Next pl season suggestion

This is not alliance war to share VP and the game is becoming very static, i think with individual vp it will be hard to sign coalition and end game naps = more action

The main problem with that is that it leads to competition within a coalition, which for many people makes it uncomfortable, frustrating and not enjoyable. Nothing worse than trying to be a team player when your mates are behaving selfishly. I think this would benefit the more experienced players, who already have an advantage. On the other hand, no one is forced to join a coalition and the dog eat dog style would add more dimension to diplomacy. Ultimately, it should be up to the majority of active players. Maybe people like to have to be continually looking over their shoulder for the knife that is headed into their spine.

I am not agree with you Mark, your proposal will be very contradictory: you will be fighting the enemy for vp and competing with your alliance partners for vp too. In your proposal, alliances dont make sense. If you want all your vp for you, you can choose to fight alone.

On the other hand, I support your idea to give a plus to players who play alone (10% is little, nobody is going to choose that risk for only 10% plus, 30% will be more motivating). For 2 members coalitions -20% and for 3 members coalition -30%.

Other idea I had, to do more equal the game, is this new rule: When 2 countries or two alliances are in war, is prohibited to others countries or alliances to attack that countrys wich are in war, upto one of that countrys /alliances lost or upto they sign peace. With this rule, team wars will be more equal, and we avoid the situation where 2 alliances fight vs one alliance.

"Other idea I had, to do more equal the game, is this new rule: When 2 countries or two alliances are in war, is prohibited to others countries or alliances to attack that countrys wich are in war, upto one of that countrys /alliances lost or upto they sign peace. With this rule, team wars will be more equal, and we avoid the situation were 2 alliances fight vs one alliance."

your proposal would eiminate the need for diplomacy

you need to build relations with others

it would unfairly disadvantage anyone who has more than one agreement

just because you dont desire war with person X, person y may desire it

you could not make any consistent plan because someone else attacked the perosn of your choice first

I agree with grandpooba you can not limit attacks on protagonists when a war starts. The other downside is simply declare war on who you feel is weakest and then no one would be allowed to attack you. (ex N America declares war at onset of hostilities with Caucasus, now no-one is allowed to declare a war on either as both are at war) How would you feel as Caucasus if you spent two days preparing for war with Turkey only to be stopped by N America's declaration?

I also sense Mark's frustration. Our early alliance this month sent me into Canada where I did a fairly fast job of subduing the country, but my performance in Europe has been very sluggish for a variety of reasons both in and outside the game. However, I have contributed as opportunities arise.

Coalitions have merit, they provide a permanent security on a border and a host of other benefits. Perhaps a way to help distribute the points would be to award coalition points as a % such that in a 2 player coalition the award is split 55/45 and in a 3 player 38/34/28 or something similar with the highest %'s awarded based on individual performance. This opens up some competition within the coalition but still acknowledges higher performers while lower performers are still awarded for any contributions they have made to the team. In our current PL, I would have no ill will for Mark receiving more points for his blitzkrieg, but would feel justly compensated for my fleet contributions.

Hey guys, my issue is not with being frustrated from sharing the points between the coalition, but from the end game naps that are being made from early in the game, which is the best way to win; but if we had VP as every man for himself, end game coalition naps wont work because points are not shared within the coalition and the end game coalition nap will only benefit 1 player in the coalition and there is big chance the other players will refuse it as they still need to fight to earn points

and every player will need to fight for VP points, which will give us more action in the game and maybe we will have different agendas within the coalition, as it is going now every game, it is 3 main coalitions fighting with 1 loosing coalition and all the fighting is being over by day 21; while earlier when we had VP for every player all wars ended by day 30-31

I missed a few months over the summer, but it seems the fighting was more intense when we had a lot of players signed up and full maps. The downsizing of coalitions I think also helped as we no longer had the 5 person monster we had in February. So would this concern

MarkAchkar wrote:

and every player will need to fight for VP points, which will give us more action in the game and maybe we will have different agendas within the coalition, as it is going now every game, it is 3 main coalitions fighting with 1 loosing coalition and all the fighting is being over by day 21; while earlier when we had VP for every player all wars ended by day 30-31

If early end game NAPs till end og game are the problem, perhaps instate a rule that says NAP's can only be X days max in length (10?) and then have to be renewed to continue.

that cannot be controlled, u cannot force players to go to war even if they have no nap

I recognize the problem, but I don't like any of the solutons posted in this thread. The PL sepcifically moved to being a coalition game, where all partners are rewarded equally, after we had some bad cases of backstabbing colaition mates, and of players competing and arguing over VP's. I remember someone saying, "I take bad military decisions just so I can take vital provs before my alliance mates". That's an atmosphere I don't want to promote or go back to, so as far as I'm concerned, that's a no, even in mitigated form.

Mandatory one-on-one wars is a really bad idea... some problems and abuses were already mentioned above, and I can think of several more of the top of my head (me and Johnny don't really want to fight at all, so we declare on eachother on day #1 and just sit there all game, for example).

I think this is mainly a social thing. End-game NAP's are signed more and more often and earlier, because they are seen as the way to long-term survival (to become part of the "two" and not be the "one"). As Mark said, NAP's are not enforced by rules, so we cannot really do something about it by changing them; but we might strive to change our own group morale. The honor system is very strong among PL players, and I'm really proud of that, NAP's are hardly ever broken anymore... but for the really long ones, this disrupts the game. Maybe we could agree to some sort of "code of conduct" that says that no NAP can be longer than 7 days, or that all NAP's must contain a 24h exit clause, and that it is perfectly honorable to pull it? The main NAP in the current game is actually becoming quite ridiculous; in the real world, strife would have started between the two winning coalitions when it was apparent (several days ago already) that the third was on its way out. Here, the "one-bashing" continues simply because the other two signed a NAP that says they can't fight eachother. If the NAP had had a mandatory end after 7 days, I'm pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't spend half their air force just to beat down some mountain refuge in the Caucasus...

Time limits on NAPs will not solve the problem, NAPs would simply be renewed.

The player base for PL continues to shrink, someone needs to stop and think why that might be?

WayneBo wrote:

Time limits on NAPs will not solve the problem, NAPs would simply be renewed.

The player base for PL continues to shrink, someone needs to stop and think why that might be?

I disagree that NAP time limits would just renew, (sometimes, yes). However, when the first party has been effectively beaten with just a few scraps left, two major powers with NAPs set to expire are likely to hold back some forces and redirect to unprotected borders under the assumption that the other will not renew but go for your own juggler. Other times a non combatent may feel they are strong enough to take out a battle weary coalition who is winning, but who has spent many of his units. An honor time constraint on NAP length is worth trying. Some may renew, some may not, but we will never know if we don't try it.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

or that all NAP's must contain a 24h exit clause

K.Rokossovski wrote:

If the NAP had had a mandatory end after 7 days, I'm pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't spend half their air force just to beat down some mountain refuge in the Caucasus...

Damn those Russians! They must be the Imperial type!

Maybe do coalitions of 2 members (only for the moment, because we have less players now). In that way, vp will be divide only in 2.

more coalitions, more options, more competitive will be.

If in the future more player join the PL, we can return to the 3 coalitions members.

Another thing, we should do some kind of publicity in the forum to find more player to join PL.

Here is an idea that is way out of the box, but may create a more dynamic interaction.

Sworn enemy -

• each player is assigned a sworn enemy (Everyone's name goes in the hat once and is randomly drawn/assigned). The list is published day 1.
• You may not join/form a coalition with a sworn enemy.
• If you eliminate your sworn enemy you gain a 25% bonus
• If your sworn enemy is still alive at the end of the month you get a 25% penalty

many players now playing the blue collar, that type of games should not have been advertised for in the player league forums ... we have few players and we cannot afford many leagues

Maximilianvs wrote:

Another thing, we should do some kind of publicity in the forum to find more player to join PL.

MarkAchkar wrote:

many players now playing the blue collar,

3 out of 18 is many for me