lastly while new players might get the shaft on the current rush for 15c's 12h after start they still have a chance to either get one later when map expands or take one of the less desirable 9c's for instance. And even a relatively inexperienced player could follow a basic guide and get a good 15c if they get bit lucky and are willing to be active for the first day. The new system raises this bar from "follow these steps we post to everyone" to "stay good and on top of the game for at least 2 weeks" which could lead to no croppers for anyone but the best.


    Personally I think there could be other options that could be explored to limit the 15c rush (like say some ideas from earlier threads like cultivating/terraforming your own fields or capital auto turning into the type you want or something). One thing I do like about this suggestion is that it keeps the current importance of the map layout which is nice.




    Best case scenario seems to me seems to to be

    - Bit more active starting phase with NPC capture instead of the starting sim

    - More fair towards new players at least on day 1

    - Less speed settling


    Worst case scenario

    - Active players with duals and what not take ALL the croppers instead of just some

    - Wrong tuning turns the game into a cropper fiesta or starvation hellscape

    - Defense players get no croppers and playing good defense without premade is impossible


    Questions:

    What tribe would the NPCs be? New one or like a mix of the existing 3

    Do they build units or start with a bunch of them or mix of both?

    How strong would the city be in terms of unit count? (stronger than natars? weaker? about the same?)



    >More active NPCs (the second part of the post)


    I do think this is a pvp game and the core of the game should always be in that. That being said little pve doesn't hurt so long as it's implemented well.

    Now this particular suggestion I'm not at all convinced this change would be a good one in relation to the 15c -> NPC city change, not at least until some more details are open like NPC powers and detailed behavior and so on. That being said I think this sort of system would be perfect for the Natars that already exist in the game (mini grey zone anyone?) and Natars could be bit more active on the round using this system. I would be totally for implementing this for the Natars at least if not the NPC cities as well.


    I don't actually have a strong opinion yet as I fail to understand some key elements of the proposal so here are some questions and worries instead.


    Worries:

    - The reward system seems like it could be exploited by pinging the NPC''s with 1 unit attacks to trigger retaliations and farm the rewards

    - Balance has to be set right for the attacks

    - The NPC attacks have to be well communicated to players


    Questions:

    - Are the rules on city per city basis or do they apply to all of the NPCs. What I mean by this is that does the 75% and 60% breakpoints count for that one NPC or for the entire game world as a whole? The third bit seems to imply the NPCs retaliate as a group but does that apply to stages 1 and 2 too or just for the 3rd?

    - Since the break points seem to be quite close to each other that would imply the NPCs has lot of units and attacks with small portions of it's army each time instead of it's entire force?

    - Is the intended gameplay to first chip down the NPC units on the defense, then goad them to attack more (killing more of their units in their small attacks) and then finish them off in one chunk? Or are the NPCs structured more like a robber camp that you can't finish off with one siege?

    - Do they build units (I know same question as above but relevant still) or perhaps get reinforcements from other NPCs




    Answers to the specific questions:

    1) Resource piles are probably better option since chests are limited to one per day, unless the chest is a different kind or like a diamond tier or something like that.

    2) Yes they should have siege. Otherwise what threat do they pose? Random raids would only realistically hurt the weaker players and better players can either dodge actively or continuously send away units and rely on chickens for night dodge. They could use a mix of raids, attacks with rams and attacks with catapults though (such as only raiding with normal units in phase 1)

    3) I can see some good ideas here but I'm honestly pretty confused what is the design goal here?

    The active NPC part I can understand, goal is to have more things to do and more filler on the round and more things for defense players to do stress free but the 15c change doesn't seem to really match what I think the goal of the change is. I guess the goal is to remove the 12h settle race (a good goal imo) but I'm not convinced this is the way to go about that.


    I'm not going to lay down judgement on the ideas tho just yet, need clarification on certain points, more numbers and and explanations on the mechanics and more time for me to think about it. Interested to see what others want to say as well!