Coalitions in the Players League

Rules should reflect the reality of the game play.

When they restricted Right of Way players responded with Flash Wars and stockpiling of peace offerings.

When they restricted Shared Maps, players took screen shots and shared them on Discord.

When they restricted alliances, players made them informally and in many ways those were better than the formal in game ones.

When they eliminated Coalitions it had no effect on players forming groups.

Now to avoid abuse later in the game, what was suggested is that if there are coalitions, that you could not form a new coalition after a certain time to trigger an end of game move.

Let the games be played by the players as they play.

The problems are more serious with the growing number of feuds and cross game deals or punishments. This is a player culture problem. Sometimes you have to set things up so that players do not join games where there are auto attacks/feuds going on and you have to separate them. Within the confines of a multigame tournament system it may led to having two games run at the same time in a month just to keep the feuders from each other, since it also limits the other players options.

Part of the whole greater issue is what do you want from the Player League. By having a focus on a multigame scoring system with some prestige or whatever added to the rankings, it means that players can enter a game with a target on their back and have no in game arguments that could counter the argument of : "You are ahead of me in the score so I must attack you and tear you down." (a very European Balance of Power mentality culturally).

If on the other hand you want to see games with good players simply having fun, then remove the whole scoring system and just do invitational games each month.

EZ Dolittle wrote:

Part of the whole greater issue is what do you want from the Player League. By having a focus on a multigame scoring system with some prestige or whatever added to the rankings, it means that players can enter a game with a target on their back and have no in game arguments that could counter the argument of : "You are ahead of me in the score so I must attack you and tear you down." (a very European Balance of Power mentality culturally).

If on the other hand you want to see games with good players simply having fun, then remove the whole scoring system and just do invitational games each month.

I voted yes to coalitions.

The next question is on what size coalitions?

In CoW frontline pioneers in one game we had coalitions of 8 players but then it was a 250 player game.

The max size of the coalition should probably be proportional to the max number of players.

22 players probably coalitions of 3 or 4 players.

Shared map would be manditory with coalitions.

I dont understand why shared map and/or even right-of-way is not allowed outside coalitions? I think this should be allowed outside coalitions.

Getting a good team together is one of the best rewards in this game. This is not just restricted to your coalition.

When coalitions and players are becoming big and powerful, it is important for the survival of the smaller players/coalitions to be able to band together to protect each other from the bigger players. This is very hard to happen without shared map and RoW outside coalitions, and makes it very very very hard for smaller players to survive against seasoned veteran players.

I would vote YES to the removal of Rule 2 altogether.

So much more can be learnt from teamwork/coalitions than with being an individual.

CoW coalitions is one way this game can be used to develop ones own abilities to work with others in a team to achieve something together. Not to have coalitions would be a missed opportunity to learn more about each other and to develop skills in working with other people to achieve a common goal.

At the risk of repeating myself, having coalitions / right of way / shared map etc allow players to develop skills in such things as:-

1. The united front;

a. In defence - different countries protecting the same province front;

b. In attack - different countries attacking from the same province. One may provide the air cover, whilst another the mobile land forces , whilst the third the navy bombardment etc.

2. Specialised Tech / Tech shops etc etc

I could keep talking, but I will leave it here.

More can be learnt and testing in this game working as a coalition than working as an individual.

I am not sure why, but I am unable to vote. If I could I would vote yes, because:

1) it gives you a convenient group messaging system

2)It is the reality of WWII, they existed

3) It does away with some of the cloak and dagger as everyone can see who is in a coalition

Brings me around to my question on the coalition rule. By being bounced to this thread does that mean the rule does not exist for January, with a revised coalition rule released on day 1 of the January round?

Peter Mat wrote:

Brings me around to my question on the coalition rule. By being bounced to this thread does that mean the rule does not exist for January, with a revised coalition rule released on day 1 of the January round?

grandpooba52 wrote:

Might be

tally is 5 no 3 yes and one sometimes

there will be no coalitions in 2019 season 1

For season 2, you might want to either provide more time for response, inform all the players of the poll, or both to get more accurate opinions. Even if you ask each player in the games, it might be better. Unless only 10 people are in this Player's League, then you're doing great.

My point is 9 responses might not be a sufficient sample size and some may not have known of the poll. Good luck with your league by the way.

BattleIvan wrote:

I voted yes to coalitions.

The next question is on what size coalitions?

In CoW frontline pioneers in one game we had coalitions of 8 players but then it was a 250 player game.

The max size of the coalition should probably be proportional to the max number of players.

22 players probably coalitions of 3 or 4 players.

Shared map would be manditory with coalitions.

I dont understand my shared map and/or even right-of-way is not allowed outside coalitions? I think this should be allowed outside coalitions.

Getting a good team together is one of the best rewards in this game. This is not just restricted to your coalition.

When coalitions and players are becoming big and powerful, it is important for the survival of the smaller players/coalitions to be able to band together to protect each other from the bigger players. This is very hard to happen without shared map and RoW outside coalitions, and makes it very very very hard for smaller players to survive against seasoned veteran players.

I would vote YES to the removal of Rule 2 altogether.

If your coalition is 10% of all the players is it actually that unbalanced?

There is no reason to add artificial rules.

All existing in-game options should be available (so, coalitions), except gold use.

thanks for your opinion