No one has defended a village

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Im not going to lie, I am quite upset that certain clans have fought 500 peasants only to lose 2 tickets because only a few players turned up to fight for the village. This keeps happening and it is an absolute pain to me as I was attacking a village which was defended by the full complement of players (maybe cause everyone hates us). We won the battle solidly and only lost 196 tickets because we played with a solid plan and played well. But a hell of a lot of the village battles have seen no resistance at all which is one thing that should be limiting the larger clans growth, the fact that they aspire to take more villages and therefore will lose more players.

I know now there is nothing we can do as most villages have been taken but next strategus I would love to see people forget about their diplomatic relations and defend a village for the fun and for the game balance

[Chagan_Arslan]

i say implement ai bots like the ones in defend the village

yeah i know impossible

oh well ;p

[Beans]

Now that battles give xp, I imagine we will see a very large increase in the amount of people defending neutrals.

[Franke]

I agree with Beans.
We made similar experiences up to now. The villages we took were defended bravely by many mercs while others are only scarcely defended.
However, I dont think that diplomacy is the main reason to blame. I heard many guys who blamed the lack of xp gain for it. If you support an attacker you can still improve your relations to the attacking clan, but supporting AI villagers will bring you nothing, especially if you could at the same time play CRPG grinding gold..

[dodnet]

It would help too, if one could apply right before the battle. I would have jumped in to defend a village quite a few more times if the AI would let me in a few minutes before the battle starts. I was always to late...

[Keshian]

I agree with Beans.
We made similar experiences up to now. The villages we took were defended bravely by many mercs while others are only scarcely defended.
However, I dont think that diplomacy is the main reason to blame. I heard many guys who blamed the lack of xp gain for it. If you support an attacker you can still improve your relations to the attacking clan, but supporting AI villagers will bring you nothing, especially if you could at the same time play CRPG grinding gold..

I think the time slots had most to do with it.  Also, the earliest battles had a lot more initial interest from people new to strategus.  Also, compared to last strategus, the attacking armies had much better gear faster than the villagers fairly quickly (in less than a week), so the exciting peasant v peasant where the village battles were close are gone too early.

[Slantedfloors]

I don't know about anyone else, but every single one of LLJK's attacks on NPC villages has been against entirely full village rosters.

That's sure getting annoying.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

This is the thing... it's very much all or nothing. The Hospitalliers with their 1000 men had to take a village of 500, but me and 3 other players were the only people who signed up for the battle so rather than taking a couple hundred casualties they took 0 :/

I wonder if it's because everyone doesnt want to upset the NE?

[Matey]

Remember Tebandra!!!

[Duster]

I don't know about anyone else, but every single one of LLJK's attacks on NPC villages has been against entirely full village rosters.

That's sure getting annoying.

Heh.

[Casimir]

Fallen lost one of their village attacks...

It just depends on who's willing to fight and at what time.

[Elerion]

Since the initial excitement of Strategus wore off it's just been a diplomacy game. Since 80% of the clans are giving each other reach-arounds hoping to get in whatever huge alliance will dominate this incarnation of Strategus, that's just how it's going to work.

I'm kind of disappointed, really. It would be more fun with smaller alliances with multiple fronts, instead of the current situation with one amorphous mega-alliance and a few independent factions actually doing the fighting. I understand that's how it worked out last Strategus too though, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Agreed Elerion All the large clans are sitting aside on their 'claimed' territory, bullying any smaller clans that want to try and take some land too while trying to avoid war with anyone as big as themselves in case it all crumbles. This is a war simulator not a treaty signing contest...

[Gorath]

Since the initial excitement of Strategus wore off it's just been a diplomacy game. Since 80% of the clans are giving each other reach-arounds hoping to get in whatever huge alliance will dominate this incarnation of Strategus, that's just how it's going to work.

I'm kind of disappointed, really. It would be more fun with smaller alliances with multiple fronts, instead of the current situation with one amorphous mega-alliance and a few independent factions actually doing the fighting. I understand that's how it worked out last Strategus too though, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Agreed Elerion All the large clans are sitting aside on their 'claimed' territory, bullying any smaller clans that want to try and take some land too while trying to avoid war with anyone as big as themselves in case it all crumbles. This is a war simulator not a treaty signing contest...

Didn't DarkFail teach anyone anything about this type of game?

[Kalam]

Diplomacy and time slots.