Coalition Victory

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

    • Coalition Victory

      Should winning coalition members receive additional gold based on their individual performances? 14
      1.  
        Yes (10) 71%
      2.  
        No (4) 29%
      I would like to suggest that members of a winning coalition should receive the coalition victory gold, PLUS their victory points, or some sort of bonus based on higher performance within the coalition. In most scenarios, members of a coalition are not created equally, and it feels a bit unfair to receive such a small reward when you have done more than your share of the workload.
      Eminem2891
      Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      Click here to submit a bug report or support ticket
    • I say yes, but this would also demand a decrease in gold given across these coalition members. So instead of having the (idk) 2,500 gold for all coalition members, it would be 1,200 gold for all coalition members and the last 1,300 from all the members is dispersed based on VP.
      Another idea that could be tacked on is this would be a non-changeable feature for coalitions. One coalition may choose to go the regular way, while another adds the incentive. Both of these coalitions would be locked into these settings and would have to dissolve the current coalition to change the mentioned setting.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • The problem is not if somebody is pulling their weight, it is that some people are twice as effective as others. Maybe you have the 5 best players on the map, but those 5 players might not be close in terms of contribution. Somebody else was mentioning treaties for trading between 2 players, but maybe this could be a feature among a coalition? The coalition members will automatically get (idk) 70% of the original rewards to each of them (not till the treaty is accepted though), so that 30% is taken from each to distribute based on a treaty. The host makes a treaty designating the amounts of gold that will be directed to each member and the members will vote on it. In order for the treaty to be accepted, at least 60% of the members must approve of the treaty. If you decide to decline a treaty, you have an option to be peaceful (you just need to be voted out) or declare war for their possible backstabbing (only happens if the treaty would have won). So basically one option is just a vote and the other may in fact be going nuclear.
      This idea might make the end game more interesting to some and would give one more piece of strategy to the game.
      Coalition treaties could even be an option decided by the owner of the coalition (in coalition settings but can only be chosen at the creation of the coalition), so if anybody does not approve of the idea of treaties, they don't have to worry.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • When I play in a coalition I have a different focus than others. I prefer to let my allies build units and prepare to take and control land, while I focus on logistics of the next enemy, and defeating their army.

      So in a coalition: I might focus on carriers and airforce, which projects power across the ocean, but that doesn't leave me much oil with which to make tanks to take land. So I can build plain infantry type units and artillery groups which can secure a beach under the air support, but once the enemy army is defeated, my troops are left in the dust.

      This means that I feel I did a lot of the hard work killing the enemy, but someone else may have gotten the glory by collecting the points. If the coalition win is spread equally I don't care who does what as long as we win, but if others are going to get a higher reward just because they can drive their tank faster than mine, I will have to look at it differently.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • I also said no.
      When playing as a team(coalition), if I choose to produce air and mate choose tanks. I would be clearing everything in advance of the tanks taking the enemy provinces.
      So the tank player would gain more VP than me, even when I kill 90% of the enemy.
      For them to get a greater amount of the gold where I did all the work would be wrong.
    • Okay, so if there were to be any gold granted for other reasons other than being a member we need to keep these things in mind. Some people contribute in a more unique play style and its effectiveness may be recognized less by others. But I still think there should be rewards that are differentiated.

      CoralWar wrote:

      ...in real life, rewards are differentiated.

      For example, in 1991, a coalition was formed between USA, UK, France, Spain... in order to take back Kuwait. As USA did most of the work, other countries were not able to claim the same "reward" as USA.
      Whether this is determined through the coalitions in the end or some other way I do not know. Maybe the strength of the units that are contributed to the war effort as long as they participate in battle? This could be related to the army strength reported in the paper every few days, but VP might need to be considered as well. Or we could just go to the treaty I mentioned earlier and give some additional stats for the members to see to possibly show the contribution of the members. Like list who has the most VP, built the best navy (navy ships by strength (transport not included)), had the best land units (by strength, both infantry and armor), had the best airforce (by strength), most provinces, and most resources produced. This would also be given with comparisons of the other members, but would still go to my treaty idea mentioned earlier. Still, at least 50% of the VP will go to every player but this treaty would divide the other 50% for each player (or the %s provided initially and % divided by treaty decided at coalition's creation). Just some other ideas to think about. I wouldn't force every coalition to make treaties, it would be an OPTION for some and the extents of which will be decided by the leader.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • MadMike69 wrote:

      I also said no.
      When playing as a team(coalition), if I choose to produce air and mate choose tanks. I would be clearing everything in advance of the tanks taking the enemy provinces.
      So the tank player would gain more VP than me, even when I kill 90% of the enemy.
      For them to get a greater amount of the gold where I did all the work would be wrong.
      I understand that point after watching some of my teammates in our current match. So what if there was an option to have an internal vote (within the winning coalition) of ranks? For example, I know Stormbringer did incredible damage, AND he is 2nd overall in province points, so I might rank him 1st over CPE who has more points, but faced a lot of inactive players. (CPE, I still love you, you're great)
      Eminem2891
      Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      Click here to submit a bug report or support ticket
    • This would just lead to senseless arguments within a coalition, and extra handling of games already finished games... like lawyers still squibbling over the last tidbits of assets of a company that went bankrupt 5 years ago.

      What is this about, really? The gold rewards are so small really, you can buy 1-2 units in your next game with them... is this thread REALLY about that reward, or the (MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!!) honor thing that all players are MENTIONED in the same way on the winning page? Because, really, everybody who was IN the fight already KNOWS who were the REAL contributors to victory...
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.