Here are some things I have put together regarding the coalition update:
Add a Moderator/Co-Leader rank to assist in accepting applications
Add a limit maximum of 10 members per coalition. This seems to be a VERY conservative maximum, allowing for clans to play together, but not so much that it isn't impossible for them to still finish the game.
When the leader goes inactive, do not kick them from coalition. Hand over leadership to aforementioned Moderator/Co-Leader, and demote inactive leader to member.
Remove the flag from units in a coalition. It was a good idea, but it clutters the game way too much. Leave the Coalition flag under the Capitols.
Let us "War" with other coalitions. Have the same war weariness effect from being at war with a single nation (Not all nations combined, that would mess with the game A LOT) This would prevent help prevent 'double agents' in coalitions. It also gives a 'negative' aspect in joining a Coalition, making the player think twice about joining a large coalition.
Allow the Leader to invite players to the coalition, with a limit of 3 invites per day.
Coalitions should have their Victory Points count towards the end-of-game VP needed (3323 for World Maps) by using ONLY the top 3 players in the coalition.
Send a message to an applicant when the application is approved or denied. Otherwise, they sit in wait wondering if the leader has seen it.
Give a notification bubble when an application is waiting. (Similar to PMs, articles, etc)
More may be added in the future, please post any other suggestions, and I will add them to the list!
Pax Romana Communications Officer
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
19 Replies
16 May 2016, 16:20
I don't think the flag icon clutters anything, its small enough to sit out of the way.
Otherwise, I agree with most. I really like the co-leader idea.
"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher "The 3 Requisites for Success ā Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW Game Username: LordStark01
16 May 2016, 16:27
Thank you.
I don't have any good examples of the flag clutter at the moment, but when there are multiple countries in one small area, it gets confusing.
Pax Romana Communications Officer
16 May 2016, 16:28
Oh i see your point there, but as it stands I see no issue: but i suppose lots of little coalitions would start clogging stuff up.
"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher "The 3 Requisites for Success ā Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW Game Username: LordStark01
16 May 2016, 19:49
I like all these ideas.. I think they are great
Just on the flag issue, I think it should just be removed beside units. That is it.
Otherwise, great list
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
16 May 2016, 19:52
Perhaps my wording was unclear, that is exactly what I am suggesting.
Pax Romana Communications Officer
16 May 2016, 21:38
Added 2 suggestions.
Pax Romana Communications Officer
17 May 2016, 16:04
I think an edit to the "3 player or less coalition" counts towards the victory points together would be to count only the top three players in a coalition towards the victory condition. IE: If a coalition has 5 members, only the top three victory points get added together to form the Coalition victory points. Just because I have a few weak, but nice fellows in my coalition does not mean I should kick them out just to end the game.
17 May 2016, 16:28
I agree with this! I will amend my suggestion. Thanks!
Pax Romana Communications Officer
17 May 2016, 16:46
Good suggestion, these suggestions should be added to the game, are basically an update that would enhance the coalitions.
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius. "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
17 May 2016, 22:54
I enjoy the flag feature personally.
One thing which could be added would be a mechanic for calling votes on various things. Corresponding to this would be the ability for the leader to either give or remove a member's voting rights.
18 May 2016, 01:21
StrangeTalent wrote:
Coalitions should have their Victory Points count towards the end-of-game VP needed (3323 for World Maps) by using ONLY the top 3 players in the coalition.
If this were done the VP for 3 players should probably be higher than that for single player. Otherwise anyone not in a coalition wouldn't really have a chance. Also the top 3 in a large coalition could benefit greatly from other members by not having to war with them sharing intel etc. It would be cool if a coalition could somehow win but it needs to be balanced. I would suggest a system where a coalition could win and the spoils are split somewhat evenly. This would encourage cooperation instead of self serving behavior. The game win could also be split so that each person in coalition gets a fraction of a win (1 / #members). And like mentioned above it should be harder for a coalition to win than an individual in terms of VP and should be scaled somewhat by the size of the coalition.
18 May 2016, 03:05
DxC wrote:
StrangeTalent wrote:
Coalitions should have their Victory Points count towards the end-of-game VP needed (3323 for World Maps) by using ONLY the top 3 players in the coalition.
If this were done the VP for 3 players should probably be higher than that for single player. Otherwise anyone not in a coalition wouldn't really have a chance. Also the top 3 in a large coalition could benefit greatly from other members by not having to war with them sharing intel etc. It would be cool if a coalition could somehow win but it needs to be balanced. I would suggest a system where a coalition could win and the spoils are split somewhat evenly. This would encourage cooperation instead of self serving behavior. The game win could also be split so that each person in coalition gets a fraction of a win (1 / #members). And like mentioned above it should be harder for a coalition to win than an individual in terms of VP and should be scaled somewhat by the size of the coalition.
I agree DxC. I'm fine with the flags, but then again, I haven't tried coalitions on the world map... I also think you should get a notification bubble by the diplomacy button like with any other message for coalition messages. At the moment, I do not know if my coalition members have sent any messages in the diplomacy tab without checking it.
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. -Winston Churchill Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching. -George S. Patton
19 May 2016, 15:00
Not a fan of the coalition flags either!
I am in my first global war and agree that there needs to be a limit to the number of players that can join each coalition. At the moment we have about 40% of the map in coalitions, with each coalition having between 1 and 9 players. There is no way any other coalition can compete with the 9 player coalition if the next higher is six players, unless multiple coalitions team up on the bigger ones, or I am sure there are other exceptions. But definitely a high limit would be great!
Not a fan of the ONLY the top three getting victory points. I am the kind of player that is conservative, but willing to do whatever to help my team. Since I don't go nuts trying to expand, I don't think I should be punished and never get any victory points. There should be some reward for helping my teammates win the war. Not sure how to divy up the victory points, but to limit it to only the top 3 doesn't feel right. Them getting the most, for sure, but all? Doesn't feel right.
19 May 2016, 15:31
I agree, some sort of balance needs to be made. Perhaps give every player gold for participating (minimum of 7 days of gameplay) on a scaled ratio?
Pax Romana Communications Officer
19 May 2016, 15:39
I do like the ideas, although I would say that the limit on how many members can be invited per day is a bit strict, it should be at least 5. This is because of certain situations, ex.: a 100 player game has started and people want to make a coalition that unites many different countries in one region ASAP in order to unite them before they join another coalition. The limit would be balancing though.
19 May 2016, 15:56
If the number of winners stays at the top 3, then that naturally makes the coalition limit of three. Otherwise, yes, there will be mass cannibalism within larger coalitions in every war, which removes realism from the game. Of course, in history, there have been agreements which were broken, but this is just inviting chaos to what was a somewhat realistic, fun to play game.
19 Mar 2020, 12:58
Can I declare war on my coalition member instantly after i leave my coalition? How its after last updates?
19 Mar 2020, 19:56
Yeah you can. Some other people are against that. BTW, this is a 2016 thread...
This old thread has a new idea to enhance the desirability of coalitions.
I propose that, instead of the set amount of Gold prize only for a coalition victory, that coalition winners also get the value of their VP's added to their base set prize. This is only VERY fair, since some members of a coalition put in more work than others. If I were to achieve 70% of my coalition's total VP's, then I ought to get the coalition gold prize as well as 70% of our total VP in gold. And if another player has done poorly (i.e., I had to shore up his defenses over and over), even though he also gets the coalition prize, his portion of the VP gold split would be minimal....which is just.
So, let's incentivize coalition membership for the *better* players by giving them a better prize than just the basic coalition gold awards. Let their VP's count for something more meaningful. Give them the full value of their achievements.
