RNG support for allies

    • RNG support for allies

      What if a set of allies or coalition members have worked together to capture an objective, and all have more or less equal rights to get the prize? Or they need to decide who will take on the most dangerous task in a proposed cooperative effort? The game should give them a way to draw straws, so to speak. You could even allow the probabilities to be adjusted to account for non-equal contributions from the different players.
    • Hello fellow player,

      You can just settle these matters through chatting, giving each other recources to compensate and such, the game already allows for that. You can make things equal like this. For instance if myself and a coalition member both fight a strong enemy and I end up taking the capitol I give them half of the money I got out of it. Such things must be agreed to before though. In the reverse situation I would probably want them to offer me resource support if I am helping out in a way that makes me me lose troops.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • I don't think the amount of VP you end up with in a coalition necersarily shows the amount of trouble/effort put in. When you are a coalition you essentially become one single country controlled by multiple people. If one person in the coalition does not have a lot of VP because of fighting stronger enemies or ''going in first'' than it is quite unfair to have a ranking withing the coalition. It might even make some players that are in a coalition not want to take any risk at all ever, which would seriously criple your strength as a coalition.

      If you feel like you deserva a first place, go win the map as a lone wolf if you can. If you do not think you can, then the coalition victory is rightlfully shared.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • dioglaert wrote:

      What I had in mind was more of an end-game scenario. Coalition victory is at hand, two or more coalition members are virtually tied for first place, you could use RNG to agree on who gets to take that one more high-VP province to get the first place reward.
      For coalition victories, all members of the coalition get only the coalition reward. So, the coalition points of each member don't matter for the rewards.
    • In the 100p I'm playing now (which luckily with only 5 players left and 4 are allies), my own coalition had its time when my own army was larger than all theirs combined. I also contribute to about half to two-thirds of my coalition score. Shouldn't I get a higher reward? I mean, yes, coalition is for team victory, but for people who literally carry their coalition to the end, shouldn't they deserve more? In a coalition where there's one very good player and the rest are not so good (not in my scenario), should the player who carries the coalition get more rewards? I believe it's an interesting topic. Perhaps not counting just VPs, but for total contribution, like keeping track of who killed the most enemy troops, resource contribution (who gives out the most resources). This would actually give people an incentive to help their coalition. It would still count as coalition victory with every coalition member first place, just that rewards should be different.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • Edepedable wrote:


      If you feel like you deserve a first place, go win the map as a lone wolf if you can. If you do not think you can, then the coalition victory is rightlfully shared.
      You can even just tell them. ''Guys I feel like I did a lot more than you all did to win this map. So in 2 days from now I will consider you my enemies and try to win this map alone''. Not an unreasonable thing to say in my opinion. Makes vicory a lot easier since you need less VP and if you are just dragging them along anyway then there is nothing lost and you should just lone wolf the map.
      If you want you can even just kick out the weakest player for a lack of contributing, as long as you are the coalition leader and said person indeed did not contribute. I kicked out players from my coalition because they did not do a whole lot and I did not want them to share in a victory they did nothing for to achieve. I think there are usually two different possible scenario's when you carry a coalition.

      1) You carry the coalition. The (one) other memeber(s) count on you for guidence, military and economical strength.
      They lose a lot of troops and are generally newer than I am, but they make for good economical support and good distractions/defense. They are basicly my soldiers. As long as they are actively involved and have themself be coached by me I have no problem with sharing victory with these players even if their VP is low.

      Their contribution can not be mesuared in the way you mentioned @Little Racoon, some players are just better in not having their troops killed than others are. Usually an experience thing.

      2) You carry the coalition. The (one) other member(s) are little active, lose a lot of troops and basicly have no idea what they are doing and they ignore your advise, on top of this their VP count is very low.
      What I usually do in the case that I am a coalition leader is I post a ultimatum in coalition group. Either they gather more VP's or I tell them (him/her) they are out the coalition withing a set amount of days. In case they do all these things but still have a high VP count, I just let them do their thing. So if you get a feeling that tells you that you deserved to win more than the others this might be rightfully so. But if you don't do anything about it thats your own problem.

      If lone wolfing is not an option because you would be beaten by them if you were to face them alone, a coalition victory is your only option.

      Best thing you can do is do a little player profile research before you form a coalition with people though.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Edepedable wrote:

      f lone wolfing is not an option because you would be beaten by them if you were to face them alone, a coalition victory is your only option.

      Best thing you can do is do a little player profile research before you form a coalition with people though.
      Actually, Edepedable, the coalition leader is the weakest member. I believe I have the military means, just that I am preparing for new offensive. Perhaps the ultimatum is the best option. Also, I did do some research and even tried to ask a decent player to join our coalition, but he flatly refused (sometimes in early game having neighbors in coalition is good idea).

      Also, what I meant was the amount of troops the person killed, not the amount they lost.
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
    • Well if the leader of the coalition is the weak/useless one, just leave the coalition. Probably the reason the decent player refused to join you. I never join a coalition if the leader is an incapable player. Once you take out your former leader it is likely that the ones left will decide to join you but you will have to do some diplomacy outside of coalition chat for that aswell. But by the way you presented your case my guess is you are quite close to victory VP wise anyway, right? Winning the game before some players in a map can come and fight you is a very clean way to win.

      Sure the amount of troops killed counts for something. But there is no telling how many troops you did not lose because a coalition member lost them. That is why I mentioned troops lost.

      Besides, if you leave this coaliton it probably makes a for an end game on your map that sounds a lot more interresting than mopping up the rest of the AI for VP's. A 1 vs 4 can even be quite fair if the other players are not that good and your economy rivals theirs.