Seemingly impossible to play as a 'warring kingdom'

[Araqiel]

Last age in a kingdom of 25, the problems with finding wars were a complete lack of 25 player kingdoms. Sub 25 players refused to war us whatsoever. Can't get wars, ended up being forced into disadvantageous situations, just from boredom. Lose a lot. Crap age in general. 5 players decide to leave for a skd, mostly due to lack of morale.

We decided to stay at 20 players and got our first two wars very easily. There are loads of kingdoms between 19-22 players. We remained small so we can have a wider variety of targets. We attempted to look ghetto as possible to bait people, but with 2/2 war wins on the kingdom page and a warring race set up, no one is willing to fight us now. I am sure with 0/2 we would have had 4 wars by now. We were second on the global WW chart, but now we are stuck in a rut and have been for nearly 2 weeks. Now because we are small, and need to remain small, our only option is to plunder/learn and pump sci/wpa. This leaves us open to learns from larger kingdoms, who we have no power to retal. We are very attractive for learns due to 2/2 war wins and high npa.

So this leads me to the conclusion that the warring system is absolutely broken in game.

The war win chart is pointless, how are you supposed to 'win' something that is down to luck (kingdoms actually deciding they will war you)? This problem only gets worse the more successful you are. I had a suggestion here, and feel the same way as I did when I posted it: http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...lacement-chart

The relation system is also broken. I have no suggestions on how to fix it, but it feels like you give away hostile ops and the option to declare far too quickly through attacking. Ops and spells should also raise the meter.

Warring kingdoms seem to be dying off as the mechanics of the game are absolutely counter productive for such play style, and I thought utopia was about warring.

Thoughts?

[Korp]

I dont think the issue is really size, I think its in the mentality of the warring kd itself. People are too god damn afarid to give away the button and as soon as there is a slight disadvantage. My own kingdom had 5 finnished wars last age and one eoa war going on besides I dont we're the only one with 5+- wars.

[Araqiel]

I dont think the issue is really size, I think its in the mentality of the warring kd itself. People are too god damn afarid to give away the button and as soon as there is a slight disadvantage. My own kingdom had 5 finnished wars last age and one eoa war going on besides I dont we're the only one with 5+- wars.

We gave away buttons last age. It resulted in the enemy going into fortified and raining meteors on us for 72 hours, then declaring. As you can imagine, we lost that war before it even started. We had 5 wars last age, but 5 wars is not a lot. 10 wars is ideal, but nearly impossible.

[protector]

We decided to stay at 20 players and got our first two wars very easily. There are loads of kingdoms between 19-22 players. We remained small so we can have a wider variety of targets. We attempted to look ghetto as possible to bait people, but with 2/2 war wins on the kingdom page and a warring race set up, no one is willing to fight us now.

There is your problem. Kingdoms like yours (and those are lots I think) only accept wars they can win. If you get waved by a larger kingdom, even if only a small size difference, you'll just offer them a CF and wave a smaller kingdom yourself.
Stop trying to look ghetto; it works 1-2 times and then your cover is blown. Just grow up and wave kingdoms same size/bigger who seem equally prepared.

The warwin chart isn't broken because of the 'luck-factor', it's broken because it cannot measure how difficult it was to achieve victory, or how badly you overwhelmed your enemy. 99.9% of the kingdoms trying to win the warwin chart are just crap kingdoms only looking to fight even worse kingdoms.

[Korp]

My kingdom wars pretty much constantly and having 6 was pretty much what we could, we could have maybe squeezed in 2 more due to one of wars being extra long. So I think having 5 wars these times is considering being.

[Araqiel]

There is your problem. Kingdoms like yours (and those are lots I think) only accept wars they can win. If you get waved by a larger kingdom, even if only a small size difference, you'll just offer them a CF and wave a smaller kingdom yourself.
Stop trying to look ghetto; it works 1-2 times and then your cover is blown. Just grow up and wave kingdoms same size/bigger who seem equally prepared.

The warwin chart isn't broken because of the 'luck-factor', it's broken because it cannot measure how difficult it was to achieve victory, or how badly you overwhelmed your enemy. 99.9% of the kingdoms trying to win the warwin chart are just crap kingdoms only looking to fight even worse kingdoms.

Well we aim to war kingdoms within 10% networth up or down. You are right though maybe we should attempt harder wars. We very rarely offer CFs, in fact the only time we did this age (outside alliances/friends) was a kingdom with 25 provs the same size as us, but that seems to be the problem we are facing.

As my original thread I linked in the OP says, war wins need to be rewarded differently depending on the difficulty of the enemy kingdom, not just the networth.

I cannot fathom why the warwin chart has remained the same since its introduction.

[Araqiel]

My kingdom wars pretty much constantly and having 6 was pretty much what we could, we could have maybe squeezed in 2 more due to one of wars being extra long. So I think having 5 wars these times is considering being.

Last age we had full length post war periods, this age we have 24 hours. You can fit a lot more than 6 wars in an age playing that way.

[Korp]

Last age we had full length post war periods, this age we have 24 hours. You can fit a lot more than 6 wars in an age playing that way.

Yet you only have 2 wars... (while my kingdom who uses the whole cf period) has also 2 wars. :P

[Araqiel]

Yet you only have 2 wars... (while my kingdom who uses the whole cf period) has also 2 wars. :P

We were second on the global WW chart, but now we are stuck in a rut and have been for nearly 2 weeks.

Our CFs went from 5 to 18 in this time and all we can really do is hit a few crappy learns, then accept the CF.

[Bishop]

What's more fun, bashing 5 ghettos or warring 3 top class opponents?

[Leeroy]

My monarch had a look around yesterday and said most 25 player kds are at war at this very moment in time so if there were a lack of 25 prov kds for you to war its probably because you stayed too small to war ghetto's.
Secondly im pretty confident everyone knows those 20 prov kds are ghetto's. They stay at around 20 provs so they can avoid the decent kds. Not surprising that once your on 2/2 they wont war

[Zaka]

Wars Won / Concluded Wars

Wars concluded is a unnecessary number and doesn't need to be displayed on the kingdom page, like how the "most warring kingdoms" top list just counts wars won for its score the kingdom page should just display wars won..

If the information that a kingdom has lost isn't as readily available maybe more kingdoms would be willing to accept a fight they are not certain to win. And maybe more kingdoms would actually wave kingdoms that would give them a challenge without tarnishing that holy number.


Having land and honor as different choices is also stupid, if everybody got land AND honor when they won the better war kingdoms should be more equal in size, and compete more on the same axis as each-other and the "growth" kingdoms.

[Araqiel]

What's more fun, bashing 5 ghettos or warring 3 top class opponents?

Obviously having 3 even wars is more fun. We can't find even wars. We cant find ANY wars (that are actually feasible to win). Sure we could give the button to kingdoms with 25 provinces who are 20% larger in NW, but whats the point in that? We aren't focusing on complete ghettos, we are looking for any damn war. You seem to be missing the point.

Warring 5 ghettos gives SO more reward (in terms of chartage) than beating 3 tough opponents:

• Easy wars end in minimum time = more wars = more war wins
• Shorter wars = quicker recovery = more wars = more war wins

Again, Bishop, please consider this thread - http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...lacement-chart

The current relations system makes it too safe to avoid wars. Getting raped with MS for the enemy to go fortified and receive minimum damage is just insane when you were the original aggressor.

The more we grow, the less potential war targets are out there. I would like to note we are in the upper half of kingdom networth.

Net Worth Rank: 151 of 338

Grabbing land is counter productive; getting bigger is actually making us grow away from targets...

My monarch had a look around yesterday and said most 25 player kds are at war at this very moment in time so if there were a lack of 25 prov kds for you to war its probably because you stayed too small to war ghetto's.
Secondly im pretty confident everyone knows those 20 prov kds are ghetto's. They stay at around 20 provs so they can avoid the decent kds. Not surprising that once your on 2/2 they wont war

There was a kingdom breakdown of utopia somewhere on here showing that the majority of kingdoms are 19-22 provinces. Being a 25 province kingdom means you have less targets, naturally. These 25 province kingdoms also tend to have varied goals (growth etc) so that means there is a HUGE split in networth, again, making targets less available.

Wars Won / Concluded Wars

Wars concluded is a unnecessary number and doesn't need to be displayed on the kingdom page, like how the "most warring kingdoms" top list just counts wars won for its score the kingdom page should just display wars won..

If the information that a kingdom has lost isn't as readily available maybe more kingdoms would be willing to accept a fight they are not certain to win. And maybe more kingdoms would actually wave kingdoms that would give them a challenge without tarnishing that holy number.


Having land and honor as different choices is also stupid, if everybody got land AND honor when they won the better war kingdoms should be more equal in size, and compete more on the same axis as each-other and the "growth" kingdoms.

Agree on all points.

[GotCha]

[QUOTE=Araqiel;15218259]Obviously having 3 even wars is more fun. We can't find even wars. We cant find ANY wars (that are actually feasible to win). Sure we could give the button to kingdoms with 25 provinces who are 20% larger in NW, but whats the point in that? We aren't focusing on complete ghettos, we are looking for any damn war. You seem to be missing the point.

This is also to blame on your monarch. If you are looking to go for WW crown then he/she should be keeping an eye out for where the majority of the 25man kd's are sitting NW and land wise. If you are just going for warring KD's that are actually worth a hoot, then he/she should be keeping an eye out for who is where (NW/Land size) and move the KD based on that. Sometimes you will just have to be patient and wait for the right target. If you get waved by someone bigger, then put it on them. Dont NAP and wuss out. And if you are just going after KD's you think you can beat, then you are not doing anything for your kd. The way you get better at anything is playing agaisnt thoes who are the same lvl or better then yourself. Sometimes losing is the best way to learn.

[Bishop]

Obviously having 3 even wars is more fun. We can't find even wars. We cant find ANY wars (that are actually feasible to win).

You cant find wars, but other people can. Issue is with you. You are loading your dice too much.

Sure we could give the button to kingdoms with 25 provinces who are 20% larger in NW, but whats the point in that? We aren't focusing on complete ghettos, we are looking for any damn war. You seem to be missing the point.

If you are looking for "any damn war" you must be doing something seriously wrong if you cant find one. I think you mean you are looking for a war that it is clear you can win.

Warring 5 ghettos gives SO more reward (in terms of chartage) than beating 3 tough opponents:

• Easy wars end in minimum time = more wars = more war wins
• Shorter wars = quicker recovery = more wars = more war wins

Stop ghetto bashing

Again, Bishop, please consider this thread - http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...lacement-chart

I've posted several times in that thread already.

The current relations system makes it too safe to avoid wars. Getting raped with MS for the enemy to go fortified and receive minimum damage is just insane when you were the original aggressor.

Force a CF or don't give away hostile for days.

The more we grow, the less potential war targets are out there. I would like to note we are in the upper half of kingdom networth.

The more you grow the better your opponents will be.Stop ghetto bashing.

Grabbing land is counter productive; getting bigger is actually making us grow away from targets...

The more you grow the better your opponents will be.Stop ghetto bashing.

There was a kingdom breakdown of utopia somewhere on here showing that the majority of kingdoms are 19-22 provinces. Being a 25 province kingdom means you have less targets, naturally. These 25 province kingdoms also tend to have varied goals (growth etc) so that means there is a HUGE split in networth, again, making targets less available.

You are choosing to limit your own targets.