Strategus Changes

[ArysOakheart]

Yes fucking please.  Make it easier to equip armies and wage war.  Having people schedule their time around battles only for them to end up being 5 minute peasant fights is an incredible waste of a game with so much potential.

Look who it is. The Free Peasants of Fisdnar's only Holy Tome of Neckbeard Entry.

[Harpag]

Everyone knows that changing rules in the middle of gameplay without free respec, and constant increasing level of micromanagment makes this game more and more interesting and rules more transparent. Remember, best rules is no rules. Perhaps it would be best when UIF just stop playing. Then everyone else will be happy and the game finally becomes really interesting. I'm deeply convinced that such a move will bring almost exponential growth popularity of the game and soon our community exceed one billion members. Good luck especially that cRPG servers just now have fewer players and filling the roster comes more and more difficult. We all doing tics in cRPG with a geek passion, because everyone loves peasants fight 100 vs 100 

[KingBread]

Come on mayby Coalition will stop playing so you will have no real enemies and can do whatever you want and don't care about any rules. Every change that will be applyed then will have no effect on Caladria map cos you can dominate it easly.

[Vovka]

Come on mayby Coalition will stop playing so you will have no real enemies and can do whatever you want and don't care about any rules. Every change that will be applyed then will have no effect on Caladria map cos you can dominate it easly.

UIF has worked hard to create such a union as Coalition and the Crusader alliance, if you leave it will be our biggest Fail   

[KingBread]

Yea forcing Fallens to unite with Templars... gj

[kinngrimm]

noone i believe of the opposing forces wants you guys of the UIF to leave, for once indepentenly of strat and clan/faction affiliations there are friendships between players, but the main reason if you haven't got a worthy opponent it becomes boring.

As far as i have seen through the posts here, equally UIF or others, would appreciate a respec of PP.
So this is not about politics, but as said before about a rule change which was there from start and now changes the basic economy. If this economy is now fucked up because of that rule change, whats the point of even trying to play strat, as for most factions it is about setting up first their eco and on top of that, their capabilities for warfare.

Also Kesh is totally right about not including more, but less micro management. For most of us it was a great relieve to see that we would have less micromanagement this reset. That the S&D introduction basicly fucked up the game for independent traders is still not really solved by those new rules. Even if you would put all the singleplayers into one big trading faction they wouldn't be allowed trading, as factions will always try to have as much as possible control over their income.
Perhaps reduce the PP cost of taxes, that way factions may setup really high taxes at places they don't want anyone to trade and low taxes where they would allow it. If someone then fucks up their S&D at high tax places, well at least they get something out of it.
For this include the actual amount of taxes into the info box on top left when you click on a fiefs name.
EDIT: additionaly perhaps a max limit  % of tax, so fief owners can't go over f.e. 40%; that combined with less PP for tax changes, so fief owners would be able to change the taxes in a fair amount of time.

@Pygar

(click to show/hide)

and again another misconception which also has nothing to do with this topic. As far as i know, Bjord got essay banned because of his interactions with an admin and he isn't anymore through his essay and his promises.

[serr]

Kinngrimm, I agree with everything except taxes. Factions will close their borders anyway, 100% > 40%, but it will make trading pointless for neutal players , cause 40% for buying and then 40% for selling is way too much. And it will kill s&d theft - why would you risk to steal s&d from your enemy if he'll get 40%?

[Harpag]

Bread. You understand us badly. Let me say it again.

During designing economics of your block, you have committed a serious error in distribution of points (PP). Shit happens (Incidentally, I don't understand how this could have happened, if you have access to first-hand information. A little loltarded hehe), but that doesn't mean that we think that's good because it means less battles, and we want more and larger battles.

It's good that new change is introduced, but we have serious doubts about the same method of entry into force. Nature of this change, causing cancellation of your mistake and impose penalty for us. Penalty for using brain during planning.

If you need such strong support from zystem, say it in OPEN text, and never talk to us about fairplay and equal opportunities for all.

If these changes are made in this form, then we will have the moral right to say that we are the winners of Strategus 4.0 regardless of the result on the map, although I have no doubt that in spite of all this we will win this war.

[Falka]

2) Added weight penalty on goods if you have more of them than troops. With 100 troops, you can have 2*100 goods without penalty, but not 1*200, or even 1*101.

It's ridiculous and illogical.

[kinngrimm]

Kinngrimm, I agree with everything except taxes. Factions will close their borders anyway, 100% > 40%, but it will make trading pointless for neutal players , cause 40% for buying and then 40% for selling is way too much. And it will kill s&d theft - why would you risk to steal s&d from your enemy if he'll get 40%?

true, i have to agree concerning the S&D theft, as i see it as a viable form of warfare introduced, which brought us a new tactical component. But isn't there the problem now that the taxes are all to be paid at the selling place? I just don't see the reason for that new rule as in my first post i need to ask WHY this? What is accomplished by that? What is the reason perhaps behind the reason? I don't get it. The only thing is, that now only the selling places make huge money and therefor will be controlled even more, while the selling places loose in terms of importance to the owner of that place.

Also flexibility is important, through warfare any faction can gain new territory, if it takes for them forever to change singled out stats of a fief without making a respec and loosing huge amount of PP, then the new claim may render to be pointless(exaggerated).

EDIT: i also wouldn't usggest like, 1PP = 1% tax change, but at least a flatter curve for the increase of PP for each 1% tax change

[Harpag]

8) Remove prosperity modifier that was based on goods price.

+

old zystem 1/3 with price 5 and 2/3 with price 25
new zystem 50/50
here's how

This!

[dodnet]

The only thing is, that now only the selling places make huge money and therefor will be controlled even more, while the selling places loose in terms of importance to the owner of that place.

That sentence doesnt make any sense 

[Andswaru]

Bread. You understand us badly. Let me say it again.

During designing economics of your block, you have committed a serious error in distribution of points (PP). Shit happens (Incidentally, I don't understand how this could have happened, if you have access to first-hand information. A little loltarded hehe), but that doesn't mean that we think that's good because it means less battles, and we want more and larger battles.

It's good that new change is introduced, but we have serious doubts about the same method of entry into force. Nature of this change, causing cancellation of your mistake and impose penalty for us. Penalty for using brain during planning.

If you need such strong support from zystem, say it in OPEN text, and never talk to us about fairplay and equal opportunities for all.

If these changes are made in this form, then we will have the moral right to say that we are the winners of Strategus 4.0 regardless of the result on the map, although I have no doubt that in spite of all this we will win this war.

Down voting that post from Harpag does not make it any less true sadly. Would actually like to hear from the chadz, his reasoning behind the change or we can all continue presuming that Tomas influenced him to reset it too correct the mistakes his alliance made.

[serr]

Maybe I am stupid, but please explain "old zystem 1/3 with price 5 and 2/3 with price 25
new zystem 50/50 " this to me, I really can't understand what do you mean.

[Vovka]

Maybe I am stupid, but please explain "old zystem 1/3 with price 5 and 2/3 with price 25
new zystem 50/50 " this to me, I really can't understand what do you mean.

poke me in TS ))