PL rule changes poll

Max you must be joking. This is a war game. Remember? Look around the world! In the real world. Have you ever seen that alliances attack another alliances? Yes.. Have you ever hear about Holy Alliances against Napoleon? Or Allies against Axis in WW II.? Or Delosian alliance versus Persia at antiquity? etc etc. IF one nation get to strong, others make a colaiction against it. Thats all. Lets go play sims.

this is a war game with diplomacy, its all part of the game, even naps are not rules they are just honor pacts btw the players, i vote against ur request @Keyadoria, many pl games i played where i fought vs all the map, u have to work on diplomacy as just as on ur war game, and u have to choose the right allies.

and the season will be won by 1 player with position 2 and 3 receiving reward as well, so this is also an individual challenge to earn mot point and win the season

regarding the fixed alliances, we can check if many players like to allow leaving and joining new alliance or whatever and not be locked to the same alliance, but that definitly should be for next season, and the points distribution may be different as well which make things more complicated..

The two players being attacked at the two largest in the game, by a good stretch. Your looking at simple numbers, jumping to conclusions and have not been part of the month long behind scenes diplomacy. If one coalition is dominating the game to the point that they outscore everyone else, then a scenerio like what is taking place can very well develop.

Maximilianvs wrote:

A good new rule next game would be: when 2 alliances are in war, a 3erd alliance can't attack that 2 alliances that are in war, upto the war finish. So in that way, never 2 alliances are going to fight against one alone alliance, and the game will be more equal.The last to game finished in a very unequal way. Example in august pl, 7 players agains 2. No make sense playing that way. If we have 4 members coalition, is for do equality to the game. but, that doesn't happen in the game, So the 4 membres coalition rule doesn't have sense if then 7 players of 2 alliances are attacking 2 members of one alliance. At the is is like the rules allow 7 coalition members in one side and 2 in other.

However, in this game, you had the numbers and quality for most part and you seemed okey with it. When you attacked inactives or when you attacked Egypt you did not propose to fight with the same numbers of units but you totally destroyed them.

Moreover, in this game there are 3 alliances. 2 with 4 players and one with 3. You were also fine with members inequality and you made a nap with the 4 members alliance while you refused the nap with 2 players alliance( 3rd was left with few units). So after you lose a country from 2 players and you allies can not close the war your nap with the 3rd alliance ends and you get attacked.

As it is natural, now the odds are against you and you will lose. This is my opinion, it is not personal as i do not know you and it focuses only for in game situations.

Now, If your suggested rule is implemented i will give you a very easy way to exploit it. i am making an alliance by myself and i declare an arranged war with yours . we do not fight each other though but the other alliances can not join or attack any of us.

Max, I think forcing two coalitions into an exclusive war that noone else can enter leads to all kinds of undesired effects. For example, in the current game, the Africans would have been forced to stand by idle while we fought the Americans to death. It might well have taken the rest of the game to conquer all provinces (and one side might have chosen not to COMPLETELY finish off the other, just to avoid a second war with them after that!). There are many more exploits possible.

We were beaten fair and square this month, both on the battlefield, failing to kick the Americans out of Europe, and on the diplomatic front, failing to bring in the Africans on our side instead of theirs. Of course losing is never nice, but I see no reason to change the rules for that.

I do agree however that too few coalitions are created in the current game, this is the second month in a row that there is a tripod of power before the middle of the game. I think the solution is in limiting the size of coalitions back to three; and I will post a voting poll to that effect in a minute.

I totally aggred with Roko. We have to few coaliction in games. Limit to 3ppl/coaliction can be a solution.

agree with smaller coalition...3 is the correct number.