Cooperation modus for alliance matches

i don't like it, it like dumping the responsibility to one person, it will also mean that the team under coop and 2 become inactive that team will be predictable because there is one person

Example:

Me

Bill

Pablo

me and Pablo become inactive, the next thing we know it Bill used our nations to build a MASSIVE arsenal of nukes, my resource will be drained and play style will be predictable, because I'm more defensive in play style

and on another note will China allow US to control domestic affairs? short answer no.

it can be a good idea, but i don't want anyone getting blamed on a defeat because someone partied a bit too hard while the other have to carry the game. ever played LoL (league of legends)? its like that but more swearing.

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

i don't like it, it like dumping the responsibility to one person, it will also mean that the team under coop and 2 become inactive that team will be predictable because there is one person

Example:

Me

Bill

Pablo

me and Pablo become inactive, the next thing we know it Bill used our nations to build a MASSIVE arsenal of nukes, my resource will be drained and play style will be predictable, because I'm more defensive in play style

Xarus wrote:

If started in the German part of this Forum a tread, with a idea of my, to give this game a new dimension, now it's time to ask the rest of the World for they meaning. I called it the "Cooperation-Modus".

In my opinion this game is much faster than Supremacy or Thirty Kingdoms, the producing of units and movement is faster. The Air force is more powerful and very quick from one battle to the next. Ships are build faster and some hours offline can cost you a lot of terrain, because the enemy is ambushing you, somewhere in the wilderness where no troops are positioned.

The controlling of the economics and the education need a lot of time....

I think this things are the reason that most players are going inactive, because they didn't have enough time to stay online for a time period of more than one month.

My idea is that we need a real cooperation modus for the alliance games, that means that all players from the same team can control every thing from his partners. The production of off all provinces are put together in one stock. The control over the units goes hand in hand.

In this way, it's possible to make a 3 vs. 3 game and one of the team can make a weekend off, with no playing CoW or if one of us need to work, more than regular, he can do it without of have risk, that most of his nation is gone.

If we have a fight with more players in coop mod, it will more that every player is a general of a part of the front and the def's can design lower scaled maps, like the eastern front between Russian an Germany in 1940 or a fictive German landing on Great Britain with a center of the map in the Northern Sea.

What do you think about it?

Pablo22510 wrote:

Hahahaha. Yes, I imagine Bill will build a massive nuke arsenal with our resources, and I don't tend to use nukes So V1nd1cat0r, you play defensive? Interesting. I'm more like Patton, attack, attack and attack again.

On another note, this idea would really help multi-accounters, possibly promote it. It would be nice now and then but most of the time it would not be a good idea.

It's the blameing I don't like, if anyone that should be blame on a lost its someone that's not actually participating.

And yes I play defensively I prefer breaking the enemy at my walls first than meeting them head on. And if I need to attack I do it fast and hard.

multi accounts...sounds cheating

Multi accounts is cheating and is not allowed. I think, anyway.

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

i don't like it, it like dumping the responsibility to one person, it will also mean that the team under coop and 2 become inactive that team will be predictable because there is one person

My Friends need to research nuclear weapons and other special stuff. When they finish the nuclear bombers they trade it to me and I use it.

So, my idea was to put these lot of micro management away, and put it from the beginning all together.

Pablo22510 wrote:

I don't really like it. People would blame each other. And players who don't really understand the game would take over and make the alliance lose.

think about it!

Your missing the point Xarus, coop is already in play in an alliance match the problem is the people your playing with, I was in an alliance game once 5v5 and in day 2 it become 1v5, if it's with friends coop is alright but we don't know each other to play "as one person" I won't even trust Bill to control a militia.

Another thing is that being an alliance game it should be teamwork that carry the day not one person, sharing resource and army is not a problem but if only one person is carring the game then the alliance is nothing more than a front.

Look, I'm not contradicting you man, I just want an alliance be what it should be an alliance, where new players can learn to become better and work together to win, if they build their nation up just to give nukes to you then their just using you to win, if it's an alliance game it's not wrong but the point of being an alliance is gone.

Sun Tzu said:

Know your enemy and know yourself and you will win a hundread battles

Know yourself but not your enemy and you will win half of battles

Know your enemy but not yourself then you will lose every battle

But not knowing your enemy nor yourself then you will never win any battle

It's about learning through experience and winning with it, not winning alone. Fight shoulder to shoulder not by pushing or encouraging from the back is what an alliance should be, this ability to control even the most petty detail of another allied nation will break the very essence of alliance and team work, fight with ability not with support because in a real war your the one dying in the mud while others are safe in the bunker cheering you on just to die.