It is pretty depressing to see these forums. Last time I played was 2012? Forums were active and community oriented. People recruited, talked smack, posted reports, friendly banter.
Now, it is 5 whole threads with mine included. I'm not much one for community organizing but lets do something! MakeTravianGreatAgain!
My gripe with the server is power consolidation. There use to be multi server alliances in the past, but never such consolidation. It may be the game mode forcing it upon us for any chance of winning. Back on 400x400 you would have 2-3-4 ally per quad fighting, and then inter-quad warfare later on. That is at least 8 main alliances. This round felt like 4 or 5?
I never did play Path to Pandora before this round, and when I saw a WW as a requirement to a GW or GG I just assumed it was the same as 3.0 or 3.5, besides the map, until a few months into the server. When I finally looked at victory points, or the artifacts, I realized I made many blunders and recovery is almost impossible unless you join the winning alliance. I also quickly realized the multiplying effect of artifacts and helmets, of speed artifacts, boots and TS, that Hun's have greater chief speed, that conquered towns don't change to your account's civilization.
The new strategies available are astounding, I wish I had known before I joined. Some of the new restriction are also disappointing.
- Demanding tribute or soldiers from active players you're farming is a no go.
- Spiking farms or alliances of mutual enemies is a no go.
- Longer BP.
Some things that are not restriction but have changed. are sad to see but I understand this is a living, ongoing game. I do like the new tribes, I remember people whining for new tribes weekly back in 2012, and the developers view was ranged units wouldn't bring anything except fluff and the 3 existing tribes provided everything already as a balanced game. They're view was for the most part correct. Ranged units are just the same old thing. Huns advantage of more chiefs, Egyptians as more resource are quite nice, but the fact both of them hold middle ground as being able to provide units to offense and defense as the same units is proof that the basic 3 tribes offered a good mix as long as you understood the game. The chief or resource addition is solely their defining factor.
Now that we can chief multiple nations, I think the strategy is to provide yourself with proper towns of each nation to provide their specific niche. I plan to go Roman or Hun as spawn town next round. Have an Egyptian ally settle a good 15C for me to chief when I play Roman, or go straight for the command center and 2 chief as Hun to take a Roman and Egyptian town. Nerfs to Steppe Riders make Merc / Marks very appealing, they don't provide very good defense against large hammers, but early on could probably do their part. Mid-game is to take 1 or 2 Gaul towns for permanent phalanx production.
Only issue is attack power / crop endgame for Huns isn't very good at all. Why I want a Roman town. Gauls seem to still be second place. As it has always been, its AP / crop, not AP / res. It is all in the build time, which is for the most part, your best AP / crop. But even have multi nations provides many options. You wanna clear traps? Throw a slave or clubbie army into a Gaul town on the cheap. Cheap fakes? Teuton as always. Easy 3 chief? Hun. Versatility? Egypt. I would say best simmer still Roman, but a Roman / Egypt account is looking pretty damn fine right about now, maybe even overall.