Posts by Curtain

    Your capital should definitely be converted to a city as soon as possible, the fastest people use their 3rd CP slot for this but 4th is pretty standard to use for this (in your case the next CP slot should be for capital upgrade).
    The reason why this is so important is because capital, unlike normal villages, produces 500 culture point extra (rest get 200). 500 a day from this upgrade is much more than you could make from a new village in at least the first few weeks allowing you to faster unlock more slots. Additionally you want at least one village that has the water ditch for extra defense power so might as well make it in the capital.


    And yes you can make multiple cities


    While upgrading the capital is pretty much always the best course of action the other ones are little bit more complicated so I'll give some bullet points here.


    Upgrading any village (besides the capital) to a city
    + more concentrated villages = easier to defend and manage
    + water ditch defense building can't be rammed down in an attack providing guaranteed defense (most usefull on romans least usefull on teutons)
    + can build great barracks and stable making for much faster hammer creation
    + more culture points right away
    + more resource production right away (especially with gold)
    if king/duke
    +larger influence area


    Settling a new village
    + can differentiate villages to your needs better
    + more culture points eventually
    + more resource production eventually
    + can capture new oasis and bring your power to new areas
    if king/duke
    +can create treasury to a better spot


    People use different amount of cities, some people use just the one on the capital while others upgrade several villages to cities it all comes down to personal strategy and current game situation. Personally I recommend upgrading at least your capital (doesn't have to be your start village though) and all 15 croppers you have (if any) to cities.

    When deciding what units to go for you want to calculate few important numbers and add to that some other factors.


    You want to calculate the following which are useful in different situations


    Defense / crop consumption - less useful on defense than offense but important number regardless, especially if you plan not to use gold or can't get a good cropper
    Defense / resource spent - probably the most useful number on defense as you can bypass build time by building from several places and defense tends to die so crop consumption isn't such a big issue
    Defense / build time - most useful when neither resources nor crop is an issue


    You can find the relevant numbers in the wiki, for offense you can just use the raw attack but for defense we can reasonably use the average defense of the unit.


    I'll do the defense / crop consumption math here for you
    Phalanx: 45 defense / crop - ((40+50)/2)/1
    Druidrider: 42.5 defense / crop ((115+55)/2)/2
    Haeduan: 37.5 defense / crop ((60+165)/2)/3


    As we can see the Phalanx offers the best overall defense per unit of crop consumed. I won't do the math for you here but I can assure you they are also cheap and train quickly compared to the gaul cavalry options.


    Other factors you might consider is things like hero weapons, which buildings you already have, what upgrades you have, do the units serve other purposes (Haeduans on the attack), what defense type you actually need and what resources do you have extra and so on.
    Typically early game infantry defense is more valuable than cavalry defense while late game the situation flips.


    To sum it up your gaul defense army should consist of Phalanx and the complimentary Druidriders with them.


    You can create Haeduans as well but they are quite expensive and inefficient to use against mixed armies but do great as a response unit against pure cavalry attacks and can be used on the offense as well.

    I don't see these suggestions working out as intended, the reasoning for which is two fold: the changes clash with Travian Kingdoms identity and what makes it great and it gives unfair advantage to multiaccounters and in lesser extend premade teams.


    TK identity:
    For me the single biggest thing that makes TK better than older Travian games is the fact that from the start there is a group I can feel I am part of. New players spawn in governors and already have natural allies in their kingdom to make friends with and bit later they are also included automatically to the larger alliances which allows easy access to alliance features (large battles, alliance wars etc.) and end game content trough the WW race. Even the newest players should find themselves in a situation where they can easily contribute. You have team and goals to work towards, yet you are free to go about it in pretty much any way you like, that is the essence of TK.


    In the proposed system I fear that it restricts this too much, it demotes players to "support" roles just because they aren't as active or weren't part of the same premade team. If before a newbie joined the game, no matter how little he did contribute he was still a positive factor in the alliance. In the new system these lesser players are either supports or they are effectively hurting their kingdom compared to other kingdoms where their players do succumb to the pressure and play those roles. Game is about war and if any changes turn away from that focus and make it so new players can't contribute or are discouraged from building more troops I feel that is the wrong direction to the game.


    Premades/multiaccounting:
    This is another thing that I don't like. The new system clearly favors these sorts of groups over the randomly compiled ones more than the current system. In the new system you could probably find few players willing to act out those boring but all so necessary support roles to gain the biggest hammers and the biggest anvils possible. Meanwhile you realistically can't expect the same from the random teams which will make the servers more boring as the stronger teams stomp out the weaker ones faster and more efficiently. I mean the strength difference obviously exists currently and there is nothing you can do to eliminate it completely but that's not really the point. In the current system even a lone player who wants to build defense will always be useful but in the new system that player might need to build warehouses or iron mines or what ever to be useful and there is less chance that he will enjoy that. Most people probably enjoy building big armies and having them clash against the enemies forces. Game shouldn't go from everyone contributes towards everyone contributes so few players can have fun.



    On a side note I really like the change to go from alliances to kingdoms personally, I wish there was more focus on tuning the game towards that. In an idea world I would like to see at least 7 "powerful" kingdoms in the server each trying to out do the other 6 and build their own wonders. Going from alliances to kingdoms is a step towards that ideal and I like that. Use the development time to work the game towards that ideal. Create incentives for people to stay independent in small groups instead of assimilating to the meta and compete with their local players against the world. Make it so holding wonders with your friends is more rewarding in itself, instead of big alliances hogging all of them because they can. Make the kingdom more smaller and dynamic unit that has power at the local level.


    Maybe this feature fine tuned is a step in the right direction, maybe it's not but do try to avoid the pitfalls of making people play so others can have fun and forcing people to fill unfulfilling "support" roles for the sake of the kingdom.


    Regards: Curtain