Boretegus

[MrShine]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I think the risk/reward scales are seriously off in strat right now.  Monster alliances are just twiddling their thumbs, we're just barely getting out of the peasant gear stone age, but no one wants to risk a battle where they might lose the hundreds of 'hours' worth of troops and gear they accumulated.

Strat should be about having hard-fought battles where selecting the best players/mercs and having the better battleplan/organization prevails.
Strat should be about logging on after a day and looking forward to one or two big sieges/skirmishes to play a part in.

Strat should not be about grinding in fiefs and castles for days on end.
Strat should not be about constant insta-win "battles" that are more tedious than fun.
Strat should not be about which faction has more idle "drones" than another to decide military strength in the form of gold & troops.

I recognize the challenges involved, and I know that some of them can never fully be overcome.  Still, increasing the ease to build armies and gain gold would go a long way towards making it more fun to, you know, actually fight.  Perhaps adding some sort of "honor" system in which you can gain "honor" by battling relatively evenly matched opponents and then use that to.. I don't know do something.  That might help make strat less of a gank-fest.

[Violent]

You've missed they hay-day of Strategus. Sorry bup.

[Rikthor]

This is what happens when you move from the gold standard to chadzonomics. Sorry friend.

[Memento_Mori]

Exciting seeing so many 49vs0 or 49vs1 battles coming up. lol

[SquishMitten]

all those poor inactive people being bullied by 49 man armies

[SeQuel]

all those poor inactive people being bullied by 49 man armies

all those poor inactive people being bullied by 49 man armies

all those poor inactive people being bullied by 49 man armies

all those poor inactive people being bullied by 49 man armies

That is not a army. A strat army is in the hundreds and thousands which is what strat needs to be like. So much carebear and slow shit.

[Kafein]

The game is too defensive. Fiefs shouldn't grant you extreme advantages, and fielding a decent army should be extremely easy, while actually sustaining it for a long time should be extremely hard.

[Elmokki]

fielding a decent army should be extremely easy, while actually sustaining it for a long time should be extremely hard.

This!

Hell, it'd be even semi-plausible. You could go for realism and just have a huge pool of people available at a village to be recruited for a small sign up fee. If people desert (ie you can't pay) they return to the pool.  Alternatively you could just scrap the pools and allow players to get practically infinite troops if they want.

This would probably need a system where your max tickets in a battle are determined by your starting gear: naked and weaponless peasants won't fight so that every defence battle won't happen with close to infinite troops and 90%+ of tickets spawning naked and trying to pick up a weapon.

You could even make it a hybrid system with two types of troops. Levies and professional soldiers. Professional soldiers would be similiar to current: static fee, slow to recruit. Levies would be very quick and cheap to recruit, but their fees would increase with time fairly quickly. Both would die in battles equally, but you wouldn't want levies unless you're going to attack soon.

It'd work rather well with some sort of a leadership attribute that limits maximum army size per player too.

[Dezilagel]

The game is too defensive. Fiefs shouldn't grant you extreme advantages, and fielding a decent army should be extremely easy, while actually sustaining it for a long time should be extremely hard.

No, I think it should be the other way around. Fiefs should grant you a big advantage, so much that individual players will drool over the prospect of having one, and thus generate tensions both within and outside the clans.

[Konrax]

The big difference between strat now and the old strat is this:

It is now more equitable to purchase expensive gear, and field smaller armies because they will not drain your resources as quickly.

Since gear is an up front cost, and since you can craft it at a much lower price, you can now have very well armed forces that are small.

Old strat was about having huge armies of low gear armies, now you can viably have a 100 man army with medium gear and maybe even some plate, that with skilled players would destroy a 1000 man army of peasants.

Rage on

[SeQuel]

The big difference between strat now and the old strat is this:

It is now more equitable to purchase expensive gear, and field smaller armies because they will not drain your resources as quickly.

Since gear is an up front cost, and since you can craft it at a much lower price, you can now have very well armed forces that are small.

Old strat was about having huge armies of low gear armies, now you can viably have a 100 man army with medium gear and maybe even some plate, that with skilled players would destroy a 1000 man army of peasants.

Rage on

Clearly you're retarded. When ATS was defending their land last strat they had really good gear, and more. They just managed it really poorly. They even had dedicated sets of black armor for Goretooth. Money was easy back then and people could easily rake in a million gold to spend which made gear that much less "important" which then led to bigger, less carebear wars. Strat shouldn't take as long as it did to start up and get rolling, especially if it's going to be wiped every 6 months/1 year. It's unfortunate that strat went this direction, I understand why they did it but it's clearly not working out. Also if you don't put a cap on alliances you're never going to stop carebear alliances like UIF, NE, etc.

In my opinion, strat 2 was A LOT better then 3, and I was even on the losing side. Eastern Tsardom at the time with Northern Empire.

[Tears of Destiny]

Konrax, the level of good gear is substantially worse in strat 3 then it was in strat 2.

[SquishMitten]

The big difference between strat now and the old strat is this:

It is now more equitable to purchase expensive gear, and field smaller armies because they will not drain your resources as quickly.

Since gear is an up front cost, and since you can craft it at a much lower price, you can now have very well armed forces that are small.

Old strat was about having huge armies of low gear armies, now you can viably have a 100 man army with medium gear and maybe even some plate, that with skilled players would destroy a 1000 man army of peasants.

Rage on

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Do you even play strat?

[Herkkutatti]

Its too risky to attack someone with some troops , Gold is very hard to make alone. Getting troops is easy but upkeep is pain in ass . I liked strat 2 more because i had good gear and 300 troops without getting any help from anyone now thats almost imbossibru.

[Goretooth]

Clearly you're retarded. When ATS was defending their land last strat they had really good gear, and more. They just managed it really poorly. They even had dedicated sets of black armor for Goretooth. Money was easy back then and people could easily rake in a million gold to spend which made gear that much less "important" which then led to bigger, less carebear wars. Strat shouldn't take as long as it did to start up and get rolling, especially if it's going to be wiped every 6 months/1 year. It's unfortunate that strat went this direction, I understand why they did it but it's clearly not working out. Also if you don't put a cap on alliances you're never going to stop carebear alliances like UIF, NE, etc.

In my opinion, strat 2 was A LOT better then 3, and I was even on the losing side. Eastern Tsardom at the time with Northern Empire.

Always been against having reserved gear for people. Let's outfit one of the three to four armies...... good call ecko and gash.