Thanks for that, we should be able to get a rough indication of the effect of army size by before and after hammers are lost. For population you would need to use cheifing or patience.
Could someone tell me or direct me to any information on exactly how robbers are calculated?
Size of army (def value and xp)
I have heard there are some relations to population and army size - more detail would be helpful.
If you getting towards the late game and are short on crop you can invest in crop fields to higher levels and rely on this to convert spare resources into crop. By this mechanism the payback time is much shorter. Market trading and gold resource exchange are possible but require active management. Passive wheat income from fields is easiest.
Ditch and pop bonus have the advantage that you cant knock them down with rams. Pop bonus also would apply to all villages meaning you don't have to worry as much about dodging an attack.
I agree on losing all your robber offence would be a pain, and the infantry defence is more useful. Weird how little difference it makes.
Do you know what factors affect robber army size? I heard somewhere it was overall attack strength. If so then having the legionnaires would increase size of robber army... and resources/ treasures gained?
How good are Legionnaires for robbers compared to imperians?
Considering they are significantly cheaper defence per initial cost than Preatorians (one month before they are even on total cost per defence).
Instead of 6000 praeatorians and 1000 imp you could have 7000 legionnaires for similar crop consumption and defence but 4x attack.
Beyond several thousand legionnaires the extra attack is useless and should prioritise praetorian.
Okay so if a high pop deffer chose to reinforce a low pop player in kingdom, they wouldnt need to worry much about the lack of wall?
How does the bonus work when defending with reinforcements from other players. Does it take their population into account or only your own?
I'm generally a fan of your work and your opinions, but on this one, I'm going to disagree quite vociferously.
Yeah, by old school, I meant this was one of the many, many mechanics changes from TL that went too far towards defence. Def has always been pooled, attack not, from day dot. I have no argument with that. But here are all the changes that you made to boost defence, or restrict the consequences of attacks that I can think of off the top of my head:
- Wave restrictions were tightened (and I disagreed with the 4 wave limit that came in with T4)
- GB and GS are allowed in Cap, providing it's a city, to remove chief kills on hammers
- Crop locks were weakened further after wave restrictions by removing the non troop positive crop requirement, and removing crop as a res requirement for building cropfields
- Def % bonus of hero applies to all troops from the account, not just home village
- All def units get the bonus of the best weapon for that unit type, regardless of owner.
The only thing that has consequence now is the loss of treasures and VP, but that effectively is just a straight swap for artefacts - and I'd argue there are less strategically important villas in an alliance with VP than there were with artefacts if they know what they're doing.
I will state here that I am a big fan of VP and treasuries compared to artefacts, I'm not asking for the return of artefacts.
But I find it telling that there is an entire thread dedicated to what can be done to encourage more attacks, yet you're arguing here to keep all of these changes in the fear of unbalancing towards the attacker. The fact that the game designers are trying to dream up any number of exotic solutions to try and encourage more attacking in the game, with the implicit, and at times explicit, recognition that there isn't enough attacking happening quite clearly tells you that the balance is wrong, and way too heavily slanted in the direction of defence.
I assume this mechanic is still the case years on, in which case I totally agree with the above. The equal defence makes the defence strategy far less interesting.
I would prefer that the hero village got the ~10% bonus to defence from weapon and all vills from one account got the 20% def bonus. This would result in decisions as to how much to focus defensive troops being built from capital and how much from other towns. You could even get situations where players used great barracks to produce more superior def troops.
You are both half wrong then. Weapon bonus does apply to all units of that kind, no matter from which player or which village they were from. If they defend the same place the hero with the weapon does, they get the bonus
So in a WW scenario all the main def troops (prae, phalanx, spearmen) will probably get the bonus as there would be at least one hero with the weapon?
I take it the bonus does not stack?
For defence the +5 defence is much more significant than for offence as average defence values are much lower
They have the best total defence/ crop of any unit (100) however when you consider the spearmen with similar defence (95) but much faster build rate and reduced construction costs spearmen probably beat Praetorians.
The infantry defence is very useful as siege attacks are often more infantry biased or balanced. For pure cavalry attacks you can rely on the wall.
For semi casual player, how good would pure legionnaires be? The reduced defence would be offset by not needing an army for robbers. I usually need 1 sword for every 6 phalanx in defence.
Just started up for the first time in 5+ years and was disappointed to see how much resources were given out by starter quests. The payments seem to almost cover the costs of most things in first vill, and especially the 800 culture points and settler rewards. Is this a nanny state or what? IMO it would be nicer to see that money come in from resource fields or raiding and greatly reduced quest rewards.
You have blobs that eat other players blobs to become bigger blobs, sounds alot like travian but replace eat with raid and blobs with villages
You would need some sort of recycling mechanism like on agar.io.