Travian rule.

Hello.
Seems its been a tough travian week for you all, many issues. One that seems to be a recurring problem both here and travian in general is what form of governing body is best for an alliance.Most importantly what suits an alliance as long standing as FOAD? Transition is always tough.
What type of government to you like above you?
What type of government would you form if you made your own alliance?

Intereasting topic i think, and i'll eagerly wait for answers off all of you.
Its hard to explain our clans politics, we all feel very equal, and pretty much we feel like just parts of one entity.We have small departments in place, the brain and the voice being just two. Brain is four people, two dont hold ingame accounts, they are rotated every once in while so everyone gets a chance. All members of our team report to brain every 48hours, when they will just ask you ifanything has changed ingame, thoughts, worries ect, the brain then takes all the reports, and finds the happy medium, it plans what to do ect, then it passes instructions down to where ever is best, i.e. if its propaganda or announcements ect Voice will deal with it. Millitary, Fist (off) or shield (def).

We also have a third stage, we call the larvae, they are apprentices, spies, tools ect. Sometimes they are promoted into the real ranks.
Parasites was only one element of our clan, we do other projects too, parasites is my least favourite.

But we find this rule works for us, and everyone seems happy, but they are all vet's and most have worked together a while now. I think taking time and cherry picking players is better than open recruitment.

So please give me your thoughts on your utopia alliance? Like i said it'll be intereasting and helpful for all i think.

Although now i must confess, (thats why i could never be a spy) i do have other reasons for asking this question.I am thinking of breaking off from the others, i have given them a year, and i need to go off and see other landscapes i think.
I would have loved to have rejoined FOAD again, but i can't. I am a tie to Bee, and its proberbly best she has gone. There is a reason i dont team with her anymore
So my hidden agenda is, i am thinking of forming a similar syndicate to the others, a British based one, and i am wondering if it may be possible to just replicate it. I cant see why not, its tried and tested for 18 months now, it was already running well when i joined 12 months ago. Guess it depends on the members you take, ego's have to be small, and big ego's come hand in hand with good players usually.Maybe thats the strength of the foreign legion, most other countries are more laid back and calculating than brits.
Maybe you need a mixture of culture all following the same star.

I am listening. I also note that you post in public.

If he wants I can soon move it elsewhere

No evil intent in posting here, its a harmless enough philosophical question, by all means move it inside if you like, but i know many guests read this section, who knows who they, maybe we have a travian genius lurking, shame not to utilise that resource

So the question remains, what form of government is most suitable to travian, or maybe there are some that fit and other times dont.

If you ask me then it's the glove that fits the hand more than anything else. What is suitable depends on the players within the alliance. Metas tend to be stable because their members are low skill low experience players who need and seek direction. The more experienced and skilled a player is the more they want control over their own direction and the more likely they are to cause waves if they don't get it. There have been alliances that work where it is a collection of good players held very loosely together by a need to defend each other but they tend to be in the minority and are easily split.

I'm beginning to think the perfect travian rulership is one where all goals and systems are predefined and clear and those in positions of responsibility are nothing more than administrators.

With the paths to success, in this case defined by getting a wonder to lvl 100, being well known and almost mechanical there is very little need for outright leadership as such. Those that know how to play will do and those that don't are treated as cattle in the main part.

I don't see many alternatives to this ideal either. Dictatorship works when the top players have no choices in their area, when they do have a choice they tend to move as the needs of their personal game demands.

Democracy leads to internal division and inefficiency.

The best system always seems to be, as shameful as it is, one where the better players are allowed to do what they want and the less good players are told to toe the line.

Quote :

The best system always seems to be, as shameful as it is, one where the better players are allowed to do what they want and the less good players are told to toe the line.

I agree with this to a point.
I personally believe that those in leadeship should lead by example and experience.

The experience part is in the planning and execution of offensives/defensives and overall growth and direction of the alliance, and the leading by example is to show those less experienced players the way to improve rather than letting them carry on blind so to speak, doing only as they are told. More a case of both do as i say, AND do as I do.

That was the way I learnt in my first ever server, and found it to be the best way, and hopefully I have also passed along to others what I have learnt.

kitkat wrote:

If you ask me then it's the glove that fits the hand more than anything else. What is suitable depends on the players within the alliance. Metas tend to be stable because their members are low skill low experience players who need and seek direction. The more experienced and skilled a player is the more they want control over their own direction and the more likely they are to cause waves if they don't get it. There have been alliances that work where it is a collection of good players held very loosely together by a need to defend each other but they tend to be in the minority and are easily split.

I'm beginning to think the perfect travian rulership is one where all goals and systems are predefined and clear and those in positions of responsibility are nothing more than administrators.

With the paths to success, in this case defined by getting a wonder to lvl 100, being well known and almost mechanical there is very little need for outright leadership as such. Those that know how to play will do and those that don't are treated as cattle in the main part.

I don't see many alternatives to this ideal either. Dictatorship works when the top players have no choices in their area, when they do have a choice they tend to move as the needs of their personal game demands.

Democracy leads to internal division and inefficiency.

The best system always seems to be, as shameful as it is, one where the better players are allowed to do what they want and the less good players are told to toe the line.

XD Cant say I ever noticed that

Of course they get the opportunity to learn

It shuts it's mouth or else it gets the hose again

kitkat wrote:

If you ask me then it's the glove that fits the hand more than anything else. What is suitable depends on the players within the alliance.

Top answer, i couldnt agree more. Although i have to say that the fist can also change shape to meet in the middle.

kitkat wrote:

I'm beginning to think the perfect travian rulership is one where all goals and systems are predefined and clear and those in positions of responsibility are nothing more than administrators.

Again i cant argue, and i believe that any new movements should be planned well in advance, weeks! S3 was perfect timing, you all had time to get the flyposters stuck to the bins, you had time to look at new members, and time to ditch them if they werent FOAD material, or vice versa, you had the time to find a natural order, and to finalise your style and goals. Pity 3.6 scared travian away, S3 was set to be a showcase server for .uk, i know many were watching even though they werent playing.
But yes, in any new undertaking you must plan once, plan again, plan again, and be adaptable to changing needs.

kitkat wrote:

Democracy leads to internal division and inefficiency.

The best system always seems to be, as shameful as it is, one where the better players are allowed to do what they want and the less good players are told to toe the line.

1) Absolutely agree, and democracy leads to inflated ego, and dreams of power.
Take this saying with you in life, its true:
"Power should only be given to those who don't crave it."
Unfortunetly democracy doesnt give you the option.

2) Yes, within reason. Seasoned players must bear the responsibilty of the freedom though, you must give all the freedom to grow they need, but its upto them to cause as little strife to the alliance as possible.
"Apprentices" must know they are exactly that, and must be willing to listen when its needed, and be respectful, many new players suddenly find they are very good, and thats when the ego must be developed.

But all that should go down to recruitment, you should always remember that a good solid alliance is very desirable to a player, they must be willing to help make it powerful, and do what it takes for the team. You must never enlist the greedy, or nest feathers.
Recruitment is the life force of any new alliance. An experienced recruiter can tell chaff from wheat, and soldiers from renegades.

Anonymous wrote:

I personally believe that those in leadeship should lead by example and experience.
The experience part is in the planning and execution of offensives/defensives and overall growth and direction of the alliance, and the leading by example is to show those less experienced players the way to improve rather than letting them carry on blind so to speak, doing only as they are told. More a case of both do as i say, AND do as I do.

I agree to a point, you do need an experienced stalwart, preferably one who has played with alot of the other members before. But i disagree that they must be genius in the area of ingame, they must be solid, and do the basics well, but i think all other skill and finese is more learned from the rank and file interacting seperately. Leaders fall ingame, but that doesnt mean its game over, by far. And often leaders ingame can be a distraction, sometimes a leader has got to take one for the team, alot of the time an alliance cant accept that, or stand by and watch.
To me strong character, and a rallying voice are most important. Would the allies have lost less men if Churchill picked up a gun in WW2? No but his speech about fighting on the beaches inspired britain, and made her push that little bit harder.
I like the idea of Leadership by a small handful of known veterans who know the score, and rotate once in a while, i like the idea that half dont play ingame, it doesnt mean they cant fill in for people, and they are far less distracted, or blinded by a grudge. I think a brain of an alliance is far more adaptable than most other forms of ruling body, it works with the others.
I am thinking long on this one, i am planning to come back to .uk, and i have a few new idea's, .uk is abit chaotic at the moment, i think change is needed, and i dont think the "small elite alliance" is the only alternative to Meta's.
Look foward to more replies to this thread, everyone has their own opinion on it.

In a weird way I find parallels to the military structure the Celts/Saxons etc used to employ. At the core you have a small elite band of warriors, the nobles and such. They were the real killers of the army and travelled to every battle, fought together and operated a an effective cohesive unit. On top of that were the rank andfile. Militia, peasants and mercenaries that formed the shield wall. Defensive units designed to break up and hold off the enemy while the warriors took out their targets.

Very similar to how travian works. The majority of an alliance are just there to form the wall of defence while the elite do the damage. Some will learn and progress to the upper echelons but in the most part they did their job and left after each server etc. The top should need no instruction other than target selection and someone to shout CHARGE at the appropriate moment.

Too often people, including myself, have wanted to create a more Roman structure of mass well drilled armies that operate with discipline. NCO's under a general but all fight with precision and skill. It just doesn't work in travian The shield wall want to do simple tasks and build their villages not form up to high end elite players.

I also think politically the old systems work better too. The old tribes were no more than loose confederations that will fight and snipe at each other in local wars or as we would see it farming rights but they unite against the greater foe or at special moments. Again the parallels are clear.

What I see as the biggest challenge in an alliance as this is exactly its perceived elite nature. As most of you know I'm a comparative newbie here, but the impression I have got is that there is a bond between many of it's members, based on exactly that, and that some are good friends as well. Other than that it seems quite loose... anarchic even. We went gung ho for the pt server - all that was agreed upon and known was which quad, with kk in charge. So far 4 have deleted and 1 left the alliance (probably deleting i should think). Some of the remaining players are in trouble already.

All in all a much poorer show than we should have been able to make based on our own perceptions of ourselves. Maybe we're not immortal after all? Or is it the self-centeredness and egoes of good players that makes survival in a hostile environment harder? (no reputations has carried over to portugal, apparently. They seem immune to boasting too, strangely enough)

Democracy? Pfft, we would run for elections IRL instead if that was what we wanted. But I still think that in a game like trav, egoes should be subordinate to the greater good - the alliance. So, no matter in what way the leadership is formed and how it's run on a day to day basis, its primary task would be to enforce just that. Loyalty to one's own.

The game is based on the times, its no surprise that modern day politics have no place in a dark age. look at the civilizations of the times. Think like they did in those day's, what worked best then and the answers to that riddle not far away.

Whats best? Ideally?

A team full of seasoned vet's with good commonsense, and a self rule policy to go with it.