Well, that was fun

[Lt_Anders]

XP mainly depends on equip of killed enemies +6k every 200sec. So less people you kill = less XP you gain per tick.

& right now there is not a lot of xp you gain from battles. I get just a little less xp on X1(about 1.5k with my generation against 1.8-2k from Strat battle), but I need to be in TS 10-30min before the battle, follow the orders & fight with this shitty gear(as a xbowman I saw cracked arbalest only once )

No, not really. If you kill all the enemies(or roughly all of them) by the end of the timer, you gain the MOST xp.Longer battles actually give better xp. That's why the sieges against castles between 2 groups would give the best xp. The timer would oft go almost to the minute.

Most battles end with 10 minutes or more left on the clock which is close to 30k xp that's LOST cause people died so quickly.

[Tears of Destiny]

(click to show/hide)

So if I understand correctly:

Western carebear bloc:
Grey Order
Druzhina
The Union
The Empire
Kingdom of the Nord

Eastern carebear bloc:
The Coalition
Mercs
SoA
Kapikulu
Wolves
Les Troys Lys
Crusader Alliance
CotgS

I counted 22 fiefs that are not under control of one of these carebear blocs and I give those 22 fiefs a week. You guys sure now how to make Strat boring as fuck. Same mega alliance as last time, same claims, but now we have a mega alliance on the other side.

gg

For several strats you have the UIF being an absolute powerhouse, and finally people gather their brains and form a new opposing powerhouse instead of being steamrolled on a whim.

I'm just surprised it took until Strat 4 and not 3 for this to happen. Strategus will always be politics as it involves "territory" and "factions" and if too many people start banding together then you start seeing counter-alliances. We will still see wars and battles though, as both alliances hardly like each other, so I am content. Strat battle page is busy as always and that is all that matters.

EDIT: I really don't see how this could have surprised anyone, as this is human nature being predictable and true. Strategus simulates factions and wars and it does that rather well, which is a far cry from a perpetual-war-torn-fantasy that a lot of "grunts" expect from Strategus who falsely expect wars to be plentiful and without politics (Which defies human nature). Strategus is a kingdoms simulator, nothing more.

 The entire thing needs to be overhauled to make fighting profitable if that is to change, otherwise you will see the realistic slow-build-ups that we have now and then a massive one-sided war, then a long period of small skirmishes then rinse-and-repeat. As of now fighting is 1.) Not profitable 2.) Does not make it easier to initiate new battles and 3.) Demands a disproportional amount of resources which makes constant quality battles unfeasible. Well... Welcome to a political game then.

[Bjord]

Pretty much summarized all my thoughts about Strat into that one post, Tears.

It also nicely contrasts SgtTeeth's baseless whining and hard reality and logic.

[Teeth]

Of course its completely logical that a second mega alliance formed as a reaction to the UIF. I do not blame the second mega alliance for doing what they did. I blame the first mega alliance for making Strat politically boring for 3 rounds, but that is not going to change. Victory and big chunks of xp take precedence over everything for some people. Secondly I have to blame the game mechanics, because the UIF's style is admittedly the most effective, which for Russians mean you have to use it, even if it isn't fun or interesting.

Luckily chadz seems to hate the current situation as much as I do, so I am reassured that Strat's potential won't forever be squandered by the mega alliances.

Strategus is a kingdoms simulator, nothing more.

Yes, but then without the pride, nationality, ethnic conflicts, fear, hegemonic aspirations, internal and religious turmoil that defined Medieval politics and made sure that alliances were brittle. Alliances are OP in this game, which makes the politics in this game consist of a choice which big alliance to join.

Breaking an alliance is basically a no go, because every clan carries grudges to the next Strat despite claiming not to. Which would basically be fixed if people were able to relax and shake hands after each round. It's just a game, what happens in the game stays in the game I'd say.

[Segd]

I do not blame the second mega alliance for doing what they did. I blame the first mega alliance for making Strat politically boring for 3 rounds, but that is not going to change.

I don't remember which mega alliance was first: Templar or Fallen block? 

[Teeth]

I don't remember which mega alliance was first: Templar or Fallen block? 

All I know for a fact is that UIF was too strong for anyone in Strategus 3 and did not disband for Strat 4, therefore creating the need for a second mega alliance.

[Cicero]

oh please fuck off already he is still whining omfg

[Tears of Destiny]

oh please fuck off already he is still whining omfg

I like that the majority of your posts lately is whining about whiners/QQers/etc. The irony is overwhelming.

[RamsesXXIIX]

I don't remember which mega alliance was first: Templar or Fallen block? 

It goes further back:

The Templars and Mercs were the big blocks in the first strategus, untill you guys appeared. You destroyed the Templars and formed the UIF with 22nd, Union(Was it union back then?), Grey Order, Legio and a few more I don't remember.

Honestly, we were never a mega-block. We were just one big clan who managed to hold our territory for 2 strats, with the help of HRE.

EDIT: Typo, courtesy of Lambhan ;)

[Olwen]

It goes further back:

The Templars and Mercs were the big block in the first strategus, untill you guys appeared. You destroyed the Templars and formed the UIF with 22nd, Union(Was it union back then?), Grey Order, Legio and a few more I don't remember.

Honestly, we were never a mega-block. We were just one big clan who managed to hold our territory for 2 strats, with the help of HRE.

Mercs never were allied with templars under my command. In strat 1 we were on our own.

[Casimir]

We had a contract, not an alliance as such, we paid for your support.

[LordBerenger]

We had a contract, not an alliance as such, we paid for your support.

UIF is what it is today because of Growl's quitting!!!!11 Lol

[RamsesXXIIX]

Mercs never were allied with templars under my command. In strat 1 we were on our own.

Typo, I wanted to say blocks

The Templars and Mercs were the big blocks in the first strategus,

[Matey]

If that would be put into place, the battle commander should be able to Kick people (or even ban them for the duration of the battle from EU/NA3). Otherwise we'll have a huge army of trolls and idiots fooling around due to anonymity. Polls won't be effective enough.

"TROOP 43 GET IN FORMATION!"
"TROOP 43 WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
"TROOP 43 DIES"

 

There's other ramifications as well, suddenly people will stop talking on TS, not relaying vital battle information or otherwise because they won't want to be recognized, given they want to play as many battles as possible. This would encourage sneaking around, lying, and generally bad behaviour. People would start fixing information on other players, for example which country is someone from, so they can easier spot them playing for the enemy (by checking out his TS) - or simply checking out IP(s). It wouldn't work unless there's a better commanding system present, one that would negate having to use Voice programs such as TS etc. Writing doesn't cut it at all in the bigger battles.

My point is, that this change alone would not help solve the actual issues behind, just mask it more.
We'll have players less talking and "socializing" and in general participating less, and other players/clans will fanatically try to make sure they have the best rosters (which would not be too hard).
It wouldn't solve any of the actual issues of allowing people to sign-up freely.

I personally do prefer anonymity in battle, e.g. only the battle commander knows who is who, only the host of the battle (or people with high enough rank) can see who have signed up etc. It would help, but as stated above it isn't a solution, it is simply 'moving the problem' slightly, and it carries a lot of other issues with it.

I didn't read all the posts after this, so if someone already suggested this, then just consider this a +1 for them... ANYWAYS
A solution to the issues you mentioned would be... rather than EVERYONE signing anonymously, you could just ALLOW people to apply anonymously with the expectation that they would not be on voice chat and would have a generic name and be hard to command. This means that you would have to take a chance on them... they would still have to follow rules and behave properly and not grief.. but you wouldnt have proper coordination with them and wouldnt know what to expect from them. This means that factions that already have no problems filling out rosters would choose not to hire any anonymous applicants, whereas groups that cannot fill rosters would be able to at least get some bodies on the battlefield.

[Zaharist]

I don't remember which mega alliance was first: Templar or Fallen block? 

sry for my English

first major alliances who were aggressive towards factions who formed UIF later:
1). ninja+coco+shogunate, supported by mercs a bit (contract)
2). Templar block and irc vs 22nd. not an alliance, but they both wiped 22nd out of desert
afterwards UIF appeared.
3). Templar block dissapeared
4). Pub crawl failed
5). Fallen and vassals couldn't do anything.

uif wasn't first super alliance, it's just the best. and it started with 2 native clans.

blame urself not uif for making this game lame and not as interesting as it could be.

thank u for attention