Messages

6. Drop land in the middle of your run to improve leader ratio against other players for offensive missions.

For as long as I've been here, nearly every round has been the same thing. A group of hardcore players team up and coordinate together to dominate a playerbase that consists primarily of very casual players, most of which don't take winning seriously at all as long as they have some fun out of it (nothing wrong with that, if that's what they find fun).

The small handful of players who choose not to align with them that are actually capable of posing a threat to them on their own are marked for coordinated takedowns or kill runs to ensure they have little hope of inflicting any sort of damage on them resulting in them running away with the set.

Taek, I know you just came back here recently so this doesn't apply to you so much, but for the people who do this all the time, do you guys really find it fun doing it round after round? I, for one, have participated in this scheme once and I can say that was bored to tears the entire time. Being on the opposite end of this and trying to fight this nonsense 1 v 7 a few months ago, the moment I was even remotely a threat, I logged into a dead empire within hours with sevz asking me to join his clan when i remake... Seriously?

I don't have a problem with any of you guys personally, but I just can't understand how it could possibly be fun steamrolling everybody over and over with little resistance. I must be missing something here, but I personally prefer having some sort of reasonable competition.

Shoot, are you bill nye on reg?

Nah I'm not.

If they're annoying you, we'd be happy to add you onto our team. :P

Was more interested in giving you guys some competition, or at least trying to keep it somewhat interesting for you guys ;)

A little difficult to do something when members of the clan thats supposedly the resistance (FAW) has members who like to standard attack me to low land counts and poison my networth down when I'm trying to claw my way up the ranks without provocation. They've been giving me more problems than Agency has (since they don't really need to do anything to me as a result lol)

Will setting merc food price to 20 affect the networth value of food? (i.e. food becomes worth double the current networth?)

Just asking since the networth value of troops are all based on their base price in relation to the base price of rats as far as I know.

I have a few questions about the new market:

1) What exactly do you mean by "spread your order as evenly as possible"?

If I want 5 million rats and 5 people have priced their goods at the lowest price, would this mean that I am purchasing exactly 1 million rats from each person (assuming they at least have that many available) regardless of how many each person has available, or would it be proportional to how many rats each of them have available? As an example:

Person A - 10m rats available
Person B - 5m rats
Person C - 25m rats
Person D - 1m rats
Person E - 9m rats

As there are 50m total rats available at the desired price in the example, if I were to purchase 5m rats (10% of the total available rats), would it be exactly 1m being bought from each person or would 10% of the rats from each person be sold?

2) If each seller sells the same amount (1m rats each) in the above example, can people subvert this system by listing multiple smaller packages at a given price point rather than one large package to receive multiple shares when goods are bought? (e.g. if 10 packages of an item exist at the same price and 5 of them are by the same seller, would this seller then receive 50% of the sales as he has half of the packages up?)

3) You say that the prices round to the nearest 10. This does not apply to food as well does it?

Sorry for getting back to this so late (on vacation atm), but to clarify a few things:

1) I forgot to make note of building cost, but I do remember having enough cash to build my land completely (leaving 0 free acres), but it may have been barely enough to cover the buildings but not the subsequent turn use, so that may have been user error. I think it was around 55k buildings on 120k land which would cost somewhere around 800m (assuming land / 10 + 2500 is the building cost)

2) The fact that it said I had enough cash for 0 turns so i should build no more than 3 buildings when I went to build is still erroneous. I built anyway after seeing it because I knew that was inaccurate, so I didn't think I had anything to worry about. If the scenario in #1 is correct, i should have been able to build for a few turns without worry.

In Reg, while building I encountered a strange bug. While clearly having adequate cash to spend a few turns, the game said I have enough cash for 0 turns so i shouldn't build more than 3 buildings. Knowing that I was certainly fine (or so I thought), i ignored the warning and proceeded to build.

Cash: $659,229,161

Due to lack of Cash, 3% of your Army has left! (x34 times)

Turns Included: 34
Economic Status
Income:    $5,562,491
Expenses:    $100,151,498
War Tax:    $0
Loan Pay:    $501
Net:    -$94,589,508

Having 600+ million cash at the start of that building run while having expenses for those turns totalling 100 million for the batch, I obviously should not have taken any 3% losses, let alone a 3% loss for all 34 turns spent building. My guess is some sort of bug resulted in me having either income or one of the expense fields become "NaN"  (not a number) on the first turn, resulting in my cash being wiped out and causing 3% losses on all of the other turns as I was running turns in the red. After this incident, turn use did function as normal.

Not sure if it helps narrow anything down since I couldn't get any other information that might help, and don't think I'd be able to reproduce this, but the actions taken leading up to this incident:
-Prepared Raiders
-Attacked land farm a few times
-Built all newly acquired land into huts (warning appeared indicating having cash for 0 turns)
-Spent 34 turns building, received 34 3% losses due to lack of cash despite having sufficient funds.

I'm fairly sure this also exists in reg, but there are some actions that, with the current code, would have to use all of your turns such as:

Building/Demolishing - The code currently builds (or demolishes) all buildings you specify before spending turns. If it were to stop turn usage after taking a 3% loss, you'd end up with all of your buildings built without the appropriate number of turns spent building them. This is currently the only way that I know of that you can suffer 3% losses more than 2 times with a single action, and could be patched up if they decided to rework the building code so that building is done turn by turn (i.e. build rate of 400 = 400 of your buildings in queue are built for each turn spent) which would allow for aborting if you run out of resources.

Attacking/Missions - Attacks and missions are made before the turns get spent, so the same scenario as above applies. I do believe if you have extra missions queued and 3% you'll only suffer the losses on the current mission and the rest will be aborted.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I believe there is one key difference between turbo and reg in this regard. In turbo if you run out of cash, you'll get a bank loan automatically (if not maxed loan) to cover shortage while your turns keep getting spent. In reg you simply 3% in this scenario with turn use stopping (except in the scenarios mentioned above)

Not bots.

#5 and #6 definitely are though ;)

Though I have to disagree with you on a few points, this was a very good post. My thoughts on some of your points:

#1-2 - Taking defense points away from any unit at all (or adding offense points) would (theoretically) force lockers to favor that unit more (taking away from being able to defend other types), or risk being too weak in that type. It wouldn't necessarily have to be limited to stoats, but even the slightest adjustment could prove helpful here.

#3 - I like the idea, but with current game mechanics, I really don't see this having much effect. People can quickly demolish a good chunk of their production buildings at the end of their run and build towers. Likewise, at the beginning of their run they can demolish the towers from the previous run and stick them back into production buildings for their run, so penalizing people for owning them won't really do much as they only actually have towers for no more than 15-20% of their run.

There would need to be something in place to make it harder to demolish buildings as fast, and a change like that would have other ramifications that would need to be considered before implementing.

#5 - This would most likely have the opposite effect (that is, making it easier to lock). While being struck, the defender isn't having to pay upkeep on their rats, while the attacker has to keep a considerable amount of rats on hand for a great deal of turns. The locker would most likely be ditching their rats as soon as possible when running, so they won't be feeling the effects of a consumption increase too much while someone seeking to break the lock with rats is going to have a hard time coping with the extra food loss.

#7 - With the proposed numbers, what would take 8 shipments to aid out would take 12, which I don't think would have enough of an effect (around 65% or so increased upkeep to aid back out, then free to run with low troops/upkeep after).

#8 & 9 - Agree completely. I'd even say increase the rate in which the hit limit is lifted (3 per hour at least as opposed to the current 2 per hour). With the fast pace of the game, it is all too common that the vast majority of viable land targets have reached their hit limit as a result of people who ran shortly before you maxing them all out resulting in very little for the taking (or waiting a few hours to run which is quite inconvenient).

#10 - Personally, I think the land average is fine as it is, especially if some hits get added to the hit limit. The variation in land taken, however, I feel is ridiculous. One hit you could get 3000 acres, and the next you can end up with 12 acres. A bad streak of hits on a big land target can easily turn what could have been a good run sour. Personally I would suggest the minimum gain to be 33% of the current maximum, and the maximum be 67% of the current maximum which would result in the same average but less variation.

Vacation setting saved; your account is now locked. Your Army will be frozen in 12 hours.

--
Redwall: Warlords 3.0 Beta
Login    Forums    RWL Dictionary    Mentoring    Game Guide    Staff    Contact
This account is in vacation mode and cannot be played for another 83 hours.
--

Vacation button might be removed, but it's still possible to manipulate forms to call on the vacation command (which is still in place).

Nope, obviously not a bug. The code exists in the game allowing it therefore it was obviously the intent of the developers.

Vacation setting saved; your account is now locked. Your Army will be frozen in 12 hours.

--
Redwall: Warlords 3.0 Beta
Login    Forums    RWL Dictionary    Mentoring    Game Guide    Staff    Contact
This account is in vacation mode and cannot be played for another 83 hours.
--

Vacation button might be removed, but it's still possible to manipulate forms to call on the vacation command (which is still in place).

Can't say much for those races since I never really played those, but magpie as a casher strat is quite good, and I'd imagine weasel and marten would play a casher strat nicely.

Best production (from what I've seen) is 100% markets, tax rate 45% (set tax rate to 11% while attacking and above 83% health) (susceptible to harmful missions, not recommended except under certain themes)
A safer option is 80% markets, 20% huts, tax rate 45%. (some protection from leaders)

Alternate your income settings between 100% food and 100% cash depending on what you're more in need of and use appropriate leader buff for income if using huts and while not attacking.

Last 40 turns, take your leader count and divide it by 175 (rounded up) to figure out how many huts you need to keep all your leaders, and demolish everything else (markets and excess huts) and drop the now unbuilt land. This will give you great defense against leader attacks and let you stockpile some cash. Hopefully you dont get sacked too much the next time you run.

Another good strat which I learned from an administrator here is the strat where you find somebody running the above strat, but was nice enough to not stall the game by dropping to a maxed out land farm and steal all their cash with the fact that there is no hit limit with steal! To pull this off, gather as much land as you can from everybody (make sure to max out the land farm, this is the most important step!), and build nothing but huts. Once you get a good deal of leaders (about 400 or so turns into your run), divide that by 175, drop everything except the number you calculated to the now maxed out land farm (so nobody can access the land for 12 hours, very important), and spam steal to your hearts content. Pat yourself on the back for a job well done ^_^