Strategus Reset?

[Vovka]

Fief giveaways should be 100% random (to hopefully piss off people, fuck with claims, and break blocs and such trends).

Yeah sure if i not get my fiefs i will be piss off... i will attack greys and hre will be my best frieds... bull shit
u cant breake blocks with voiting sysem, cos every one know who stay behind names

[Osiris]

i don't want a fief voting system! my one vote wont get me any fiefs

[Lt_Anders]

If you want to lower gold Income, make it a semi-medival income. Goods price would only be 1-10(max). In fact 1-7 silver would be the optimal.

[Butan]

Building your fiefs > Neutral fiefs > Voting fiefs


Make it yourself > Conquer it yourself > Elect yourself

[Keshian]

Get rid of fief voting system for castles and cities.  Was a lot more dynamic and fun to have a lot of neutral cities and castles difficult to take that you build up to and people freely use trading and can safely be isnide.

[Casimir]

If your not voting for castles and towns dont make their garrisons ridiculous. Took so long for them to fall before it was pointless half of them being on the map.

[Vermilion]

For #6. Small factions are already forced into alliances to fill their rosters.  This won't change that.  Increasing upkeep won't make a difference either though.  In fact that will hurt small factions more as a larger faction has more fiefs/players to spread troops around, whilst a small faction only has limited places to keep their troops.  Finally silver to a large faction is easy to find whilst for a small faction it is more difficult making your suggestion even worse for small factions.  You could double troop upkeep and the Coalition would still be rolling in cash.

I mean alliance like coalition where two clans have joined into the same faction. Currently smaller factions befriend larger factions for roster support and to not get wiped, but there is no guarantees in this and they remain separate factions which can switch sides at any time.

As for the Silver, that's why I said DRASTICALLY over 1800, this means even small clans will still be able to have multiple 1800 man armies at the same price they do now. Whilst those stacking troops in one location will have huge upkeep (I know Coalition etc have endless money now, but we are talking about changes for the next strat. So it won't have much effect now where everyone has 1000's of troops all shiny armed but will hopefully cause people to spread their troops next strat, giving more places to attack.)


I don't like your ticks = troop cap idea because I am frequently running out of ticks. I mainly play strat battles and don't spend much time on 'normal' servers. So, when I run out of ticks I make more of an effort to join EU2 to earn some ticks. Even then it's never guaranteed that I will make any ticks. I don't see why I should loose troops because I don't have ticks yet have enough silver for upkeep.
What's the point of me making more ticks if they are going to run out and i'm going to loose all the troops I just made?

Again I feel this will just be something else which will push people in to forming larger mega clans/factions. HRE can come on EU2 in numbers and roll X5 all day and night. I (a solo player) get a multi every now and again will have my reward removed when I can't keep the multi. Might as well join HRE (or any other big clan that can roll the multi) get shit loads of ticks and exp whilst making HRE even more powerful on the strat map.

[Kalp]

2) ChangeRemove the fief voting system (not sure how but needs to be far easier to manage and with an even more random result to force clans away from the same old claims)

[Matey]

Here are a couple things I don't recall seeing much/any discussion about that i really want to see in strat 5...

1. Set time limit. Pick a number of months and thats it. If people know it'll only last so long they should be willing to take more risks and people will know they can take another crack at it later.
2. Tweak the economy a bit so that we see less plate crutching later in rounds. This might not be a big deal with fixed time limit on strat but one way to make this more likely would be either:
                 a: increase the upkeep cost on troops a lot so that maintaining large armies is less and less attractive... Use em or go broke.
                 b: have upkeep for gear so that more expensive gear costs more money.
     The downside to B is that people could just buy the gear right when they need it only. It would be interesting though if clans had to choose between maintaining small extremely well equipped armies or larger less armoured armies.

I also have one idea that would fix up the 1/3 rule as well as the item bug from repeat attacks...
What if you could have multiple garrisons in a fief? Example: you have CityA with 2000 troops in garrison 1 with their own gear and then 2000 troops in garrison 2 and 1271 troops in garrison 3. each garrison has its own gear and if the CityA is attacked the defending faction leaders would be able to choose which garrison will fight the battle. There could also be a maximum number of troops allowed in each garrison in order to solve the 1/3 rule for fiefs and there could be a maximum number of garrisons to discourage saving too many troops in the fief. The best part about this is that if the fief owner isnt able to manage the items after a siege then his faction could just switch to a different garrison for the next battle. Eventually the item problems would catch up to them if they are unable to merge garrisons and such but it could be possible to manage the garrisons who are not defending. If the city gets captured then remaining garrisons would be captured too but that is already a risk with large garrisons. The main idea is just to allow a few sieges in a row before item problems.

[Malaclypse]

Please remove artificial battle time limits. Battles should end when flags are capped or tickets are dead, this "TIME IS OUT THE BATTLE IS OVER"stuff sucks.

[Real_Dece_Guy]

Please remove artificial battle time limits. Battles should end when flags are capped or tickets are dead, this "TIME IS OUT THE BATTLE IS OVER"stuff sucks.

That would give a huge advantage to attackers in most scenarios, not to mention making battles so long that no-one who even pretends to have a life could play the game anymore.

[Malaclypse]

That would give a huge advantage to attackers in most scenarios, not to mention making battles so long that no-one who even pretends to have a life could play the game anymore

Well I'm glad you understood my aim, at least. Strategus already favors no-lifes, let's stop beating around the bush and make it only feasible for them, haha

Alternatively, scale up upkeep so armies over 1500 or so aren't even realistically possible to have in the field or fief. I just think it's stupid that we have the ability to have 2000, 3000, 4000 man armies without being able to realistically use them because of the artificial time limit magically murdering anyone left over when it hits zero. Wicked dumb.

I guess as another option to combat that we could just stop making it so troops/gear disappear after a battle hits zero and just put the parties involved back on the map with whatever they were at when a battle ended. My gripe is mostly with the idea that 3000 men can attack 2000, kill most of them, then have the time run out and the remaining 1200 dudes on attacking side just poof into thin air because of what, the plague?

[Tomas]

Get rid of fief voting system for castles and cities.  Was a lot more dynamic and fun to have a lot of neutral cities and castles difficult to take that you build up to and people freely use trading and can safely be isnide.

The old system was shit.  I love people's short memories about it but it was just a steam roll by the larger clans with crap battles that were only fun for the attackers and the idiots that think a castle wall is only there to act as a diving board.  Most of the battles only had half a defensive roster leading to easy spawn caps which meant free troops to the attacker.  This then snowballed and meant the bigger clans who managed to take 1 Castle were automatically given the resources to take the next castle and so on. 

Voting was also shit but at least the result was much better.  Numerous clans were able to establish themselves both big and small and they were even able to survive.  The fact that it was a hidden vote also forced the bigger clans to waste votes on securing their main claims which left even more room for smaller clans. 

I for one never want to see AI rosters ever again and if that means voting then so be it.  Ideally though i'm hoping someone can actually think of something better than either option we've had so far.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

The old system was shit.  I love people's short memories about it but it was just a steam roll by the larger clans with crap battles that were only fun for the attackers and the idiots that think a castle wall is only there to act as a diving board.  Most of the battles only had half a defensive roster leading to easy spawn caps which meant free troops to the attacker.  This then snowballed and meant the bigger clans who managed to take 1 Castle were automatically given the resources to take the next castle and so on. 

Voting was also shit but at least the result was much better.  Numerous clans were able to establish themselves both big and small and they were even able to survive.  The fact that it was a hidden vote also forced the bigger clans to waste votes on securing their main claims which left even more room for smaller clans. 

I for one never want to see AI rosters ever again and if that means voting then so be it.  Ideally though i'm hoping someone can actually think of something better than either option we've had so far.

I totally agree!

The voting system is actually good. It just needs some tweaking. I think one option could be to limit the amount of fiefs any clan can have. Max it out at 3 fiefs. The result would be a super fragmented map that would cause big old wars and coalitions right out of the gate. Never forget Ego, it makes people do dumb things and is hilarious!

They should defiantly jack up the upkeep, make it a damn cliff!

As far as stopping made tin can ganking looming gear should also have a progression. Looming leather armour should require less PP than looming Gothic Plate with Bevor. Also it might be worth adding in actual production. So you can't just go and buy infinite gear. Instead gear would have an S&D type situation that would require you to really look out for what you do with your armies because replacing 1500 man tin can army is going to be a massive expedition. This would also increase the use of towns as points of sale for gear.

[Sparvico]

Looming leather armour should require less PP than looming Gothic Plate with Bevor. Also it might be worth adding in actual production. So you can't just go and buy infinite gear. Instead gear would have an S&D type situation that would require you to really look out for what you do with your armies because replacing 1500 man tin can army is going to be a massive expedition. This would also increase the use of towns as points of sale for gear.

It is a well know fact that armor was available in limitless quantities all throughout the Middle Ages.