| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
Facts: Unlike all of you I already played Travian for several months. I know mid and lategame, you don't. I was a Top20 Player, most of you never will be. And I always included the advice to upgrade crop fields. I was just trying to help you, but since you all are so knowledgable I will leave it at that. | ||
|
AK-Nemesis
2005 Posts
On March 03 2006 01:14 Monsen wrote: Well it's not my cup of tea how you're playing your game. Facts: Unlike all of you I already played Travian for several months. I know mid and lategame, you don't. I was a Top20 Player, most of you never will be. And I always included the advice to upgrade crop fields. I was just trying to help you, but since you all are so knowledgable I will leave it at that. you were a top 20 player and yet you advice us on having only 1 village?? you are contradicting yourself here... or did you make it to top 20 with 1 village.. holy jesus you are my god now.. also.. your supposedly godly late game knowledge won't help us at the stage where we are at now... we are still in EARLY GAME! where we can't conquer other people's villages | ||
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
[QUOTE]On March 02 2006 20:14 NeoIllusions wrote: [QUOTE]On March 02 2006 19:29 Monsen wrote: [QUOTE]On March 02 2006 16:02 NeoIllusions wrote: [quote][/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Ok, in that case, when is the right time to upgrade the fields? And what happens if the nearby villages (let's say up to an hour raiding distance away) start to dry up, should you just try and find villages even farther away?[/QUOTE] Exactly. 1 Clubswinger eats 1 crop/hour so in theory he can travel up to 59 hours and still make profit. (would be bullshit ofc but nevertheless  ) You never really build up you own fields as you will conquer fully upgraded villages from the sim city players.Fields <-> raiding in the end just comes down to efficiency <-> comfort. You have to spend no effort on fields, but they are less effective. Even with perfect scripts and excel tabels you can only manage to raid so much while being online 24/7 so they will be a time for fields. Later. (but by then you will come to realize that Travian isn't such a good game as it seems)[/QUOTE] wood - clay - iron - food - speed Leg: 120 100 180 40 6 Phalanx: 100 130 55 30 7 Clubber: 95 75 40 40 7 Ok, by looking at the prices prices and effectiveness of the basic units, your plan simply does not work out. Legs are simply too expensive to make continuously and raid with at the risk of not carrying a full load of resources back per raid. Phalanx will not either either due to the sheer number Gauls need to have to ensure none of the phalanx die from each raid. Your strategy ONLY works with Teutons because clubbers are the cheapest unit in the game and of the "crannies are 2/3 effective". I am arguing that you're giving bad advice to the thread because your advice only works for Teutons. Romans and Gauls will get fucked over completely by your advice of "go raiding asap", and fucked over hard. Anihc is a prime example of how effective Teutonic raiding is. He goes out consistently each day, with a spreadsheet on Excel (which I think is the sickest thing ever to be using Excel for a game like Travian), and raids villages for effectively 1K of resources per villiage per day. The sole teuton in my own alliance has made raids where he rakes back 2.5K of each resource from just one raid. In both examples, they have upgraded their fields up to level 8 at least. Going "all-in raid tech" is simply not feasible for Romans and Gauls due to the high chance of raids not going well. If ideally, all Roman and Gaul raids could rake in a full load each raid, then I would reconsider. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
1. Any Unit, ANY UNIT will make profit WAY EARLIER than a field. Do the math. 2. I made it to Top 20 starting 3 weeks later than the rest. What retarded notion is that you can have a bad early game and compensate with good lategame? 3. I played Gauls. 4. Instead of wasting ressources on more villages and their fields you invest in more troops in your main village. These still gain ressources way faster than fields in other villages AND YOU FRICKING HAVE AN ARMY TO CONQUER OTHERS IN MIDGAME. 1 Successful conquest can gain you up to 5 MILLIONS of ressources (all in buildings). Match that with your fields. Why do I even bother. | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
Then to talk about trying to take over a village with a senator (or equivalent). Shit man, one of those things cost about 30K each. You will never raid to that high of an amount as Romans and Gauls. Also, what about defense? You advocate about not having any defense at all and to just go raiding only. Phalanx maybe can defend well because of their high defense, but Legs definitely can't compete. And if you can't defend, then what about all of the resources you just gained from raiding? Monsen, you support your claim and refute the four flaws I am pointing with your advice and I will publically say I am wrong to have doubt you and post your advice on the first post for other TL.net members to follow. | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
On March 03 2006 01:38 Monsen wrote: *Sigh*. 1. Any Unit, ANY UNIT will make profit WAY EARLIER than a field. Do the math. 2. I made it to Top 20 starting 3 weeks later than the rest. What retarded notion is that you can have a bad early game and compensate with good lategame? 3. I played Gauls. 4. Instead of wasting ressources on more villages and their fields you invest in more troops in your main village. These still gain ressources way faster than fields in other villages AND YOU FRICKING HAVE AN ARMY TO CONQUER OTHERS IN MIDGAME. 1 Successful conquest can gain you up to 5 MILLIONS of ressources (all in buildings). Match that with your fields. Why do I even bother. Ok, so you make profit off of other people around you, then the people you're attacking starting making massive upgrades to their cranny. So what are you supposed to profit from then? You talk as if your raids will take in a full load each time. You actually don't have an army to conquer others, you have an army that can steal from others. But that stealing can be prevented. And your comment about a successful conquest of a village implies that you need to be able to buy a senator, which I don't see is possible with just pure raiding and no fields. And if you don't mind, why don't you post a screen shot copy of your effective raiding with your Gaul account? I'd appreciate it. | ||
|
AK-Nemesis
2005 Posts
On March 03 2006 01:38 Monsen wrote: *Sigh*. 1. Any Unit, ANY UNIT will make profit WAY EARLIER than a field. Do the math. 2. I made it to Top 20 starting 3 weeks later than the rest. What retarded notion is that you can have a bad early game and compensate with good lategame? 3. I played Gauls. 4. Instead of wasting ressources on more villages and their fields you invest in more troops in your main village. These still gain ressources way faster than fields in other villages AND YOU FRICKING HAVE AN ARMY TO CONQUER OTHERS IN MIDGAME. 1 Successful conquest can gain you up to 5 MILLIONS of ressources (all in buildings). Match that with your fields. Why do I even bother. conquer others. we are not in any position for that! we can't touch the guys in those big alliances. When you made it to top 20, were you in any alliance? if you weren't i will worship you like a god | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
Yes the senators are very expensive. By the time you have those ressources you also will have targets (read midgame >< ). The fastest way to get them is to stick to 1 or for convinience 2 (15 or 9 crop) villages. You will be surpassed in terms of size. By far. But size is not income, only newbs think that. The off-stats top 50 are the real biggos, what good do 5 villages do you, if the guy next to you has 5 times your army? He will raid you dry. And 30k each is not that much if you think about it. 1000 Swingers (gotta love that translation) carry 6k, and I hear some of you already have more than 500. Sure it will take quite a lot of time still (esp. because you haven't figured out that you need a Lvl 20 academy for senators yet :D ) but it's not too far away either. Maybe I should stress this a little more. Fields are inferior to an active players raiding. Thus size =/= income. Army = income. The greater income at least or more profitable/efficient if you like. The top players/ alliances all share a motto: Pop doesn't fight. Every time you invest in fields you lose an edge to a player who invests in army. He will gain more ressources and be more dangerous. Competition by other raiders? Of course! And how do you meet this competition? By backing away and building fields? Come on. You just raid more often and in smaller groups (not 300 clubers 1 time a day but 30 clubbers 10 times a day). This goes for founding new villages too, which are just new buildable fields to most. I'm not saying this is the style of play for everyone. But it is the most effective. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 03 2006 01:47 AK-Nemesis wrote: conquer others. we are not in any position for that! we can't touch the guys in those big alliances. When you made it to top 20, were you in any alliance? if you weren't i will worship you like a god I'd like my sacrifizes in the form of virgins please. Living ones. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 03 2006 01:47 NeoIllusions wrote: Ok, so you make profit off of other people around you, then the people you're attacking starting making massive upgrades to their cranny. So what are you supposed to profit from then? You talk as if your raids will take in a full load each time. You actually don't have an army to conquer others, you have an army that can steal from others. But that stealing can be prevented. And your comment about a successful conquest of a village implies that you need to be able to buy a senator, which I don't see is possible with just pure raiding and no fields. And if you don't mind, why don't you post a screen shot copy of your effective raiding with your Gaul account? I'd appreciate it. I would if I could, but I stopped playing in November last year. At that time I was gaining ~300-600k each day from raiding (yes you don't always carry full payload) Army was like 3k Swordsmen (for attackpower only) ~4k TT distributed over 6 villages (closer positions to farms= more efficient) and like 6k Phalanx because ppl did not quite like me taking their alliance mates villages. Swordsmen and Phalanx were farming 24/7 as well ofc. Crop in main village was -10.000/hour. In the end these are just numbers, the principle hold for your stage of the game as well. But since you are so fond of numbers :D ... | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
You invest in troops- you fall back in size, you fall further back, others found new villages, you fall back even further....... WHOOPS +500 pop! It's perfectly ok to found another 15/9crop village. It saves you a lot of trouble organizing food for your army. Just remember army >>> size/fields. It'd help a bit if you could signify the stage of your game more precisely. Top players size, Top Off-stats and largest known army would help me to be a bit more specific. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17267 Posts
Does anyone have a time to search the NW quadrant for 15 crop village spots? I'm currently checking the area 1 screen away from my village (so far no success). If we managed to find several of those and post their coordinates here it would save us a lot of time later and would make creation of second or third villages a lot easier. Thanks in advance. | ||
|
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
As of right now... Top 10 player size: 761, 694, 630, 616, 586, 579, 579, 573, 563, 562 (Players rank 1 - 83: all have a second village, player 84 is first person who doesn't.) Top 10 Off-stat: 1412, 1332, 1234, 1148, 1093, 1040, 1023, 1008, 996 Not sure how to find largest army. Currently, our three alliances are located in the NW, which is by far, probably the weakest of the four quadrants. Your plan of aggression, aggression, aggression, and constant raiding is fine if I, or any of the players, could check their accounts and raid upwards up to 20+ times a day. Or unless you get TravianPLUS, to queue attacks. And you still don't address what happens if Romans make Legs, don't get good raids on a consistent bases in the beginning. Then he doesn't make profit and doesn't have the money to make more legs to go raiding. How often did you log on Travian a day? Fields are inferior to army only if you can log on a lot. Otherwise for less active players, the army just sits at home and fields have such low production. Are you playing now on Server 4 or have you quit altogether? And how exactly can you start 3 weeks later and not get raided yourself by people who are already 50 to 80 pop higher than you? You would still be that aggressive if there are people larger than you in your surrounding? | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
edit: if i were actually as strong as say, ROM, then I could raid 20+ times a day since my school has almost 100% wireless coverage in buildings, and I have two laptops... too bad I'm one of the weakest in my alliance! T_T | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
He clearly said you don't need defense in early game when everyone doesn't have catas IF YOU ARE ACTIVE. Btw how did you play politics with the alliances that complained? What sort of alliance were they? | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
If you rush legs and raid the smallest villages aroung you, the worst possible thing is that you wont gain anything at all. Unlikely though as you can monitor the growth of your neighbors and know who has been at 20 or whatnot pop for 2 days. A cranny can only hold so much and few build it up sufficiently to cover their inactivity. Ofc you get attacked if you start later. But what damage can you do to an active player? Exactly, none. Troops are out, ressources are spent, rest in cranny. Noone has catapults at that stage. I did point out that it is the most effective way to play as well as requiring a very high activity. If you are just randomly logging on, you'll have to get fields and crannies (and maybe get conquered later). I played Travian all day log, as I am spending most time on the computer anyway. Attack peaks were up to 350/day. Edit: Being gaul that is, teutons raid way less often ofc. Edit2: You'll be suprised how little army many players have. Ofc you have to scout before you attack someone larger. Check their activity(growth) and Off/Def stats before. Ppl with 0 Off are usually dead meat. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 03 2006 03:23 oneofthem wrote: MOnsen ancaraix? He clearly said you don't need defense in early game when everyone doesn't have catas IF YOU ARE ACTIVE. Btw how did you play politics with the alliances that complained? What sort of alliance were they? Well that's the big, big problem with Travian, alliances can only do so much. It's extraordinarily hard to hurt an active player even with a full alliance. Only way to do damage is with catapults, which many smaller alliances don't even possess (in numbers). Also attackers can't join forces. I have been attacked by a large scale alliance catapult attack by ~45 players once. Personal alliances with several other players (~10) supplied my defense which I had 3 days time to organize because catas are so frickin slow. In the end I had ~6k defenders in each village with wall up at lvl 19/20. Attackers came in with up to 1.5k troops each. Needless to say it was a slaughter, attackers were 200% of defenders in numbers, lost everything while defenders lost ~20-25% Edit: Sorry for not addressing your initial question. I played relativly save. You'll learn to differenciate between newbie alliances and those you have to be wary of. Off-ranking and average size is a good measurement for alliances. You actually don't have to piss off too many- it's astonishing how many inactives there are. (Also an inactive alliance player won't complain and if he does, he is more likely to be kicked out for inactivity than helped  ) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Edit: Sorry for not addressing your initial question. I played relativly save. You'll learn to differenciate between newbie alliances and those you have to be wary of. Off-ranking and average size is a good measurement for alliances. You actually don't have to piss off too many- it's astonishing how many inactives there are. (Also an inactive alliance player won't complain and if he does, he is more likely to be kicked out for inactivity than helped ) LOL haha. But what if it's a natioanlist alliance like PTsul or some romanian alliance (not ffht/roht) | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 03 2006 03:05 NeoIllusions wrote: On Jan. 26, 2006, Server 4 goes up. As of right now... Top 10 player size: 761, 694, 630, 616, 586, 579, 579, 573, 563, 562 (Players rank 1 - 83: all have a second village, player 84 is first person who doesn't.) Top 10 Off-stat: 1412, 1332, 1234, 1148, 1093, 1040, 1023, 1008, 996 Not sure how to find largest army. Early mid game I'd call that. It will still be at least 3 to 5 weeks before the first village is conquered. Senators cost extremely much (500k with buildings/research) and you need some quite large targets to make up for that (400 upwards). | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 03 2006 03:45 oneofthem wrote: They didn't organize well then. What they should have done was send decoy attacks to everyone of your villages and just conquer one or two of them with real attacks. LOL haha. But what if it's a natioanlist alliance like PTsul or some romanian alliance (not ffht/roht) Idiot, how can you tell their organisation? If you use your eyes and read you'll notice I had ~6k defenders in every village. What good are decoy attacks then? They came in 3 Waves, multiple decoys on every village at 13:00:00 to the second, 2nd wave at 16:00:00, real attack at 19:00:00. But casual players don't have offenses that are large enough to make a dent. Now go ahead and lolroflomg me some more. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
