I've been playing this game on and off for 10 years. While not a new concept, a "4-5 member" alliance frequently joins a map, usually in Asia, shares maps, and then tries to share maps with unsuspecting neighbors. Even worse, they sometimes join another unsuspecting coalition to provide intel to the alliance!! The alliance then waits until mid/late game to form a coalition.
I enjoy a good challenge...but fighting or even beating these groups is usually difficult when most other coalitions are simply a collection of solo players who decide to team up...most without using discord, another disadvantage.
Please remove the shared map option completely unless a player joins a coalition. The game already allows for some pretty underhanded stuff and backstabs. This change would make the competition more enjoyable and fair. Most players would prefer this change, and all will admit it makes the game more realistic.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
13 Replies
26 Jul 2025, 18:25
I've played less than a year and only homefront. I don't like this idea. Since winning my first solo win I don't join coalitions unless it's late in the round & my points will end the round and for some reason or another I don't wish to fight anymore. I consider coalition wins a loss. I have fought coalitions and done extremely well. Some of my favorite wars. Btw, a good way to start a war is to reject a coalition or shared map. In the meantime I would like to continue to have the option to share maps. The last two times I did that I ended it quickly. My favorite tutor and I shared maps. I never joined his coalition & I came in 2nd that round. I doubt that I'll be sharing maps much but would still like the option without joining a coalition.
28 Jul 2025, 20:43 (edited)
As you gain more experience and play different and larger maps, you will develop a different perspective.
Your comment, "I consider a coalition win a loss," is not only inaccurate, it is silly. You get better rewards for wins AND other players review your win rate when considering whether to give you access to a good alliance or coalition in-game.
Noobs love shared maps... you've helped prove my point.
29 Jul 2025, 01:38
I totally agree with this, sharing map for non-coalition members is a major source of wolfpacking and backstabbs.
31 Jul 2025, 17:16
I like to share maps with candidate coalition mates before deciding to join (specifically, I should say, to see if they're not massive coiners if I can still say that here). Removing share-map effectively disallows such a "trial membership" as well.
When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Alexander Suvorov.
1 Aug 2025, 14:19
I am against it, allthough I get your point completly!
It is in the responsability of those Alliance to act in a good way and not showing off bad behavior ... this is also against the idea of having a nice experience for new players in this game!
I am open for discussions...
... on the other hand you are probably right after all those years!
This stops creative sneaky play though. Just because your brain cant handle betrayal and alternative tactics I don't think my play style should be stopped. If you can put spies in your own coalition members territories then you should certainly be able to share maps with enemies.
1 Aug 2025, 22:56
RookOnzo wrote:
This stops creative sneaky play though. Just because your brain cant handle betrayal and alternative tactics I don't think my play style should be stopped. If you can put spies in your own coalition members territories then you should certainly be able to share maps with enemies.
My brain can handle everything this game throws at me except server lag, which gets old fast. I rarely share maps because they are often abused. My point is the game is much more fun and meaningful when Team A fights Team B in a somewhat fair fight. Then players' war skill and strategy prevail...not backstabbing, that is for immature kids.
2 Aug 2025, 16:27
If you want a fair fight you must stop the golders. It is absolutely destroying the game. You play fair, no gold purchases in game say then u come up against someone and their stats are just silly. It is clear that they are sponsored by Amex. There is no point in continuing. You will just got hammered and your stats thus suffer because of these r soles.
Should be limits on golders and gold playing rounds etc. Totally and utterly killing the game. If I used gold like some of these guys my stats would be more than double. I do a lot of experimenting thus will have lower win rates but so what. What I dont think is fair is paying Bytro money to be conbstantly out golded by clowns who think they are good but really gold hides their abilities.
It is a numbers game. Take the eastern front - simple easy built T34 tanks versus complex wunderwaffen (ha ha). Numbers always wins. So if you are up against a player who can spaff another 10xL5 TB every 30 minutes it is hard to overcome that.
3 Aug 2025, 07:33
BladeFisher wrote:
If you want a fair fight you must stop the golders. It is absolutely destroying the game. You play fair, no gold purchases in game say then u come up against someone and their stats are just silly. It is clear that they are sponsored by Amex. There is no point in continuing. You will just got hammered and your stats thus suffer because of these r soles.
Should be limits on golders and gold playing rounds etc. Totally and utterly killing the game. If I used gold like some of these guys my stats would be more than double. I do a lot of experimenting thus will have lower win rates but so what. What I dont think is fair is paying Bytro money to be conbstantly out golded by clowns who think they are good but really gold hides their abilities.
It is a numbers game. Take the eastern front - simple easy built T34 tanks versus complex wunderwaffen (ha ha). Numbers always wins. So if you are up against a player who can spaff another 10xL5 TB every 30 minutes it is hard to overcome that.
You got a point there, like remove warbonds and make can be spent only for out-round purposes.
3 Aug 2025, 11:38 (edited)
I think a short and well written text at "share maps" of possible risks could help too.
BeerBelly wrote:
....Please remove the shared map option completely unless a player joins a coalition. The game already allows for some pretty underhanded stuff and backstabs. This change would make the competition more enjoyable and fair. Most players would prefer this change, and all will admit it makes the game more realistic.
If you want a fair fight you must stop the golders. It is absolutely destroying the game. You play fair, no gold purchases in game say then u come up against someone and their stats are just silly. It is clear that they are sponsored by Amex. There is no point in continuing. You will just got hammered and your stats thus suffer because of these r soles.
Should be limits on golders and gold playing rounds etc. Totally and utterly killing the game. If I used gold like some of these guys my stats would be more than double. I do a lot of experimenting thus will have lower win rates but so what. What I dont think is fair is paying Bytro money to be conbstantly out golded by clowns who think they are good but really gold hides their abilities.
It is a numbers game. Take the eastern front - simple easy built T34 tanks versus complex wunderwaffen (ha ha). Numbers always wins. So if you are up against a player who can spaff another 10xL5 TB every 30 minutes it is hard to overcome that.
You got a point there, like remove warbonds and make can be spent only for out-round purposes.
Stop highjacking threads that have NOTHING to do with gold spending, which is both allowed and encouraged by Bytro/Stillfront. You whiners don't realize that you play this game for FREE because others either buy gold, buy a premium account, or both. Or, maybe you should get better at the game and use gold from wins to even the playing field.
Stop crying like immature little girls!
5 Aug 2025, 10:37
Shared maps are a pain in the ass, especially in games, where coalitions are not allowed and a single victory is announced. I must admit, I can't understand all those players, working submissive to other players, just to aim for a second place (first looser) or a third place (second looser) in a single-victory-game, what a poor attitude. Additionally, I don't understand superior players taking advantage of submissive players: do you really need support from a "second hand" party? The aim of the single victory games should always be to win on your own, not to receive advantages from players begging for survival, disgusting. If you don't want to win on your own, don't join the single-victory-game, try your best in coalition games.
Apart from sheer reconnaissance, there are some other huge advantages for shared map players, e.g. starting and landing of own air craft in foreign -not owned- countries. Moreover, often players attack from neighboring countries of a third (-shared map/give path-) party. Not nice. In my opinion, every option to receive advantages like shard maps or give path in a single-player-victory scenario should be eliminated. Try to make a single win without the help of "little friends" or stay away from those games. Just my opinion.
8 Aug 2025, 06:04
Beer Belly what a silly purile post !
The thread is not being hijacked at all. The shared maps also allows you to see the golders. Perhaps you are one of the r sole golders. Certainly looks that way.
I think the idea of removing shared maps is totally stupid. Gives you early warning of backstabbers and obvious r soles like BB??
If u see a potential partner sharing maps with an enemy, or worse, a coalition partner suddenly sharing maps with an enemy - big red flag.
