"No betraying" option on maps

Can we please, just please let players play the way they want, and the way the game expressly allows them to ?

Many thanks.

Seroslav wrote:

Betraying is one of most pissing, saddening things in CoW.

When somebody push a knife in Your back, just like Brutus did to Cesar.

Some of You will say it's part of the game. True, but it's most unliked part of the game to be betrayed by allies.

I would like to join maps where betraying is impossible. I will have more fun of teamplaying, when knowing that others cannot betray me.

Whoever wants to play games when they can be betrayed anytime, just do so.

And clan is solution just for those who are in some clan, not for everybody.

How it could work?

After a player changes relations from shared map to right of way, it take for example 3 days until he can declare war. After he changes relation from shared map to peace, it take 2 days until he can declare war.

So for example when we don' t want them to step into our territory, after a player makes right of way, we may change it to peace, so we would not be able to move troops into our territory.

Not to be able to misuse it, if I have shared map and I do end ally, I want to make peace, it works the way that my ex-ally have 1 day of right of way and after that peace is established, so he have time to move troops away. Sometimes 1 day is not enough, so it can also differentiate between maps - bigger maps longer time, smaller maps time shorter as above.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

Can we please, just please let players play the way they want, and the way the game expressly allows them to ?

Many thanks.

Many thanks.

There already is an in game feature against treachery. It’s called being prepared. Works wonders.

Bytro take months to change things in the game. This is a suggestion with questionable contribution to the game, that can only be irrelevant in the face of significantly more pressing matters.

It's not a feature. It conumes lot's of troops, fortifications, checking game more often, stress.

I'm sure many people will prefer to play betraying-free maps. So many of them have been backstabbed in game and they didn't like it and they would like to feel safer about it.

It's so common and popular to be backstabbed and it feels so bad...

Your personal opinion if it's questionable or relevant or not is just You own opinion and I don't agree to it.

So don't ally with anybody, and you won't be backstabbed

My solution is much simpler: Play the game right! Nobody will backstab you if you are contributing to the betterment of the team/coalition. Loyalty is earned, so earn it. I try to be loyal to my teammates but I expect no "free" rides. People that do that get kicked for those that contribute. The other thing is communication. Keep in touch, it really helps if you know what is going on and make suggestions.

Finally, if you do get backstabbed, it really IS part of the game. After all, it is only a game. Get over it. Move on.

StrangeTalent wrote:

So don't ally with anybody, and you won't be backstabbed

Go on, win 100 players world map alone... Mr Clever

BB36 wrote:

it really IS part of the game.

But it can change, and I would like that change.

Cause one of main reasons I consider quiting playing is so many backstabbing happening around and I dislike it so much. It's just being an a...hole to others. Whoever does it on the map.

And speding time around such people is not a pleasurable time. I would prefer to play with people with good manners and values, instead of dealing with backstabbers and traitors.

There is never a hundred percent guarantee, especially not in war, not in real so why here ..

..therefore good diplomacy is an important part of this game.

If more and more such things will become simplified, prefabricated and given, then at some point we will have "painting by numbers"..

Yeah, this would remove the fun and excitement of diplomacy

These are called team games. Just set up a game that way if you wish. The countries are assigned to your team permanently. You can't even invade your allies if they go inactive.

No additional code, features, or options are needed. Just learn to use the game.

It doesn't satisfy me. Wish to have option of 'no betraying mode'.

Spending many many hours on map to be then destroyed by some traitor just doesn't feel nice and never will.

Your team cannot betray you in a team game.

Did you even read what I wrote?

They can in other ways. For example my teammate in teamgame have shared map with biggest opponent since beginning of the game.

But I don't want to play just team games, that's why this advice doesn't satisfy me, as I wrote.

I would like to play 100 world map with "no betraying option" and others too. Just playing maps generally with not set up teams, and being able to have this option, so I can make a team which I want, depending on who play which way, casue there are many problems with set up teams.

Now I play team game, where are 7 players in a team and actually actively play only me (conquering and so on), 5 other guys log in and do 3 moves or not even 1 and log out, and 1 went totally inactive.

With "no betraying" option I would change teammates long time ago and would win the map faster, probably would win it already at this moment. With such a team now, I don't know if I will survive next two days actually, as I cannot count on them, just one of them sends me resources, not having guts/time to play by himself.

So what You propose is just not satisfying. It's not solving the problem and it creates more, new problems.

Operation Barbarossa

I do like the team games.

If you take the Human element from the game then you might as well go play Panzer Corps or some other 'P vs AI' type game. It's part of the game.

This doesn't happen very often but I have left a COAL to repay a former member. If in a Coalition game you're a member that does absolutely nothing to help others or contribute to the COAL, and you spend all your time and energy working for yourself then - you're on the list.

dw98 wrote:

If you take the Human element from the game

Another option would be big lowerage of morale. Cause people, military stuff and others, would not fully agree to betraying ally in real life. So such thing could be implemented, as an option to put on started game, what make is realistic and still enable betraying for those traitor players who love to do it so much, but makes price for it higher.

So instead of blocking option to attack, the lowerage of morale would be the bigger the sooner attack starts. If it start's after 3 days of ending ally, there would be no additional morale lowerage.

Seroslav wrote:

So instead of blocking option to attack, the lowerage of morale would be the bigger the sooner attack starts. If it start's after 3 days of ending ally, there would be no additional morale lowerage.