*****Rally against the Grey Order

[Teeth]

"you're too strong you bannerstack and kill the whole EU1 and it's not fun to play like that"

Then I would say, ''yes I agree, it isn't fun to just steamroll everybody because of superior numbers'' and then I would leave the server. I find rolling with 20 Byzantium on EU 1 very boring and lame if we are constantly winning easily. Close fights are much more fun, this goes for EU 1 and for Strategus. Apparently DRZ and GO disagree and would rather roll EU 1 for years in a row, winning easy victories and watching the server population drop until it dies.

[Macropus]

"Balancing" doesnt allow the 2 strongest clans on the offical server to be on the same side all the time, why would it not be concidered balancing in strat in the same way?

Because it would require to have only two teams on Strat just like we do on EU1, seems like most of you guys would hate it.

[kinngrimm]

Because it would require to have only two teams on Strat just like we do on EU1, seems like most of you guys would hate it.

please read this and tell me if that would be a suitable solution.

[Macropus]

please read this and tell me if that would be a suitable solution.

Ok.

Faction A needs to declare war onto a Faction B, to be able to attack B.

What's the point in having to click one more button before attacking?

Singleplayers can attack only other singleplayer, but still can be attacked by any factions.

Why? It sucks to be unable to attack something.

Faction C, wanting also to attack B, can delcare war only then, if allied officially through the diplomatic system, to Faction A.

Two extra clicks before attacking? What do you mean by "war declaration"?

Disable transfering of troops, gear and silver and goods to other factions, till they are offically allied.

[ally]->[transfer]->[un-ally]

Huge Factions and Huge Alliances, which automaticly have also more active members, you can give small movement speed malus, directly dependend on overall playercount give a increaseing rate of taxes onto goods or gear or both.

Huge factions and Alliances would just split up into (formally only) smaller clans while still having the same leader(s).

etc, should I continue? My point stands - you can't regulate players' relations or playstyle by rules or game mechanics. If there are a hundred people of GO and DRZ who have good relationship and have time and motivation to play, yet having smart leaders to organise them - they WILL be a big force just as they are now.
The only thing you can do is blame them for being "lame", although for them it's just a way to win the Strat.

[_RXN_]

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=strategusbattlesarchive#!?page=strategusinfobattledetail&id=676

After the battle ended  :

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Strudog]

im just going to lobby for a non-uif strat map, far easier than trying to beat the UIF in strat, which is not possible. Running two masive factions is easy, running 100 little factions is hard.

I have never got into strat because of this boring divide, the only problem is that strat rewards large alliances, where as it should be the other way round, so i don't blame GO and DRZ for teaming up because they are doing it to win, who dosen't like winning?

The use of never ending ticket production means that Strategus is not a Stratergy game but a grinding game, very few tactics go into an attack or defense. There are no strategic points on the map, no reasons to ever stop attacking and no reasons to stop old alliances and start new wars because whats the point when you can settle in the same area every round.

Its up to the devs to fix this not us.

Strategus is a very simple game mode and that's why you get very simple tactics.

So there's no point complaining because strategus is just one big grind fest and the UIF do it the best.

[SirCymro_Crusader]

Its up to the devs to fix this not us.

December 2010....just saying

[Zaharist]

im just going to lobby for a non-uif strat map, far easier than trying

Nobody in Western Europe really wants to play Strat

Its up to the devs to fix this not us.

That's it! more QQ. also some bans of DRZ/GO players with tickets, goods and gold will help ;)

Tell me once again about misquoting 

[jtobiasm]

Tobias, thanks for your cunning plan though 

Making strat simple since 2014

[kinngrimm]

Ok.
What's the point in having to click one more button before attacking?
Not with each attack, but once a status is safed in a database once, only then attacks can be launched.
The point is that the database knows by that, who is at war with whom and accordingly balancing routines can influence the factions.

Why? It sucks to be unable to attack something.
The point is, if people would not join a faction or leave a faction they can undermine the system, with this rule they cant.

Two extra clicks before attacking? What do you mean by "war declaration"?
A third faction can attack another faction which is already at war, only then, when the thrid faction allies offcially(database status) with the already oposing faction. Again by this then the database will know who is working with whom together and is how big in form of memerbs and fiefs in comparison to whom they combined go against.

[ally]->[transfer]->[un-ally]
- cooldown to be able to ally again of 1 week afterwards counting towards all faction members even if the would leave the unallying faction. Not being able to join a faction you have unallied aswell.
- loss of renown when a treaty is broken, deminishing troop ticket recruitments

Huge factions and Alliances would just split up into (formally only) smaller clans while still having the same leader(s).
You are missing the point, they would not be able to attack the same targets or share ressoruces, aslong they are not using the diploamtic system activly. So let them split up into singleplayer and teh ntehy can attack otehr single palyer but they still wont be able to attack factions which they havent declared war upon. In then people are forced to either declare war, which the database then knows how many actually are fighting each other adn is able then to balance out the economy, or when treaties are broken it would eat up the recruitment rates.

etc, should I continue? My point stands - you can't regulate players' relations or playstyle by rules or game mechanics. If there are a hundred people of GO and DRZ who have good relationship and have time and motivation to play, yet having smart leaders to organise them - they WILL be a big force just as they are now.
Feel free to continue, though every game ever created, which has a set of rules is making my point. The game designer can tell us and implement rules. When those are implemented, the game in this case has status and number counts availabel, which can be used to get a balancing attempt done. Will it be perfect? Possibly not, but hell it owuld be ebtter tehn doing nothing at all.

The only thing you can do is blame them for being "lame", although for them it's just a way to win the Strat.
The simple answers are not always the correct answers or those who satisfy, sometimes you need to climb a mountain to get the best view. I really dont blame GO or DRZ of becoming huge factions with huge member counts, i am of the opinion they are lame as they stick together even though noone else could already compete with them, so having a rule against such a behaviour and hardcoding it into the game i prefer to just hoping for the maturity of some clan chiefs whose epen needs stroking.

[Nebun]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Vengt037]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

+1 for Ben Franklin quote on EU

[GRANDMOM]

To the right: Grey order and DRZ

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[tkn123]

Why don't you have a maintenance tax on fiefs. The more fiefs you have the more money you have to spend to maintain them. You will have to use a geometric multiplier to have a real affect: number of fiefs x cost of maintenance. And also it must vary for the type of fief: towns should cost more to maintain etc.

Therefore, more thought will have to go into taking fiefs which would limit the mindless rampaging and the advantage of very large factions over small factions.

Just a thought.

[Strudog]

Why don't you have a maintenance tax on fiefs. The more fiefs you have the more money you have to spend to maintain them. You will have to use a geometric multiplier to have a real affect: number of fiefs x cost of maintenance. And also it must vary for the type of fief: towns should cost more to maintain etc.

Therefore, more thought will have to go into taking fiefs which would limit the mindless rampaging and the advantage of very large factions over small factions.

Just a thought.

I would also like to see that if crime reaches 100% in a fief than that fief has a rebellion and the faction relinquishes all control over that fief and it goes back to being an AI fief.