Coalition limitations

Any such option would probably be abused.

As such, it will test your skill more and beating a superpower coalition will be better. For example, a good Xinjiang can beat soviet union and a good South Africa or Australia can be very strong in the late game. I think that historic world war is just a downsized free for all and it's objectives should be similar to that as well.

'A superpower'? One, yes. But 3, no. That will just prove they are total noobs, nothing more.

This subject is not about player quality. Quality is always important. But if everything came down to player quality, why even bother balancing maps?

Not so. You know map balances matter. Hence my suggestion.

There is no bigger abuse than joining to grab the 3 super powers. Things can only get better.

Well one of the motivations for joining a HWW game as a good country is to, uh, win. So stopping players from taking aactions that would make them win easier is kind of pointless. if you don't being steamrolled by superpowers in HWW (which is understandable), you don't have to play that map

whowh wrote:

Well one of the motivations for joining a HWW game as a good country is to, uh, win. So stopping players from taking aactions that would make them win easier is kind of pointless. if you don't being steamrolled by superpowers in HWW (which is understandable), you don't have to play that map

Everyones a winner, baby.

Easy winning is not the point here. You can always join a Europe 22 map and go clubber baby seal if you want an easy win.

HWW should not be for the easy wins. Hence no mega-coalition should be allowed.

Ignatio Oddball wrote:

I suggest that the 'historical' maps come with either a fixed or an optional ban on super power coalitions.

I just had a game where 3 'friends' joined up as USSR, Germany and USA and instantly joined into coalition. Each of these countries in the historical world map are already OPed to the extreme (at least USA and USSR) and this coalition killed any realistic chance that a throw-together opposition could stop them. Even if ppl would cooperate (which ofc was not the case) there is no way. e.g. China and Japan can help Poland and France in time from being steam rolled.

I think it would be an improvement to disallow 3 great power nations in a coalition. Or at least make it an option in the player initiated matches on the historical maps.

The best option would be to make all these maps random pick for country.

yeah, but then the noobs start complaining oh why did I get Tibet, I wanted Germany

My response would be....too bad

Maybe something like you only make coalitions with countries of the same doctrine. This would prevent unrealistic/overpowered alliances.

Unknowner12 wrote:

Maybe something like you only make coalitions with countries of the same doctrine. This would prevent unrealistic/overpowered alliances.

Coulda sworn that Germany and Japan had an alliance in ww2, but maybe i am mistaken...

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Unknowner12 wrote:

Maybe something like you only make coalitions with countries of the same doctrine. This would prevent unrealistic/overpowered alliances.

Coulda sworn that Germany and Japan had an alliance in ww2, but maybe i am mistaken...

Yes they had an alliance.

Vanrendo wrote:

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Unknowner12 wrote:

Maybe something like you only make coalitions with countries of the same doctrine. This would prevent unrealistic/overpowered alliances.

Coulda sworn that Germany and Japan had an alliance in ww2, but maybe i am mistaken...

Both Germany and Japan and Italy were Axis.Yes they had an alliance.

In-game Call of War they not the same doctrine but WW2 they were in an alliance as the Axis powers.

Vanrendo wrote:

In-game Call of War they not the same doctrine but WW2 they were in an alliance as the Axis powers.