New Features & New Troops - Feedback & Discussion

The blacksmith once again looked at the parchment a visitor had just given him.
There was nothing particularly unusual about this order – to decorate armor and a weapon with an emblem... ⚔️ #ShadowEmpires

Curious to know more? ➡️ Follow the story!⬅️





  • Nobody talk about crop consumption of Egiptians ??? if we compare Egiptian def troops with Gaul's ... then they are weaker (only heavy horses are better than Haeduan and first infantry is better than Phalang) and the only way to be comparable is to produce more troops, which means more crop consuming.


    If you want TG to lower their bonuses and just to exist and nobody to play with them... Yep keep going.
    Even if they lower their waterwalk bonus to 25% people who play with multis they will play with Egiptians!


    And i try to explain before... Other tribes have other bonuses!

  • Well, I am sorry to differ, but I am not certain that egyptien are THAT more effective than gauls. I still believe that Egyptiens will have a great advantage, if the bonus of the hero stay the same.
    But only saying that Egyptian are better than gauls to produce mass troops is simply not true, or not anymore after the start:


    A phalanx become more profitable than a slave after 102hours of survival: the cost of the upkeep + production is then better for the phalanx. It is more and more rare to be in an account where your troops die every 102hours in my experience.
    It is more complicated to take into account the waterworks stuff. Especially if we take the hyptohethis that with the heros bonus you get a better capitale. But the bonus would be around 65-75% more cereales, for the capital. It is huge, but a well simmed account in end game produces a lot via capitale but it would be false to say that the entire production of the account is 50% more than one of an account without the waterworks.


    Moreover: egyptien have really bad mercheants. To supply crop for a defense that need to last during the night, or thinking long term in a world wonder would be HELL! 750 capacity (extended to 2250) with the speed of romans mercheants (slow) to supply a slave based defense, well, good luck for that.


    So, I believe a well played account for egyptien would still be extremely valuable for an alliance. But, let's not bury the gauls so fast...

  • I know a lot of people who are better with an 100% cropper than a 150% cropper. Depends on the player.

    Omg. Is that seriously your argument?
    And it's your loss if you stopped reading after the first line. You guys wanted numbers. Now you got them, you don't like them, so you don't read them. Impressive.

    Nobody talk about crop consumption of Egiptians ???

    Kras, we talked about it in length already. Egyptians can produce more crop consumption efficient foot soldiers than the Gauls and their horses are pretty much equal in terms of power/crop consumption.
    Here does the discussion begin: New Features & New Troops - Feedback & Discussion

    Well, I am sorry to differ, but I am not certain that egyptien are THAT more effective than gauls.

    Well. What else can I do except from providing you with specific numbers and percentages? If you just decide not too accept the numbers (45% more crop production in the capital and 7-26% more production per village)



    A phalanx become more profitable than a slave after 102hours of survival: the cost of the upkeep + production is then better for the phalanx. It is more and more rare to be in an account where your troops die every 102hours in my experience.

    We discussed about exactly this issue. Look at the link I provided for Kras. You can make the exact opposite and aruge that Egyptians foot soldiers are FAR more effective if you start the math like this. Because they have a unit costs the same consumption but gives more defensive power. What now?
    And additionally they have the possibility to dish our more defensive troops than any other tribe if there is a need. It's not a disadvantage to have this opportunity, no matter how you try it look at it.

    Moreover: egyptien have really bad mercheants. To supply crop for a defense that need to last during the night, or thinking long term in a world wonder would be HELL! 750 capacity (extended to 2250) with the speed of romans mercheants (slow) to supply a slave based defense, well, good luck for that.

    Yes, they have an disadvantage in terms of merchants. And that cancels out the ~20-30% higher overall production of their account? Because it makes the merchants even worse since they produce so much more resources than their counterparts AND their merchants are so slow and carry so little, now they are totally screwed and their resources will overflow most of the day. Ahh, sneaky TG!

  • Indeed, the ash warden is then an excellent def unit for these calmer times.


    As I said, I still believe that a great player on egyptien will have a better account that if he/she was gauls. But, if you put an average player on an egyptien account, I think he/she will have a far worse time producing troops than as a gauls (because the limitation of the neg that scare a lot of player will come quicker...)

  • And we already established that the Egyptian will settle significantly faster on average than non raiding-defenders of other tribes.

    nope again. you established it for yourself.
    you try to compare egiptians and another account ignoring tribe bonus of the second one at the begining as far as different tactics of development based on these tribe bonuses. you propose to compare egyptians on the field where their bonus will be more evident - simming.
    moreover you compare egyptians and gauls (having the weekest hero bonus for the start) but make conclusion about all tribes.
    so if you want to consider this particular case with two non raiding defenders it's you right, but this can not be applied to all cases, so your statement is totaly groundless.


    oh, the rest of your post with numbers... I can use kirriloid too, but this doesn't mean that I could get benifit from an egyptian account more than from romain for example


    to conclude this dispute about egyptians hero overpowering: double bonus ability is fine and there is no reason to cut it.

  • Maybe we have totally different goals or expectations.
    As I understand it, if you want to introduce a new tribe, you should strife for the goal of making it exactly as strong as the other tribes. Not stronger, not weaker. Obviously it can be stronger in certain areas and have deficiencies in different areas to make up for it, but in total they should be equal.
    That what I expect of a new tribe.


    What you guys are arguing in the last 100 posts or so is that "20% stronger than their counterpart is nothing you can't make up for if you raid efficient" or "20% stronger is not a big deal if you just play more active and do x, y and z"


    That might all be true. 20% better doesn't break the game. You are right with that. But why are you making the tribe better than their peers in the first place? Why not same strength? Why not balancing it?
    That's maybe our fundamental difference here.


    And of course that after the introduction of Egyptians significantly less people are going to play defensive Teut or Roman anymore. They just don't measure up anymore. Even against Gauls they were at a disadvantage and against Egyptians the disadvantage just quadrupled.

  • Kras, we talked about it in length already. Egyptians can produce more crop consumption efficient foot soldiers than the Gauls and their horses are pretty much equal in terms of power/crop consumption.Here does the discussion begin: New Features & New Troops - Feedback & Discussion

    Really Enti?


    1 Mio res as Egyptian: 2381 Ash Warden (226195 Def in total) [speed 6]
    1 Mio res as Gaul: 3175 Phalanxes (285750 Def in total) [speed 7]
    1 Mio res as Egyptian: 6667 Slaves (333350 Def in total) [speed 7]


    The only way to produce more def is to build those slaves... and they will eat your ass at some point.


    Ash Wardens are way to slow to made... so if you play as Egiptian and want to be comparable to Gaul, you need to produce Slaves till some point.


  • Ash Wardens are way to slow to made

    Sorry Kras, but this statement really makes me doubt your ability to contribute to this discussion. You apparently don't have the first clue how you are supposed to play a defensive account if you start arguing with building time.

  • I am noob , as i said many times.
    But if you throw few Egiptian villages compared to one Gaul... lets calculate all armour upgrades and smity build into the count...

  • Right now it is like this, a delicate balance between the defensive tribes:


    Teutons:
    Between Spearmen and Phalanxes there is a difference of 3,5% in terms of efficiency (how much defense you get for your invested res)
    And the difference between Palas and Druids is 12,2%. Additionally Druids are faster but Paladins are significantly better when it comes to raiding.


    Romans:
    Praetos vs. Phalanxes it's 31,8% in terms of defense per cost but at the same time Praetos are 11,1% more effective when it comes to defense per consumption.


    If you invest 1 mil res you get 2174 Praetos (217400 def) or 3175 Phalanx (285750 def)
    You'd need 68350 more defense to get even. That's the equivalent of 683.5 Praetos. And they cost 314410 more res. The Roman saves 1001 res per hour in crop. So after 314 hours he could build the missing 683.5 Praetos. That's a waiting period of 13 days. So there is a balance. Phalanxes are (like Slaves) better if you need a maximum amount of defense as fast as possible. (If you want to generate a maximum of defense with your resources)


    So there is another nice balance between the tribes. And of course, Praetos are painfully cheap, another disadvantage.
    And Romans don't even have horse defense. That's an even bigger disadvantage.


    But you can see that there is a "system" behind it. There is not 1 tribe who is better in everything.
    Gauls have cost-efficient and very fast defense.
    Teutons have cost-efficient and fast defense + they can raid with it
    Romans have crop-efficient and slow defense.


    Egyptians.. they have cost-efficient, crop-efficient and very fast defense which additionally can also raid.
    If they'd just cut the Ash Warden, or reduce his defense by 10-15, I think the whole thing would be so much more balanced.


    But much more production + "Praetish" defensive units + "druidish" horse units is just good. Sorry. One of them has to go.

  • A phalanx become more profitable than a slave after 102hours of survival: the cost of the upkeep + production is then better for the phalanx. It is more and more rare to be in an account where your troops die every 102hours in my experience.


    Interesting observation and I think you are correct. I looked a little more on the numbers including Spears and Pretorians.
    It looks like this (if my math is correct):
    0 to ~4.3 days (102 hours): Slave Militia
    ~4.3 days to ~8 days: Phalanx
    ~8 days to ~92 days: Spear
    more than ~92 days: Pretorians


    Using this calculation I would go for Spear as the best def, as I think that my def would often survive more than 8 days, but maybe not more than 92 days.
    But then comes the bad distribution between def against infantry and cavalry of the Spears (and Pretorians) compared to e.g. Phalanx's.
    This could be sorted by building Paladins, but then we are looking at more complicated calculations, if the defense should be equally strong against infantry and cavalry (which maybe it should not, depending on the distribution of the attacking army).

  • And who will be the huge winner? The romans :p


    The defensive unit of egyptien (and huns) are more anti pedestrian. And if the slave (or ash warden) replace the phalanx as egyptian replace gauls we will have anti pedestrian défense. And romans hammers will be pleased.

  • Enti for the last time:


    The most people don't care about crop consumption. I mean. I don't care if I have to feed 350k troops or 250k troops. When you play as Egypts, you won't have slaves as "standarddef". You have other units for that (see the calculation above).
    They are made for mobile def. Egypts are the best defenders to kill the most offensive troops with the lowest costs.


    And if you are playing Egypts but want a decent hammer: you've chosen the wrong tribe. They are offensive too expensive for the results.


    As you can see in my stats, the Roman def is just shit.




    As you can see in the last one: you can build ashes, but the "deftot/hour" is a lot lower (17%). Is that worth it? Don't know.
    Please stop whining Enti. The stats are clear.


    Best for standarddef: Ash Guards
    Best for mobile def: Slaves
    Want to play hybrid?: Play gauls.


    Especially for the BD-server the slaves are the best infantry (look at costs/power) and the druidrider.


    The problem is, everyone will choose their tribe on differens columns, one choose their tribe on crop consumption, others on costs, others on pure power and others of some combinations. I respect that and it's your own decision.


    My opnion is efficiency. As a deffer I want to make a (small) hammer next to it, so I shall play Huns or Gauls. Strong def, also good for standing deff, are fast and can farm.

    NLX: Team Rocket, Zinderin, V-Vogels (Mr. De Uil)
    COMX: N&C (Thomas de Trein)
    RoA COM: Twelve Monkeys (Harambe)

    Post was edited 1 time, last by MCCFire ().

  • The most people don't care about crop consumption. I mean. I don't care if I have to feed 350k troops or 250k troops

    well.... you're making an assumption there. Not saying I agree or disagree with Enti or you, but for the more casual players, the amount of negative crop you have can have a big impact - especially if you are playing solo/only have so much time to dedicate to the game. If you look at Egyptians (for example) and you put a decently active player there, who is building defensive troops, and doesn't have the time to raid, whether they're feeding 250k or 350k can impact a lot.

    he problem is, everyone will choose their tribe on differens columns, one choose their tribe on crop consumption, others on costs, others on pure power and others of some combinations. I respect that and it's your own decision.

    and then your counter your original point with this, so then you have to accept that maybe your first line is not true and possibly more people care about crop consumption than you think (not saying its definite) :) maybe not on comx for example, but on smaller servers or non-international ones.


    Just making a point and ofc you are entitled to your own opinion :)

  • Egyptians don't care about crop consumption either. Waterworks! That's the whole reason this building (and this situation) exists.


    I guarantee that when they were designing the Egyptians, they wanted a tribe that could train units quickly, but need a lot of them to be effective. The biggest disadvantage of this kind of tribe is the incredibly high amount of crop consumed. How to balance that out? Give them a building that can potentially increase crop production. Oh, and also emphasize this "Egyptian resource bonus" thing by granting that kind of bonus to the hero as well. The problem with this is the entire game is based solely on production. How do you produce things? You use resources for them. So, what happens when a single tribe is freely given more resources than any other tribe?


    Let's use analogies (I like those). Lets say you have four people. You give each of them a bike and tell them they had to ride it 3 miles to the store, buy some gum, and come back. Easy, right? Everyone can do it, right? Fair, right? Ok, now we're going to add a fifth person. Except instead of giving them a bike, they get a car. Still fair, right?


    How about this one. You get a job at $10 an hour. You work 8 hours in a day, you earn $80 (minus taxes, but I'm not gonna calculate all that for convenience sake). 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, $400 per week. Simple, functional. Another person is going to be hired. They are hired at the same level as you (same job description and everything), earning $10 like you. But they also get a free $20 a day, regardless of whether or not they work at all that day (for workdays, not weekends). Now that person only has to work 6 hours a day to get $80 for that day. They can work 8 hours for four days and just not show up at all on the 5th day, and still earn the same $400 per week as you do. If that person works the same as you, that person will come out with $500 per week. Their job is the same, the work is the same, they do nothing different than you, but they freely get $100 more than you. Fair, right?


    This entire game is about resources. It's the sole reason why players who raid generally build faster than non-raiding players. They gain access to more resources; resources they previously would never have had. More resources = more production, more CP, faster times to expansion. And all of this production builds off of itself in a continuing cycle. It's why the amount of CP required to expand grows with each village. If it didn't, people would get to a place where every second they gain enough CP to settle another village.


    What we have now is a tribe that has access to resources in a way no other tribe does. More resources without having to do any work for it; it's simply there for them. Troop numbers and troop production has been talked about a lot. We know the percentages, we know the speeds, we know which units are the best. And if the Egyptians troops were utterly atrocious by comparison to every other tribe, then this might not be as big of a problem. But they don't. They can pair with the rest of them quite nicely. It really is all about these bonuses to resources. More at the start, which means more in a day, which means more in a week, which means more in a month, and so on and so forth. And the Waterworks doesn't just fix their crop issues with troop numbers. It benefits all resources (and not just in the capital either). This means every Egyptian village has the capability to out-produce any village from the other four tribes


    They took the one thing in Travian that is required to quite literally do anything; resources; and gave a tribe more of them than anyone else. THAT is the problem!

  • Sorry Kras, but this statement really makes me doubt your ability to contribute to this discussion. You apparently don't have the first clue how you are supposed to play a defensive account if you start arguing with building time.

    I hope I have some credit on the subject of building defensive account.


    I got feeling that (some) speed players just don't understand what feeding is. My current experiences with speed server supports it - feeding is not an issue on speed, nothing compare to regular server.

  • I think the point was more that build time doesn't matter too much, since you can always just start up another village producing def if you have the res for it. Which is very true. Unlike hammers that you want to be as big as possible in one village (exception for servers with merging ofc). Though, I do think it matters slightly if you've just lost a bunch of defense as a meta, and need to rebuild quickly for more attacks.


    Apologies if you were just making a separate point Ele, but the quote suggests otherwise ;)

  • They took the one thing in Travian that is required to quite literally do anything; resources; and gave a tribe more of them than anyone else. THAT is the problem!

    The problem is that we have specialized tribe now that encourages use of multi and tech accounts. Such an awesome garage.


    It also discourage active players from playing defense, which is sad.

tg_TL-DQ4_970x250_181126.jpg