CoW staff informed me that our coalition will need 721 points to win with 70% of the 22-player tutorial. The paper only listed the 525 Victory points required for solo win (may be we need a matrix link listing all these different victory conditions for solo and coalition for every map) ... The two other members of my coalition are suffering from battle fatigue and peek in every other day ... Does not it make sense to reduce coalition win in 22-player tutorial map to 60% of victory point total in map?
60% of a map is very little. Especially when compared to you only needing 51% of the map for a solo win. A only 9% difference would make it hardly worth joining a coalition. If you cannot get that 70% then perhaps get new allies? Winning 70% of the map pretty much means you have killed all the other threats. But in my opinion, 60% still leaves 40% still alive, this isn't a enough to prove that one coalition is the dominant one.
That's why there's a thing called: "solo victory". Leave the coalition and take 51% of the map. You can attack your ex coalition mates. You know what troops they have and where they are. I can take over a complete country in two game days. So if they login only every other they, next time they login they will be wiped out alreadygusv wrote:
The two other members of my coalition are suffering from battle fatigue and peek in every other day
They are listed in the newspaper in each and every game.gusv wrote:
(may be we need a matrix link listing all these different victory conditions for solo and coalition for every map
Or you need to switch the tab from single player listing to the index of coalitions to see your progress there.
Nice post Vorlon! ... For what ever reason, the World Heralds I get in my game only post solo victories, not coalition victory requirements for map. It would be nice for greenhorns like me to see both identified.
You simply have to click on the different tabs to get the newspaper to display what you want. Look where my red arrows are pointing at the cursor positions. Click there.
I apologize ... I missed it when I initially looked at your post ... Thanks! ... (-:
Please log in to post a reply.
