|
On January 06 2007 17:22 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2007 16:50 Monsen wrote:Argh- is it really so hard to comprehend what I'm saying?  Is my english that bad or non coherent? Or is it just that ppl read so superficially? Noone is talking about mid or lategame, "maintaining large armies" and crop problems are not the issue. The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD. And thus (and this is just the second step of the argument, see ?) it is more effective to not fucking settle and even not waste ressources on building up your fields but just build up storage, barrack, and teh lil swingerclubs, clubs, clubs until you can eventually conquer. Ah yeah, it's ok to build crop fields. Barely. What you're saying is probably most optimal in a "play 24/7" setting. But the fact that most people will have a certain window in each day where they can't log on, fields prove to be rather necessary. On top of that, most people don't have developed villages on 9/15 crop settlements. So when you conquer, you can only conquer some guy's main village, granted that he didn't build a palace first and that he expanded already. Otherwise, it's better to settle in a 15 crop as your first expansion, no? And isn't it better to settle in a 15 crop farther away (about 20 squares out) and build up a rax immediately and pump clubs and have another raiding village? 20 squares out, your two villages wouldn't overlap farms too much and you can easily expand your raiding radii more effectively. If you conquer your 2nd village first, instead of settling, I think most people would choose a village close by, and that in effect would add pop, save time, increase CP, but wouldn't do too much to help you raid faster/more effectively.
Exactly. And that was all I was saying. It IS the most effective, even if most time consuming way to play early on. A 2nd farming village comes in handy, will however not be as nessesary for gauls for example. Can you please explain the issue to oneofthem, I seem to utterly fail there.
Edit: You won't believe how many ppl fall for the "hey a residence is cheaper than a palace and can do the same" argument. The will be plenty of nice targets.
|
On January 06 2007 18:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2007 16:50 Monsen wrote:Argh- is it really so hard to comprehend what I'm saying? Is my english that bad or non coherent? Or is it just that ppl read so superficially? Noone is talking about mid or lategame, "maintaining large armies" and crop problems are not the issue. The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD. And thus (and this is just the second step of the argument, see ?) it is more effective to not fucking settle and even not waste ressources on building up your fields but just build up storage, barrack, and teh lil swingerclubs, clubs, clubs until you can eventually conquer. Ah yeah, it's ok to build crop fields. Barely. You said conquest is the most resource efficient, implying resources are still a concern, and that there are other projects requiring investment. Then, given the fairly high initial investment for chief as a percentage of your account's production, it is fair to say that these resources devoted to chiefs wont be producing anything productive soon. Also, it takes time to build academy and residences, why not build a lv10 townhall during the same time and upgrade market and mb, while at the same time a new village can be built up reasonably quickly. Another concern is that CP will definitely build up very quickly, and if you were to conquer with 2 or 3 villages, there is no way you can avoid wasting CP. I have experienced this first hand. On s5 I think I conquered my third village while having enough CP for 5 or 6 villages, that is totally not acceptable. Yes, conquest is the fastest way to grow when taken as an instantaneous event compared to founding a village, but there are various real game situations that make conquering too early inefficient. At the very least, do not conquer unless you have 3 chiefs. There is no need to conquer just to save some resources when you are wasting serious time doing it. I know what you are saying, and you are wrong. It may be more resource efficient, but not more time efficient and management efficient. On regular server T2, the top players will do this: get 2nd village in 10 or 12 days, get 15 crop, get 3rd village 9 crop in another week, get a village near potential conquest target or get another 9 or 15 crop in another week. On regular server T3, you can get 4 villages in 5 weeks, plus the -10% conquering rule (when you conquer a village, all of its buildings are reduced by 1 level, i know, sucks) and the capital rule, there is no way in hell you can conquer another village during that time. Here is the situation of me village on speed T3 when I had 2 villages (rank top 2) + Show Spoiler +As you can see, I still had major problems with resources, and the fields aren't even built up yet. There is no way I can manage a chief without delaying growth significantly. This is when I started conquering chains on the same account. It was still difficult getting enough resources to queue residences, trust me.
Sorry dude, you don't even get the initial point that army/raiding > villages. Please ask Neo to explain it to you, I can't.
|
This thread makes me sad that I quit (I was right in the middle of it) but at the same time if I hadn't then I would probably wouldn't have had the time for school so. 
|
wow, i got my login right on the first try and it still works after so long :D
EDIT: WTF MY VILLAGE AND EXPO ARE STILL UP hahahahaah
|
Wow, TL wins the internet once more... Congrats people!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 07 2007 11:39 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2007 18:23 oneofthem wrote:On January 06 2007 16:50 Monsen wrote:Argh- is it really so hard to comprehend what I'm saying? Is my english that bad or non coherent? Or is it just that ppl read so superficially? Noone is talking about mid or lategame, "maintaining large armies" and crop problems are not the issue. The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD. And thus (and this is just the second step of the argument, see ?) it is more effective to not fucking settle and even not waste ressources on building up your fields but just build up storage, barrack, and teh lil swingerclubs, clubs, clubs until you can eventually conquer. Ah yeah, it's ok to build crop fields. Barely. You said conquest is the most resource efficient, implying resources are still a concern, and that there are other projects requiring investment. Then, given the fairly high initial investment for chief as a percentage of your account's production, it is fair to say that these resources devoted to chiefs wont be producing anything productive soon. Also, it takes time to build academy and residences, why not build a lv10 townhall during the same time and upgrade market and mb, while at the same time a new village can be built up reasonably quickly. Another concern is that CP will definitely build up very quickly, and if you were to conquer with 2 or 3 villages, there is no way you can avoid wasting CP. I have experienced this first hand. On s5 I think I conquered my third village while having enough CP for 5 or 6 villages, that is totally not acceptable. Yes, conquest is the fastest way to grow when taken as an instantaneous event compared to founding a village, but there are various real game situations that make conquering too early inefficient. At the very least, do not conquer unless you have 3 chiefs. There is no need to conquer just to save some resources when you are wasting serious time doing it. I know what you are saying, and you are wrong. It may be more resource efficient, but not more time efficient and management efficient. On regular server T2, the top players will do this: get 2nd village in 10 or 12 days, get 15 crop, get 3rd village 9 crop in another week, get a village near potential conquest target or get another 9 or 15 crop in another week. On regular server T3, you can get 4 villages in 5 weeks, plus the -10% conquering rule (when you conquer a village, all of its buildings are reduced by 1 level, i know, sucks) and the capital rule, there is no way in hell you can conquer another village during that time. Here is the situation of me village on speed T3 when I had 2 villages (rank top 2) + Show Spoiler +As you can see, I still had major problems with resources, and the fields aren't even built up yet. There is no way I can manage a chief without delaying growth significantly. This is when I started conquering chains on the same account. It was still difficult getting enough resources to queue residences, trust me. Sorry dude, you don't even get the initial point that army/raiding > villages. Please ask Neo to explain it to you, I can't. er, no. I > you in travian. Keep in mind that I am assuming 24/7 production of troops.
That you do not even get the initial point of "effective = time effective" makes you unqualified to dispute my opinions on travian. Did you even bother to read?
|
Ask Neo- I won't bother anymore.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yeah ok, seems you fail to understand that there are different usages of "effective." -__-
I dont see anything in neo's post that would contradict what I've said.
army/raiding > villages
er, no shit. What part of this is related to how quickly you use up your expansion slot for a chief that probably wont be used in a week while your CP piles up into high heavens? If you play your way, and I play my way, I guarantee you that I'll have more army and more villages by the end of it.
|
calm down.
Noone is talking about mid or lategame, "maintaining large armies" and crop problems are not the issue. The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD.
And thus (and this is just the second step of the argument, see ?) it is more effective to not fucking settle and even not waste ressources on building up your fields but just build up storage, barrack, and teh lil swingerclubs, clubs, clubs until you can eventually conquer. Ah yeah, it's ok to build crop fields. Barely.
when you stated that "settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD." you leave out important factors (time and management) that should be included.
oneofthem is arguing practicality and gives compelling reasons why settling isn't -teh crapzorss- :D
|
No. I stated about 7 billion times that it is the most time/management consuming way to play.
CPs piling up don't change the fact that army > villages. Which you appearantly don't get since "I'm assuming 24/7 production" means 24/7 production out of a level 20 barracs. Which means about 720 swingerclub/day (not to mention the stables) and you wont ever be able to produce that at the point of the game where you could start settling a 2nd village.
You don't see anything in Neos post that contradics you because you simply don't get the theory behind this stategy. So I suggest you either let him explain it to you or do some serious rethinking of your own, Mr.Iownyouattravian.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
I stated about 7 billion times that it is the most time/management consuming way to play.
Which is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is the fastest way to grow as constrained by game mechanics.
Which you appearantly don't get since "I'm talking about 24/7 production" means 24/7 production out of a level 20 barracs. Which is also irrelevant to the choice of method of first or second expansion. The discussion is about whether settling sucks without redemption, not whether building troops > villages. Learn to read. By the time your income level is high enough to build chiefs WHILE building troops at full capacity, a player who also grew so that he could pump 700 clubs a day but settled at first opportunity would already be running on 2 more villages while also nearly finishing chief tech. Is this clearer now, Mr. Idontgetit?
|
for something completely different
say you started near garandou, only he was like RO-garandou the romanian speaking evil version of garandou, sworn to kill you and your family. what strategy is there to defeat him?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
For the first few days, raid well, build clubs, upgrade rax, build nothing else. Send occasional fakes against him while making sure you have some crannies. Then when you have about 100 clubs go provoke a fight.
Just time kill garandou's clubs and he's done, raid him every couple of hours or something and make sure to get cata soon to cata him down. But I have to say garandou raids very well early game, and we have about the same number of clubs early. Early game struggles is about game theory and timing/luck, so zvz.
|
Wow, you're really retarded.
"Expanding" is just another way of getting more ressources. So is building more troops to raid.
Putting money into 2nd village -> less money into troops.
Since army > village -> 2nd village < more troops.
Thus you play without second village until you reach the limit of your production capabilities/or/ conquering overtakes raiding in effectiveness/or/ your farming efficiency decreases so much due to range that getting a 2nd farming village is more effective (which is the only valid point for a second village, the point that Neo makes AND the point that you never brought up, because you simply suck at travian).
I can't make it any simpler than that. If you don't get it by now, you'll have to die dumb.
|
United States37500 Posts
Monsen, ascelon, stop with the flames please...
It's just two different playing styles and a lot of misunderstanding here. Talk civilly or go along your merry way.
Thanks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
"Expanding" is just another way of getting more ressources. No, it is also another way to get more infrastructure/expansion slots/production base. The game is not about how much resources is in your warehouse, but how much stuff you can build. A second village is not only about the resource fields, what is it about? Maybe you should think about that!
Thus you play without second village until you reach the limit of your production capabilities/or/ conquering overtakes raiding in effectiveness/or/ your farming efficiency decreases so much due to range that getting a 2nd farming village is more effective
Did you bother analysing whether a second village will enlarge your production capabilities and thus generate MORE income than you've invested in it?
Are you assuming that the income you get from raiding is balanced such that you can build stuff in this manner without encountering situations in which either resource imbalance or lack of crop prevents you from upgrading your production building and/or queuing troops?
CPs piling up don't change the fact that army > villages.
Army > villages doesn't change the fact that villages > army when it comes to building new army and new villages.
Putting money into 2nd village -> less money into troops. That is only valid if one were to continuously build troops while upgrading barracks and other production facilities continuously while only making warehouse/granaries. Then, let me see the analysis that spending time building lv19/20 rax is more effective than setting a new village and building a new rax at MAKING troops in a period of time. Then, what happens if you have surplus income while also proceeding along the maximizing troop production build order? Will you waste the resources and get 0 return or spending a little time to get a new village and production center? Then, how much time does it to build tech for a chief from the basic infrastructure, compared to time used in building the infrastructure? What happens if you can found a new village and then get a chief from that new village in about the same time that you build a chief from one village?
In any case, you have already, by acknowledging that troops income is constrained by various factors, made your argument pertinent to only situations where these constraints are satisfied. Needlessly to say you play in a highly idealized game that has never been tried in practice so the various questions important to the effectiveness of your strategy cannot be answered. For example, when you reach production capacity ceiling, are there already profitable enough conquest targets, and if not, is the time waiting for them to grow up long enough for you to build up a second settled village and then get conquering tech, since right now there is absolutely no way for you to spend your money except queuing troops that wont come out in a week? Given the highly idealized state of play in which you operate on, and that there are still questions left unanswered in such a state, I do not see why you would insist that "settling is teh crapzors" with such absolute confidence. Of course, in all other situations we can freely discard your rants as irrelevant, and "settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r-" as bullshit. I already stated that my argument is that settling, in certain situations, in fact, most if not all situations that occur in normal play, is superior to waiting for chiefs, and there are no instances in which your argument even touched me. Sorry.
There are blatant contradictions in your posts, but since the idea of framing your arguments clearly does not occur to you, I'm not sure if these are just contradictions or separate arguments.
Noone is talking about mid or lategame, "maintaining large armies" and crop problems are not the issue. The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD.
CPs piling up don't change the fact that army > villages. Which you appearantly don't get since "I'm assuming 24/7 production" means 24/7 production out of a level 20 barracs. Which means about 720 swingerclub/day (not to mention the stables) and you wont ever be able to produce that at the point of the game where you could start settling a 2nd village.
So, what the fuck are you arguing about really? 720 clubs a day plus several hundred pallies a day for the 20 or so days to upgrade everything to lv20 will give you insane crop problems, and there is no way these two quotes are talking about the same situation.
The point is that settling in general -is- -teh- -crap0r- It's ineffective ressourcewise when compared to raiding. PERIOD. I'll explain your own argument to you. You should declare your POINT after your ARGUMENT. if your argument is "settling is ineffective resourcewise" then there are about a billion arguments against drawing the conclusion "settling in general is the crapzor" from that argument.
But of course, since you are arguing from an idealizd state of the game while not bothering to limit your conclusions to this idealized state, there is no way you can even play in the real game. Stop wasting our time if what you say is just "if you play 24/7 and find perfect farms then maybe in select situations it is better to conquer than to settle."
|
Raiding is by far the most important source of income in the early game, but this importance becomes smaller as the game progresses. In theory, you maybe can create and sustain a giant army in very few villages, but -- apart from the practical limitations -- there's not really a need to do this. I haven't done the math, but I think with all the raiding income, you can afford to go Sim City to a certain extent. The investment in troops becomes less efficient over time, and may even hit a plateau.
Ascelon/Zerg relied heavily on army on s5, and was ahead of me in military strength for the first weeks of the server. I relied mostly on army, too, but gradually increased my "Sim-City-ness" over time, still devoting 70-80% of my resources to troops, but filling up the plus queues in as many villages as possible, and, more importantly, settling/conquering as soon as I had the CPs. With the triple income from raiding, trading, and fields, I was able to maintain a larger army than Ascelon, while having less negative crop consumption.
Ideal world: Army only. Real world: Balance of army and Sim City.
|
Osaka27156 Posts
this is going downhill, I am moving it to the HoF where it belongs.
|
United States37500 Posts
le sigh... thanks for having your online cock battling contest in this thread. -_-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8818/villagebf4.png)
![[image loading]](http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9714/e1os6.png)
