Posts by Curtain

    The process is extremely simple, in the "Send Troops" window you have this small "+" button (image linked)


    http://puu.sh/tPixT/6607d16e89.jpg


    When you click on it, it allows you to simultaneously prepare several troop movements of any type. Prepare all the waves you wish to send and finally rapidly mash the send button which automatically moves you to the next attack on the list allowing you to land several attacks on the same second

    The strategy the player is using is not very hard to pull off, there are step by step instructions in the thread linked earlier in the thread. It's just not very intuitive and seems impossible to do but actually involves just some cleaver building demolishing.
    That being said the real difficulty of this strategy is not in getting the first village but rather what you do afterwards. Using this strategy will leave your first village crippled with no culture or resource production and no troops leaving you vulnerable for anyone who rushes a lot of troops instead. Additionally you have to use some of the best early game quest rewards which means they aren't there when you start rebuilding. In fact you get so crippled that in my opinion the best idea is to just demolish your start village all together and focus all your efforts into your new village and re-settle near it.


    The upsides are of course that you get to choose the best cropper as your capital and you get easy completion on few of the quests, namely "all fields to 5" since your cropper only has one of each. Even then I would say the strategy is only viable if you intend to use NPC heavily in the new village to turn the massive crop surplus into usable resources.


    If someone does this near you, try to abuse his lack of troops with your hopefully much larger army.

    Your options are indeed very limited and sometimes a bad roll on the starting location sucks. The two biggest things you can do about being farmed is build troops and talk to players around you.


    That being said the only real solutions to weak kingdom is to try to meet the requirements for relocation as soon as possible or settle a second village quickly to a kingdom you like. You can also try to get a duke spot in a kingdom to join immediately.
    The game is all about teamwork and if you are active and friendly lot of people would love to have you as part of their team.

    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.

    and yet TM stated only a few of your players knew the course of action to be taken. One or both of you are liars.

    I can confirm what Jallu said above, no lies have been told on this thread regards this issue.


    It's true that only few people knew, the 3 of us who have been active on this thread; Jallu, Teutonic Master and myself and few others.
    It's also true that the entire alliance played towards this strategy.
    These statements aren't contradictory as alliance actions were largely lead by the players who knew what was going on. Not to mention that 2 of those players are kings who naturally generate the largest amount of VP and have the biggest control of how much is generated, hence they can very easily directly reduce the VP generation to suit the strategy.

    Please do not hesitate to share your suggestions with us, we will keep you posted!



    Best regards
    Georgi

    Hello Georgi, I thought about the mechanic for a while and here are my thoughts



    First of all VP stealing should stop the moment you pass the #1 in VP as frankly nullifying all the VP generated just doesn't seem right to me. This game we dropped Smoke below their wing, if we had 2 extra days we would have dropped them to 0 and that just shouldn't happen.


    Instead I propose the following.


    Taking treasures from #1 alliance steals you 50 VP per treasure until treasures are even
    Taking treasures from alliance higher than you steals 10 VP until treasures are even


    But there still should be some kind of reward for attacking even or slightly smaller alliances, especially during the end stages of the game. For this I also suggest something like this:


    If you take treasures from any alliance that holds a wonder you gain 10 VP (without the stealing effect)


    This would only come into play in the late game so big alliances don't bully out all the small fries before wonders come online but anyone who wants to grab a wonder exposes their treasures as potential way to gain more VP.
    The effect should not stack with the stealing so basically if you take treasures from an alliance higher than you it would first raise yours and lower theirs until both are even and then just reward you a flat amount for any treasures after the breaking point (provided they hold a wonder)


    Basically I see VP as "prestige" of the alliance you lose some if you lose a fight to a smaller group and gain some (or lot) if you beat higher ranked alliances yourself. When wonders are in play attacking the wonder alliances is always a prestigious act but it doesn't necessarily have to subtract from their points if they are smaller than the attacker.


    I haven't played on the kingdoms/alliance merge or seen it's end game balance but on the Com 2 server this system would have been reasonably balanced between the big 3 wonder holding alliances. If holding a wonder is too big of a power difference between the strongest and weakest kingdoms holding wonders then it could be tuned into top 3 or top 5 kingdoms that trigger the VP gain effect.


    Anyway the most important thing that has to go is the stealing effect after the alliances are even, or at the very least implement a percentage based cap on the sealing like the stealing stops when the alliances have passed the even mark by like 15%


    Regards: Curtain

    As an UNSC member and one of the few people in our alliance leadership who were aware of what was going on I will chime in to give my opinion.


    First of all I would like to say that everyone should keep their posts emotionless and free off accusations. Lot of insults are being thrown around unnecessarily, that being said onto the topic at hand.


    The first and foremost thing I would like to say is that me and the people I was in most contact had a lot of fun this server. I myself started this server as a solo player in small alliance (S) pinched in between Heroes, smoke and proto-UNSC, we fought and lost and each went to our separate ways, you can probably guess which side I joined. Then we fought against all our neighbors Heroes to the south, REP in the east and Russians to the north and Myrmidions to the west. We beat or outlasted them all and gathered their best players under our banners. Then from there we fought against Smoke and EA till the end of the server. I and my friends had a ton of fun, I do not know if smoke players can say the same but that is not important to me.


    At some point we built our strategy around stealing a lot of VP from the number 1 alliance since a 100 VP swing from stealing is effectively much more than you could earn from simply storing it in a treasury, we intentionally limited our VP generation to stay second to avoid the disadvantage of being first till the time was right. Now some may say this strategy is bullcrap and I will come into that in the last paragraph of my post but it's a viable and very effective strategy allowed by the game and that is all that matters. The strategy is difficult to predict but it's far from unbeatable. The first hint that something is off should have been the fact that we as #1 troop alliance both on offense and defense for basically the entire game after UNSC-REP merge didn't actually try to contest our enemies in the VP department. This one had a solid 2-3 month warning period. The next hint should have been that our kingdom treasures are lower than smokes despite again us being the single strongest unit. When we actually started preparing for the moment we shut down our treasuries for several days (we had bit of problems on coordinating this) and any good intelligence work would have lead you to this conclusion as well. Lastly had our enemies attacked us on our concentrated treasures it would have been a killing blow to us. Alivn actually attacked our 150k treasure village just 2 hours after they were gone, well fake attacked at least. At any point the plan could have failed by a stray attack from our enemies, someone saying things they shouldn't and a spy picking it up or even one of the key players switching sides or just failing his part. All in all the whole plan took several months of work and combined efforts from our alliance and our intelligence players to pull it off. It was a high risk high reward strategy and it payed off.


    In short I regret nothing in this server and I hope people understand why that is.


    Now that being said... the mechanic shouldn't work like this. That might seem contradictory to some but hear me out. I'm a competitive player and I play by the rules but I can still recognize when the rules are bad for the game itself. The strategy we used simply isn't part of what I would consider "ideal Travian experience" and that is what the devs should work towards. This round went the way it went and I'm happy for our result but I hope in the next round I play this strategy is removed from the table by devs so we can all play a better game together. This round we achieved most treasures, had the biggest armies on defense and offense and achieved it with less players than our two competitors.No one can say for sure how it all would have planned our had this strategy been on the table and I do invite everyone to come face me (or play with me I hold no grudges over servers) on the next round where hopefully the rules are refined a bit more.


    That's just my thoughts on the subject, feel free to contact me on Com2 if you want to talk about things more.


    ps. posting my ideas on how the VP mechanic should work in a bit

    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