Capping the Coalition system

    • Capping the Coalition system

      What should the coalition numbers be caped at? 16
      1.  
        6 Members (5) 31%
      2.  
        5 Members (4) 25%
      3.  
        4 Members (4) 25%
      4.  
        3 Members (3) 19%
      Greetings,

      COW and S1914 alike have the coalition system in the games that can encourage new players to team up and become more active in the game. On the other hand the coalition system also has a major problem that need to be addressed. When a large map starts out (American map, 100 player, 500 etc.) almost every time a coalition of 15+ members is created and often several of the players leave the game as they watch paint dry from being unable to expand because of their allies. What I would like to propose is to introduce a cap to the number of players that can be in a coalition.



      If you have any questions or concerns regarding this case feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them.

      Regards,
      WarCityDriver
      RPU Executive
    • This has been covered many, many times, and the consensus that emerged was that the members of coalitions/in-game alliances should be limited in number in proportion to the number of players on a given map, if they are going to be eligible for a team/coalition/alliance victory. For example, victory-eligible coalitions would be capped as follows:

      1. 10-player European map: 2-member alliance;
      2. 22-player European map: 3-member alliance;
      3. 50-player Pacific map: 4-member alliance;
      4. 100-player world map: 5-member alliance.

      P.S. Can we please fix the spelling of the headline of this thread? It's driving me crazy ---- "capping" is spelled with two p's, not one. "Caping" sounds like an initiation ceremony for old-school vampires.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • I agree in somewhat. I once faced off against a 50 member coalition on the 100 player map. The population of the coalitions really should be capped, but not to low. I say about a 10-Member-Limit should be the capping for coalitions. If a 500-player-map came out though, the cap would have to be raised a bit higher, because then there would be lots of clutter. The lower we limit the coalition membership numbers, the more coalitions will be created. So that's why for the 100 player map, 10 should be the capping amount. For lower player maps though, caps on coalitions should be smaller, since having whole maps united under a coalition would be awfully boring.
      - Romulus947

      Leader,
      Wolf Den

      "Await the game, and rouse the tame!"
      Motto of the Den

      :thumbup:
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      This has been covered many, many times, and the consensus that emerged was that the members of coalitions/in-game alliances should be limited in number in proportion to the number of players on a given map, if they are going to be eligible for a team/coalition/alliance victory. For example, victory-eligible coalitions would be capped as follows:

      1. 10-player European map: 2-member alliance;
      2. 22-player European map: 3-member alliance;
      3. 50-player Pacific map: 4-member alliance;
      4. 100-player world map: 5-member alliance.

      P.S. Can we please fix the spelling of the headline of this thread? It's driving me crazy ---- "capping" is spelled with two p's, not one. "Caping" sounds like an initiation ceremony for old-school vampires.
      Sorry about that I made a typo