Has it really been 10+ years? Help a bro out.

First of all, forgive my noob questions as best you are able. I've been out of the game for.. a long time. I believe age 17 or 18 was my last. So again, i'm a noob and have one pressing question and maybe a few less pressing ones too.

When i last played Utopia, KDs were almost entirely focused on a growth. Being the biggest, baddest, highest NW KD/prov on the block was the goal. Now you had your honor KDs here and there, but they were few and i never understood why they'd sacrifice growth for a title and some small but helpful bonuses.

My first age was 3, or maybe 4.. I remember Discworld, HoDF, the endless alliances, war blocking, and all the good times. I remember the first iterations of the hostility system and the war meter, the war wins prominently displayed on your KD page, but it seems this system has run away with the game. When i was playing you would war to grow. To gain acreage and NW. To come out substantially stronger than you were before. I look across the scarred and decimated wasteland of most kingdoms and think to myself.. What the hell happened? Are war wins really the 'it' thing? Do KDs intentionally stunt growth just so they can get war wins?

It seems there was an entire paradigm shift in the way this game was played in this regard. Provinces have scary offenses, non-existent defenses, push out 3x the amount of attacks, and the primary strategy is chain, chain, and chain to the point of it no longer being particularly beneficial to chain as far tangible gain is concerned.

My principle question is, with all of that said; why?

Sub questions are as follows: Is that really fun? For anyone? Is that why theres like 20 islands when WoL and WoG each used to boast 50+? I'm genuinely curious because i'd like to come back to this game, but it doesn't appear to be played in any recognizable fashion that i had been accustomed. I understand perfectly the onus is on me to find a reason to play, i'm just wondering if what the prevailing thinking on the matter is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

First of all, forgive my noob questions as best you are able. I've been out of the game for.. a long time. I believe age 17 or 18 was my last. So again, i'm a noob and have one pressing question and maybe a few less pressing ones too.

When i last played Utopia, KDs were almost entirely focused on a growth. Being the biggest, baddest, highest NW KD/prov on the block was the goal. Now you had your honor KDs here and there, but they were few and i never understood why they'd sacrifice growth for a title and some small but helpful bonuses.

My first age was 3, or maybe 4.. I remember Discworld, HoDF, the endless alliances, war blocking, and all the good times. I remember the first iterations of the hostility system and the war meter, the war wins prominently displayed on your KD page, but it seems this system has run away with the game. When i was playing you would war to grow. To gain acreage and NW. To come out substantially stronger than you were before. I look across the scarred and decimated wasteland of most kingdoms and think to myself.. What the hell happened? Are war wins really the 'it' thing? Do KDs intentionally stunt growth just so they can get war wins?

It seems there was an entire paradigm shift in the way this game was played in this regard. Provinces have scary offenses, non-existent defenses, push out 3x the amount of attacks, and the primary strategy is chain, chain, and chain to the point of it no longer being particularly beneficial to chain as far tangible gain is concerned.

My principle question is, with all of that said; why?

Sub questions are as follows: Is that really fun? For anyone? Is that why theres like 20 islands when WoL and WoG each used to boast 50+? I'm genuinely curious because i'd like to come back to this game, but it doesn't appear to be played in any recognizable fashion that i had been accustomed. I understand perfectly the onus is on me to find a reason to play, i'm just wondering if what the prevailing thinking on the matter is.

---

we mostly play for the social aspect remaining in the game.. most kds consist of long-time friends who likes idling in same chat & checking their provs time to time.. we login, chit&chat, wave and talk more about stupid stuff.. yes we spend ****loads of time on the game, but probably %80 of that time can be labeled 'hanging out with friends' tagline.. im not talking about our kd only, im sure most kds are on the same boat..

http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...-Y-L-E-join-us! - check out on our kd, and send me a mail if you would be interested to join us..

1. The best kingdoms still shoot for growth. It's just there's not that many around anymore.

2. Strategy naturally evolves. With the higher offensive values, you need to chain deeper to actually have an effect on their offenses.

3. Defensive values were made less prominent to make the game more active. It was boring when anyone and everyone were unbreakable.

4. I don't think calling warring the "it" thing is accurate. I'd say order of generally respected goals goes land/nw>honor>war wins. The reason warring is what most kingdoms shoot for is because it fits more easily into everyone's lives. You don't have to be all that active aside from when you're in war, and even then you don't have to around all that much (in the warring tier)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

1. The best kingdoms still shoot for growth. It's just there's not that many around anymore.

2. Strategy naturally evolves. With the higher offensive values, you need to chain deeper to actually have an effect on their offenses.

3. Defensive values were made less prominent to make the game more active. It was boring when anyone and everyone were unbreakable.

4. I don't think calling warring the "it" thing is accurate. I'd say order of generally respected goals goes land/nw>honor>war wins. The reason warring is what most kingdoms shoot for is because it fits more easily into everyone's lives. You don't have to be all that active aside from when you're in war, and even then you don't have to around all that much (in the warring tier)

---

Thanks for the response, was informative!

So what came first? The chaining? Or the super-sized offenses?

When i played (believe me i hate referencing this like i am) we would micro chain, and follow up attacks but it was more because a particular prov or KD was 'fat' not to 'disable' them, that was for the TMs to do. Generally once you broke them they wouldn't send out again for fear of taking further losses. Now losses are expected, mandatory even. I understand some of this is a condition of reducing defenses, especially with all elite armies. I don't know if this achieved what they wanted it to though. Seems a large segment of the 'active' population left. I'd be interested in seeing how high NW KDs war and if it looks anything like it used to, i suspect it doesn't however.

If you picture the game as you remember it and enjoyed it you're in for a disapointment Things evolve, so did Utopia, I would say its more advanced these days, warring is a lot of more strategy and stuff. Also, its mostly just the active population left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

Thanks for the response, was informative!

So what came first? The chaining? Or the super-sized offenses?

When i played (believe me i hate referencing this like i am) we would micro chain, and follow up attacks but it was more because a particular prov or KD was 'fat' not to 'disable' them, that was for the TMs to do. Generally once you broke them they wouldn't send out again for fear of taking further losses. Now losses are expected, mandatory even. I understand some of this is a condition of reducing defenses, especially with all elite armies. I don't know if this achieved what they wanted it to though. Seems a large segment of the 'active' population left. I'd be interested in seeing how high NW KDs war and if it looks anything like it used to, i suspect it doesn't however.

---

Chaining really existed before you left, just that people used to raze-chain instead to kill off a province permanently, these days raze don't destroy acres in war, so ridiculous deep chains came as a direct response to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

I don't know if this achieved what they wanted it to though. Seems a large segment of the 'active' population left.

---

Doesn't really have anything to do with game mechanics. In the early 00's, there was a market for text-based MMO's that ate up a large amount of your life. In 2015 there isn't lol


That being said, the core of the game you used to love is still here. Top kingdoms grow and their goal is to finish as the biggest and baddest kingdom in the game. It's just how one gets there works a little differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

Thanks for the response, was informative!

So what came first? The chaining? Or the super-sized offenses?

When i played (believe me i hate referencing this like i am) we would micro chain, and follow up attacks but it was more because a particular prov or KD was 'fat' not to 'disable' them, that was for the TMs to do. Generally once you broke them they wouldn't send out again for fear of taking further losses. Now losses are expected, mandatory even. I understand some of this is a condition of reducing defenses, especially with all elite armies. I don't know if this achieved what they wanted it to though. Seems a large segment of the 'active' population left. I'd be interested in seeing how high NW KDs war and if it looks anything like it used to, i suspect it doesn't however.

---

Age 17/18 saw the emergence of Wolfpack Tactics and other, similar kds that relied on heavy chaining, which got adopted more and more by the top kds over time. In age 16, the quasi ghetto I was in was using NM-chain and peasant kill tactics to completely remove provinces from war.

I would say, however, that kds in the early ages didn't really war to grow -- they warred to destroy opponents. Wars were actually much more destructive in the single digits and even the teens than they are now, in spite of the chaining.

High offense has also always been a thing, though in the early teens and single digits there were other viable strategies -- stronghold/guard station based, or barracks based moreso than it always being about high offense. However, dynamic build efficiency -- introduced in age 27 -- has really prevented those kinds of strategies from emerging again because the value of a building declines as you run more of it.

The top growth kds are still generally acknowledged as the best/most talented kds in the game, but the post-fame honor world has lead to kds playing for honor and then purely for war, rather than just doing that in off ages.

@ OP. You're far enough away from the game to see the heavy offense and chaining. The "why?" is because it is conventionally effective.

The reason I state this is because you can conduct strategy vs these tendencies.
In my independent operation I use tactics to stall chaining and they tend to work.

Welcome Back, Kotter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

Age 17/18 saw the emergence of Wolfpack Tactics and other, similar kds that relied on heavy chaining, which got adopted more and more by the top kds over time. In age 16, the quasi ghetto I was in was using NM-chain and peasant kill tactics to completely remove provinces from war.

I would say, however, that kds in the early ages didn't really war to grow -- they warred to destroy opponents. Wars were actually much more destructive in the single digits and even the teens than they are now, in spite of the chaining.

High offense has also always been a thing, though in the early teens and single digits there were other viable strategies -- stronghold/guard station based, or barracks based moreso than it always being about high offense. However, dynamic build efficiency -- introduced in age 27 -- has really prevented those kinds of strategies from emerging again because the value of a building declines as you run more of it.

The top growth kds are still generally acknowledged as the best/most talented kds in the game, but the post-fame honor world has lead to kds playing for honor and then purely for war, rather than just doing that in off ages.

---

High offense has always been thing to an extent. But unless in a top KD/alliance it was very risky to run because of the amount of people looking for randoms. People will play how they have fun i guess, but i never liked getting tagged much unless it was in war.

I appreciate the responses. I guess i really don't find the war tactics to be very compelling. I understand there is an extreme amount of coordination and skill involved in doing it well, but when you see provinces drop 100k, 150k+ nw in a war (at this point in the age) because they were the chained target - its just jarring to behold.

I've witnessed first hand wars between top100 in the between ages 9-13ish and i don't recall the kind of provincial carnage i've witness in the month or so i've observed in this age. There were exceptions of course, but i honestly cannot recall a single time where we set out to nearly destroy a province for any tactical reason - and by destroy i literally mean that province's name would be gray. This does remind that once there was a time when that was the only way to play UD though lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

High offense has always been thing to an extent. But unless in a top KD/alliance it was very risky to run because of the amount of people looking for randoms. People will play how they have fun i guess, but i never liked getting tagged much unless it was in war.

I appreciate the responses. I guess i really don't find the war tactics to be very compelling. I understand there is an extreme amount of coordination and skill involved in doing it well, but when you see provinces drop 100k, 150k+ nw in a war (at this point in the age) because they were the chained target - its just jarring to behold.

I've witnessed first hand wars between top100 in the between ages 9-13ish and i don't recall the kind of provincial carnage i've witness in the month or so i've observed in this age. There were exceptions of course, but i honestly cannot recall a single time where we set out to nearly destroy a province for any tactical reason - and by destroy i literally mean that province's name would be gray. This does remind that once there was a time when that was the only way to play UD though lol.

---

Sounds like this is not your kind of game.... not sure what to say, I'm glad to see you reaching out in the forum.... sorry the game does not live up to your expectations. I would like to suggest giving it more time, you might come around, but I of course think you know better than I do.

I've played this game off and on for 10+ years and chaining was always a part of things.

There was a time when pure attackers/pure TM weren't as high priority as they are now and hybrids were the name of the game, but these days hybrids are mostly inefficient so warring kds revolve around a wall of TM and some meat shield high offense attackers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

I've witnessed first hand wars between top100 in the between ages 9-13ish and i don't recall the kind of provincial carnage i've witness in the month or so i've observed in this age.

---

i started playing age 8 or so and went to age 16 or 17 like you. I cam back from genesis in the mid 40's to find the same concept of waring you're seeing now. The rational is that to "win" any wars not only want acres from your enemy but u need to "stop" them from hiting back. Back when you remember playing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

Provinces have scary offenses, non-existent defenses, push out 3x the amount of attacks, and the primary strategy is chain, chain, and chain to the point of it no longer being particularly beneficial to chain as far tangible gain is concerned.

---

people just assumed that the best way to win was to not get hurt. when you actually look at the math and see that there is a 7% loss/hit on offense and a 5% loss/hit on def it makes sense that i'd rather hit you twice lose 7% of my offense but cost you .95^2=9.75% of your defense. This + the fact that you can cause desertions/nm away someones def rather easily caused the entire game to shift to a i can attack then raze->kill your people faster than you can do mine if i run more offense. whichever kd has more people left at the end of 3-4 days "wins".

When razeing in war stopped destroying acres the same concept of i hit u more than you hit me basically became a requirement. i.e. why would i ever run def if on average i lose military to overpopulation when only a "few" attackers hit me. I never want to lose military for "free" so the less def i run the less military i'll lose to overpopulation. In addition the only risk to someone running low or 0 def is losing all their land which means what? my prov takes zero lasting damage going from 2500 to 500 acres if i retain all my theives/wizzards/science/military. The only way to really hurt me is to ensure than when im 500 acres and army in i'm overpopulated and have to release my offense. Its why wars right now are basically broken up into 3 parts.
1 chain away the enemy def.
2 deep chain away their offense if they have low incoming land.
3. deal with hybrids and T/m's.

Both #'s 1 and 2 are why you seem shell shocked with war, however in "most" wars its still the most effective way to win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

Blah Blah Blah

---

You can seriously give competition to CJ n ASF. :D

But seriously well put up!!

<3 Persian!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

I would say its more advanced these days, warring is a lot of more strategy and stuff.

---

I would say it's the exact opposite, it's all just turned into a huge mudwrestling tug 'o war where it's just beat your enemy with a stick until he submits and whoever has the bigger stick wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatyn

I've witnessed first hand wars between top100 in the between ages 9-13ish and i don't recall the kind of provincial carnage i've witness in the month or so i've observed in this age. There were exceptions of course, but i honestly cannot recall a single time where we set out to nearly destroy a province for any tactical reason - and by destroy i literally mean that province's name would be gray. This does remind that once there was a time when that was the only way to play UD though lol.

---

I'm surprised, I'd honestly be hard pressed to remember a war from those days when there wasn't at least 2 or more gray casualties of the war as a tactical choice because dead provs tell no tales, and they don't attack. Serious nw kingdoms would try very very hard to avoid war because in anything remotely looking like an even matchup would mean both kingdoms warred themselves out of the charts