Pinned Coalitions in the Players League

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I think it makes for different types of game play when there are coalitions and when there aren't. The players face different challenges in each of these type games. Personally, I find the non-coalitions games more interesting because the two strongest coalitions can often wipe out most of the other players.
      A strong coalition can often wipe out a lot of players because they can coordinate attacks and cross each others territory.
    • I played in pl just because one rule. I think that is rule number one, no gold. I liked the fact there were many good players who remain active till the end. I am not aware of problems moderators faced but I am sure that other rules are made with reason.
      Coalitions, share map and right of a way were restricted to stop wolfpacking or at least to make it more difficult. If the coalition are restricted, I would like to restrict trade armies, resources and provinces, so players would be forced to play on their own. All trades to go trough market
      If the coalitions are allowed I see no reason not to allow share maps and right of a way. The best is to play game as it is made, but than we can again face problem we had earlier.
      I vote for sometimes, I have no problem with both solutions, I just did not like changes of rules during the game.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • patriota75 wrote:

      I played in pl just because one rule. I think that is rule number one, no gold. I liked the fact there were many good players who remain active till the end. I am not aware of problems moderators faced but I am sure that other rules are made with reason.
      please limit your responses to one topic and the topic here is coalitions
    • patriota75 wrote:

      Coalitions, share map and right of a way were restricted to stop wolfpacking or at least to make it more difficult. If the coalition are restricted, I would like to restrict trade armies, resources and provinces, so players would be forced to play on their own. All trades to go trough market
      we will not be able to reatrict trades
      thank you for your suggestions
    • Lawrence Czl wrote:

      I think it makes for different types of game play when there are coalitions and when there aren't. The players face different challenges in each of these type games. Personally, I find the non-coalitions games more interesting because the two strongest coalitions can often wipe out most of the other players.
      A strong coalition can often wipe out a lot of players because they can coordinate attacks and cross each others territory.

      Maximilianvs wrote:

      No coallition is more equal.

      thank you
    • I`ll try not to go offtopic again, sorry.
      I have another suggestion. If coalitions are allowed then allow right of a way and share map.
      I will vote for sometimes, I think it is best to try both for a while before making final decision. Also if we play same map it will change it a bit if once coalition are allowed and second time not. Let Tournament Director decide at start of a game.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • grandpooba52 wrote:

      f coalition is used then automatically share map and row
      Then I did not understand rules correctly. I thought that right of a way and share map are not allowed outside coalition. I want to say that it should be allowed outside of coalition if coalitions are allowed.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • I voted no.

      Lawrence CZL makes a really good point. Coalitions make it all to possible for strong players to get together. If the best players on a map in the most advantageous positions work together there is very little fun to be had for every other player on the map.

      If everyone has to fend for themselves you are on your own. No getting rich through someone else's effort.
      No share map, no right of way (perhaps except with AI, since everyone can do that), no giving troops, no giving resources.

      No giving troops and/or resources in this means that no player that 'gives up' should bless another player with these commodities out of spite against whichever player defeated him/her, so that the blessed one can take revenge.
    • I vote have Coalition.
      like the real world. If you are a general, you always need to find an ally. Because you can be in a bad position. So is the real world. There is no coalition but the players still divided into 2 factions to compete for territory.
      I participated and realized I have natural allies. Turkey and Russia Comunication. If I do not create good diplomacy with Turkey, I cannot Expeditionary . If I war with Turkey, big countries will destroy me.
      For exmple: In the game November I and Turkey is the enemy, but at December we are each other's natural allies Actually this is a strategy game. This game do not only use skills but also diplomacy. And so is the real world You can choose to follow the US or Russia, or not on any side

      The post was edited 1 time, last by haidang2014 ().

    • ukliw wrote:

      I would prefer a game without a coalition, but is there any idea to look after it?
      On the last map 4 players directly or indirectly played together and won in this way. If such a thing does not limit it, coalitions and the prohibition of any non-coalition agreements will be more reasonable
      the only thing we can do is when the game is created use the options to decline coaltions
      there is no way to check or determine who is using out of game messages or screenshots to communicate and cooperate, and share map. we have to rely on the honesty of each player