Add Coalition Max

And the best answer is . . . it depends.

Please see most recent related thread here:

> > > > Do something about the ... end of the game < < < <

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking/talking about

And here's another recent thread on point:

> > > > Add an additional victory condition to allow a coalition victory < < < <

This issue has come up several other times since New Year's, and was beat to death last summer.

giant Coalitions aren't really a problem....they usually war between each other after a while and then become weak as hell

a lot of the time in a big coalition, someone from the coalition goes inactive and then the entire coalition pounces on them. A few days later, happens again. Eventually, the coalition dwindles.

I think the new bigger payouts for winning will help alleviate the quitter problem to a degree.

I still support the coalition win if coalition size IS limited.

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

giant Coalitions aren't really a problem.

And, yes, KDM, there were a number of stories of super-size alliances of 10+ players dominating games last summer, and I don't think that's anything we want to encourage.

Dixie wrote:

I still support the coalition win if coalition size IS limited.

And for the record, I believe these were the consensus limits that emerged in previous discussions last summer:

2-player map: no coalitions eligible

10-player maps: 2-member coalition

22-player map: 3-member coalition

25-player map: 3-member coalition

50-player map: 4-member coalition

100-player map: 5-member coalition

I believe there was also an open-ended question of whether coalition victories should be subject to a higher victory points requirement than individual player victories.

i dont think i have an opinion ut the higher victory point. if the coalition size is limited as per your suggestion, then it wouldnt matter about the vps too much.

Dixie wrote:

if the coalition size is limited as per your suggestion, then it wouldnt matter about the vps too much.

Bottom line: games with multiple coalitions/alliances of similar size are going to be more competitive. That should be the game experience Bytro looks to deliver; not one where a handful of players dominate simply because their alliance is much bigger and smaller alliances and individual players never had a chance.

so very very true. agree to the nth degree

Just my opinion here, but coalition sizes are not the biggest problem. An enormous coalition in a 10 player map, sure, limit it. But when there is a 20-member coalition in a 100 player map, it is simply hilarious, they disintegrate into flames after not ten days (either they go inactive and everyone kills each other for the AFK's land, or the good players quit to kill the noob players of the coalition... it usually ends up as a mess.)

On the other hand, the end of the game is a (sad) problem. My coalition of four players have just finished a 100-player map, and because of the three player limitation, it just turned out as a mess. I agree with @MontanaBB 's limitations, except maybe the 100p where 5 would be too much.

how about this little monkeywrench?

End Round early

Just to be clear, @darksoul111, you could still have an in-game alliance/coalition of whatever size you want. But any alliance/coalition that exceeds the limits would not be able to automatically trigger the victory when they achieve the predetermined number of victory points, nor have an automatic share of the "gold" winnings, and they would still be subject to the 3-surviving-players rule as they are now. In which case the members of the super-size alliance would have to either (a) fight it out among themselves, or (b) determine among themselves who goes inactive.

yup that was in my mind, just didn't phrase it out. Thanks for your correction @MontanaBB

Yeah well it's too late now one guy got betrayed and killed, and I just got backstabbed by another one which I am beating up now. I'll keep it in mind though, thanks @Dixie

imo, if 5 people want to end a map, they should be able to split the gold pot 5 ways. If we look at the reality of WWII there were US, UK, France, Soviets, China, Australia, Canada as the major powers in victory plus a whole host of minor country/UK territories and likely a few others that should be mentioned. The basic gold pot is payed out based on VP's, so what is the problem if the divisor is greater than 3?

Coalitions should also be able to trigger victory conditions. Limiting the number of players in a coalition is probably a good thing so long as it is scaled to the map size. PL uses 4 as a cap on the 22 player and it seems to be working.