I have to disagree with you. I think the coalition sizes are fine just the way they are. It makes it so coalitions can be loyal and don't have to break up to win the game because the size would be too big. Also, with no limit, it makes it too easy for coalitions to win. The way it is right now offers a good sense of challenge and careful diplomacy and I love it. It's your opinion, though. No hate ![]()
Collision Size
We need an option for for lager collisions add like a slider or something I miss 100 game with like teams of 15 going to war.
5 Replies
Ya I can understand that but I'm in a game with two coalitions of three that have been full allies day 3 and we will have to go to war soon... but it would defiantly have to be a setting rater than just removing it enterly if it was done
oh and a random story real quick I was once in a game ware Grease singalhandedly took on the enter world and won
Your spelling makes me reluctant to take you seriously.
Seriously, you want 15 player coalitions back? Seems like you just want easy wins.
Your being very rude and not even reading I said 15 vs 15 its a lot harder than a one vs one and every player in the game can do this so its not unbalanced.
Also its grammar there is nothing wrong with my spelling at least use the right word if your going to be so negative!
"Collision and Grease" beg to differ. Also, true world wars never happen. Back before coalition limits people would just mass ally in 100 player games, which led to people scrambling for land with light tank spam. The late game would always just be countries slowly being consumed by the largest country with the best army..Cerberus. wrote:
Your being very rude and not even reading I said 15 vs 15 its a lot harder than a one vs one and every player in the game can do this so its not unbalanced.Also its grammar there is nothing wrong with my spelling at least use the right word if your going to be so negative!
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.