Wouldn't it be possible to tie these fealty points to something else than simple activity?
You could do something like an experience bar with a max cap each day. You gain "experience points" by doing activities for the kingdom. Like selling stolen goods. Maybe even tie it into the kingdom diplomacy. 1 experience points per crop eater you kill from a kingdom your kingdom currently has a declared war against (Some limitations to prevent dummy kingdoms just for point farm). This could also force multis to actively play their multis if they want the rewards.
Kingdom level? Everyone gather experience together to level up the kingdom and gain bonuses. Just make sure to divide the points per number of players in the kingdom so big meta kingdoms can't rush the levels.
Posts by Stekarn_DK
It grows at 1000 population. But the difference on the map is that a city will have water around it (Water ditch), while a none city won't.
wait, the weapon applies to units of ALL players in a village? Not just your own?
Yes. If your hero got a phalanx weapon equipped and stands in a village with phalanxes from multiple villages and players. All phalanxes will get the weapon bonus.
But only one weapon counts. You can't have like 10 heroes with phalanx weapons and get the bonus multiple times. So if its multiple heroes defending, they should all have different weapons to gain as much strength as possible.
The way the calculations are made, the individual fighting strength will be more important.
About gauls being the best raiders, that is REALLY debatable, a lot of people would argue romans are way better. The point is residence/palace doesn't matter because you can just cat it down. So gauls have the speed advantage while romans have the carrying capacity advantage.
With the attack cap speed is worth more than capacity. Capacity issues is countered with more troops while the attack cap is countered with speed. As your attacks will be out running less time.
But that's only when approaching the attack cap. Else it's debatable. Different ambition levels create different opinions on this matter. To be honest when not hitting the cap its not to much of a difference i would say.
Exactly @Batcountry#EN. My concern might not have as much with the treasury situation as it have to do with the lack of options for offensive actions. At the moment it feels underwhelming to aim for other kind of attacks than just treasuries. Therefore when also going for the approach of making treasures harder to steal you kind of kill even more options for an offensive player. But if you started to give VP or treasures for other villages, I can definitely see kingdoms using that option too. This in turn would create more action during the server.
At the same time would it matter if treasures was easier to steal from each other? Making treasures just switch hands multiple time during the server is not bad. As this would give both sides the same opportunity. It would favor those willing to create a strong cooperative kingdom who thrives on action versus other kingdoms. As it is now the gain from taking a good prolonged fight is barely worth the effort. It's more every 2-3 week we fake all your treasuries and stack hammers on one, with the hope of coming back home with some treasures.
Basically this is coming back to my first post in this thread. Just stacking members and generate passive treasures from NPC villages until late game. It's not a strategy which should put you in a good position to win the server in my opinion. A winning kingdom should have to fight through the server and show superiority in their cooperation (both offensively and defensively) rather than their ability to kill NPCs. With just a few big treasuries there is not much cooperation defense wise or offensive wise.
I am all for smaller gains often than big gains only a handful of times during a server. This force kingdoms to create an environment where cooperation is the norm not the exception.
thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes, Travian Kingdoms changed quite a bit compared to 1 year ago. Like @Stekarn_DK already mentioned, the intention of getting a next treasury harder now is to expand a kingdom. The territorial progress has slowed down with that high amount of treasures needed. We explained it in the blog post here: Kingdom Unions: Unlocking Duke and Treasury Slots | Travian Kingdoms Blog
There are less treasury villages within a kingdom now and with the ability to build more than one treasury within the same village makes them stand out even further. A treasury has to be leveled up to 20 to reach the 10k limit. If a kingdom decides a tight or a loose control over the treasuries, is a strategic decision. Both ways have advantage and disadvantage as @drgenius#EN(1) explained here: Strategic treasures allocation
Which strategy did your kingdom choose to follow?
As almost every kingdom we did choose a tight control over the treasuries.
Another problem with multiple treasuries in one village is the inability to destroy all treasuries and take all treasures currently in the village. When one treasury is at level 20 you could theoretically build a lvl 1 treasury on every spot inside the village. As long as 1 of them stand after attacks the offender can only take 1/3 of the treasures per successful attack. I liked it way more with a maximum of 4k active treasures per village. There is more options for the offender and not as easy for the defender. This goes both way's of course. As the next week the defender might be the offender.
You badly need to create incentive for offensive actions. The balance between defense and offence used to be decently balanced. Now its heavily favoring the defense party. This is obvious on most of the kingdom servers. Why attack others when you can just generate treasures from NPC villages and grow your account? Why pick a fight if you don't have to?! This stacking of treasures is only slowing the game down even more. Sure you could argue "But you put all your eggs in one basket". Yes you do but even if a kingdom decides to stack all their offensive power towards that village and successfully gets through and steal some treasures. Then what? The offensive party just lost a majority of their power (If its equal sized kingdoms vs each others). They have to regain troops again which will take them 10-20 days at least. That's 10-20 days of no action, just generate treasures.
There is so much in favor for defensive players nowadays. For example:
Limit on catapult waves.
200 loyalty in city villages + 2 CP slot needed.
Ditch (Siege is not as useful as the ditch).
Spy-glass make it expensive to make good fakes.
All this just makes it harder for an offender to create lasting damage. Which turns kingdoms into focusing on treasure hits. Yes treasures is a big part of the game, but when majority of the kingdom don't even think about doing damage with catapults/chiefs something is wrong. Now with stacking also the treasure focused kingdoms gets a hard time.
Travian is supposed to be played as a "war game". When people have gotten tired of building the same buildings in a new village every 7-10 days. What do they stay for? The social aspect and the "war part". The war part feeds the social aspect as people have to work together. So why dumb down the war part and just put up obstacles for those players? Instead find ways to give an incentive for action. Make players WANT to fight and take treasures from each others. Don't give them the opportunity to just choose the easy way through the server. It's clear given the option most leaders choose the easy way.
It SHOULD be hard to get governors. This kingdom member stacking idea is killing the game. I had hoped these changes would force kingdoms to be smaller. Well they haven't lived up to my expectations at all.
Instead they made the game worse. Adding the idea of unlimited numbers of treasury's in one village. WHY?! It makes it too easy to just stack the treasures and defend all of them at the same time. That's a huge nerf to the offensive party, making it very easy to defend ones treasures. In turn the incentive to attack is diminished. Just stack members and passively generate treasures until the round is over.
My opinion on the dwindling numbers of players is simply the reason the game gets to easy. Sure i can understand why developers wants to make it more friendly to newer players. But this instead makes experienced players bored which in turn makes them quit. Travian is not supposed to be easy. Lesser players will start play but instead lesser players will leave (After just a very few rounds). Which would also most likely increase the amount of gold sold by the owners. Let's face it, the guy playing his first round probably barely buy any gold while the guy playing his 10th round see the worth of gold and would be willing to spend more gold to get an edge.
Sure i've no data supporting my claim more than a few rounds of kingdom where the "skill level" of players i meet have been extremely low compared to what they used to be. Which seems to be because of a lack of experience both from the player themselves and their leaders.
Anyways this might have been a bit off topic.
I would like to agree on the game going very slow the first 30 days. Not because of a lower number of governors tho.
I assumed there was a reason for the amount of actions per page. Game crashing is a legit reason.
But it doesn't change the fact that either what Curtain suggested or a simple "move to page x" would make this a lot better. Not optimal but on the right path at least.
Seperate farm list attacks and normal attacks should already have kind of a solution? As reports is already seperated on the two.
This is just a mess. 4 actions per page in the rally point? Also to top it of there is no way to move through the pages except walking one page at a time.
You farming and got an attack you wish to cancel? Well you are lucky if you find it before the 90 second mark.
I WISH this system would get a change.
Allow more actions per page.
A way to move to page X without having to move through every page.
A way to search?
I've not read the previous answers so i apologize if i write something that's already been written.
If you are new on the game and have troubles I would recommend the following.
Always focus on your fields. Every resource not spent on fields is resources never coming back.
Build defensive troops. Stationary defensive troops like phalanxes, spearmen, praetorians/legionares.
If someone wants to farm you make sure it costs more than what they get. Spend your resources, you want to give them as few as possible. Create defensive troops so they lose troops on attacking you.
Don't try to defend against a huge force with a small force. That will cost you more than it costs the offender. Instead hide your troops until you have a decent force THEN put them in your village to defend.
Don't underestimate the wall. Early levels is cheap and gives a great bonus.
Befriend your neighbours. Instead of fighting each others you can cooperate against a common threat.
Keep some scouts inside your village. Most people will not dare attack you if they can't scout you.
With this said the single most important aspect of the game is activity. If you only log on once per day you will be an easy farm. You will leak resources and like sharks the farmers will keep coming back to pick up those resources.
Playing like this will give you experience to handle other playstyles. Maybe you want to be the big guy in your area where everyone else is your farm. Well barely nobody starts out that way on the first servers they play. Just focus on growing and learning the game first.
Of course it is. Why leave resources on the table?
Look at it this way.
Income in travian is based on two things. Production and raiding. Everyone is not active enough or able to raid. Therefore the majority of players income is from their production. Your production is hindered by how many villages you own. If you choose to spend one of your CP slots on a city upgrade you will lose out on the production from a new village. Instead you get the option to upgrade your fields to 12. Which almost gives the same production as 2 fully built normal villages. So by leaving your fields at 10 in a city you basically cut your income by one whole village. That's like 120k resources per day (approx 5k/h per normal village).
Yes fields to 12 is expensive and will take more time to give back what you spent than a new village with fields to 10 would do. But spending resources on fields will always give you more resources back than spending them on something else, as it's the only thing giving you a higher income (disregarding raiding).
But always upgrade your lowest fields first. If you have two villages with level 8 fields and one city with level 10 fields. You start with the level 8 fields. When they are at 10 and you haven't settled a new village yet then you upgrade your city fields to 12.
Aim to always increase your turnover. This way every day you will have more resources than the previous to spend and will outgrow other players. Which in turn gives you a stronger economy than other players. Stronger economy means more resources to spend on troops. Just make sure to protect yourself else your strong economy will instead turn you to a farm. Then your turnover is instead decreasing.
This is also true for your capital village. Got resources to spend? All fields at 10 in normal villages and 12 in citys? Spend them on fields in your capital!
Interesting start maybe. But i would not recommend it. Equal(~) levels on all fields is most optimal (start with the field you have oase bonus on).
Your way will fall behind. Sooner or later you will have to lose that BP anyways and when you do, everyone around you will be way stronger. You would make the optimal farm for neighbours by then.
How many days did it take you to reach one crop field at 10? I would not be suprised if those following the quests and keeping their fields equal would basically have one of each resource type at 10 by then.
I am not saying this "start strategy" would not work. It all depends on your neighbours. But i would bet that a normal start is prefered.
Well to start a discussion on the defensive topic.
Gauls is certainly NOT the worst. They are probably the best defensive tribe there is. Your assumption that Spearmen and praetorians is best is only half true. Those units packs the highest defensive per crop ratio in the game. In that case they are the best. But to be honest defense per crop ratio is not the problem for a defender. Big weaknesses for praetorians is their training time, their cost and their travel speed. You will not be able to defend anything if your troops can't make it there in time.
Gauls got defensive units which is great in both the stable and the baracks. The phalanx is probably the best defensive unit in the game and thats the reason you see phalanxes everywhere. They are cheap, they build fast and they got a great travel speed. They complement phalanxes with druids. Druids is kind of a luxuary defensive unit as their cost and building time is pretty big. But instead they are extremly fast and will make it to almost any attack if you are active enough.
You could argue that the spearman is not far from the phalanx. Thats true, but their defensive stats is not as evenly distributed and they also complement their spearmans with paladins instead. Paladins is just a way worse druidrider. The same idea as the druidrider but instead they are very slow for a cavalry unit. Therefore the big strength in cavalry defense is almost lost.
Romans also got the legionare which is weaker, slower, have a bigger cost and training time than the phalanx. Another downside to them is that they are built in the baracks. The same as the praetorian. Sure legionares got offensive power, but as we are strictly talking about defensive units here i am not taking that into account.
The defender always got an advantage on the offensive player. Offensive troops is only possible to be built in one village. Defenders could use multiple villages to build defensive troops. This way a defender is regaining their troops on a MUCH higher rate than an offender. Therefore if you as an offensive player manage to run into an anvil its in 99% of the cases a loss for you. Killing defensive troops should almost never be the goal. Chiefing villages/destroying villages/stealing treasures should be the goal. If your army die you will have a downtime for 1-3 weeks at least until you have managed to regain an big enough hammer.
If you plan on playing actively in a big alliance where there will always be attacks to defend against i would certainly recommend gauls. They are able to reach most attacks in time and they are able to regain their troops fast.
If you instead plan on playing your own race with villages close to each others and just minding your own buisness until someone decides you are a good target for them. Then romans could be good. They are able to pack their crop production with alot of defensive stats. But keep in mind that praetorians shouldn't be wasted at the same rate as phalanxes is able to be.
To summarize all the tribes is able to adapt a defensive and offensive playstyle. Play whatever you like the most. If you're theorycrafting and want to play the best tribe there is then i would probably say Gauls is the best defensive tribe and teutons/romans is the best offensive tribe.