3 days is too much after you get out of a coaltion

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

    • I agree with Ryan.

      You made your choice of joining a coalition and if you decide to leave, then that also is your choice. My question would be why are you leaving? Are you leaving to join another coalition? If that is the case, you could easily betray your old coalition by letting your new coalition know of where their forces are. Three days gives them time to move their troops around.

      What is the point of joining a coalition if you are just going to be jumping from one coalition to another. Maybe, just maybe, what you should do is give it time before you just join any ole coalition. I have said this before. I find it very foolish to start or join a coalition in the opening days of a map. Look at it this way, by day 6, almost a third of the peeps will be inactive.

      Jut my thoughts.
    • Exactly, you cannot be changing allies and attack them the next second destroying them over night and join a new coalition know the unit position and attack the centre map in 2 days...
      FORUM GANG General

      Ryan

      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician 3rd Grade
      Forum General
      President Training Alliance United
    • I think 3 days is fine - except in one particular instance.
      If two nations have raised a coalition flag and one of them doesn't have anyone in their Coalition, then when that sole Nation lowers their flag, they are prevented from joining for 3 days but they haven't actually had a coalition nor are they betraying anyone - it basically was a none existant coalition, or an aspiration to be leader of a Coalition. Happened recently to me. That said, the relaxation on trading rules means this is not as damaging as it was beforehand.

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

    • Coalition-hopping is an ugly practice. Don't these guys have any honour? Players with integrity choose their allies with consideration and stay loyal to these til the end of game, no matter how the situation on the map develops.

      The three days cooldown not only make it harder for betrayal, but also for those opportunistic cowards who just switch sides to the coalition that's the mightiest at the specific moment in order to get an easy win without needing to be a good player themselves.
      So the cooldown period is an improvement :thumbup: .

      It might be argued that betrayal must be possible, since it's the pepper in the soup. I agree to that, but not concerning this type of betrayal: Joining a coalition to gather all intelligence on them, block one of their member slots and suck up some of their hospitality, while actually in mind belonging to a different coalition and jumping over to that one at the right moment? That's totally disreputable and also not realistic. Could you imagine a nation pretending to belong to Axis or Allies, while in fact belonging to the other side? Impossible to fool the other nations in your faction that much.

      At this point in previous discussions about the topic, usually someone writes "but Italy changed sides". Which more or less is true, but that was not betrayal. It happened only after a change of government. In CoW there are no changes in government (would be the equivalent of a player taking over a nation that so far was led by a different player), so we don't have to consider that. And secondly it happened only after Mussolini had collected a huge discontent amongst the population - he had forced Italy into joining the war on German side without any acceptance for this amongst his people. So after he was disempowered, the Italian population joined the Allies, yes, but in CoW terms that was rather a rebellion of a few provinces (which at that point of time, October 1943, indeed were occupied by Germany) and not a player changing sides from one coalition to another.
    • one of the main reasons I assume there is a cool down period, is as a member you can see every unit of your allies armies, the three days allows them the chance to reposition and their armies in a defensive measure BEFORE their ex-ally can join another coallition and jump them.
      I must agree , anything that slows or negates people betraying another is a good thing.
      If they dont want to wait the three days, they can upset their allies and get them to boot, then if i remember right its only 24 hour cool down. But this way at least a player cant act all lovey dovey, then stab them in the back.
      Everything we say or do, wether in real life or here, defines who we are as a person. If anything when the constraints of society are lifted as it is on the internet, we see the real true person. not the one shrouded by the social construct.
    • I would even go one step further than the cooldown phase that was introduced:
      * Allow players to join a coalition only once per game. They afterwards still have the option to leave their coalition, but never to join another one.
      * Allow coalitions not to fill up member slots that became free by members leaving or dying. I.e. the member counter is never decremented - once the coalition has reached it's member limit, it's full for good.

      This would force coalition leaders to select members with consideration. Also joining a coalition would become a step that has to be well thought-out. And best thing about it: At the moment, defeating one coalition member often doesn't help you further, because that coalition can afterwards just let another player join in and replace the lost member. So that's like fighting the ten-headed hydra from the Greak mythology. Is frustrating and not fair for opponents of that coalition. With my proposal above, this frustration would be gone. Also coalition members would have to take care more for their partners, since losing a team member would mean to have to continue with one member less until the end of the game. Which would be an interesting aspect and bring more team spirit into the game.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils: typo ().

    • Perhaps I"m missing something here...

      Scenario I
      The Cool-down Timer is on joining another coalition After leaving one? It's NOT a cool-down timer on going to war with any former coalition members?

      So if I wanted to betray my coalition, I can park units in his empty provinces and cities... Leave the coalition, then immediately declare war on former coalition player and capture every territory I've stationed units into...

      That's pretty low... but nothing in game mechanics prevents me from doing that?

      Scenario II
      I enter game with a few friends, and we end up being thrown about the map... not close to each other at first... after the "Surviving into week 2" phase is over, and to get there some joined other coalitions... we begin dropping our initial "Coalitions" of convenience, and ally up for the End Game...

      Nothing in game mechanics prevents that either.

      Scenario III
      Axis & Allies board game had a few standard rules that prevented such betrayals, game started in teams. Germany and Japan always were the Axis, and USA, UK & USSR were always the Allies.

      Only way to "Force" such coalitions, would be to start game with members of all those countries in a coalition no one could "Opt-out" of their starting coalitions. You can only fight the designated enemies....

      This one I'd like to try on a few limited maps.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Actually I think there should be a morale hit on all provinces for quitting a coalition.

      Not for being kicked out.
      Would be good, yes, but I think not allowing players to join a different coalition and not allowing coalitions to incorporate new members after former ones left or died would be better.


      EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Also think that there should be a morale hit on all provinces when you go inactive.
      Totally disagree on that one. Anyone who wants to come back after two days break due to obligations in real life / no internet access / whatever would leave the game for good, frustratedly. For them it's already hard enough to get back settled in on the map, why make it even harder?
      What would that penalty be trying to achieve? It wouldn't keep anyone from going inactive. Nobody who has an interest in still playing the map goes inactive intentionally.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils ().

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Perhaps I"m missing something here...

      Scenario I
      The Cool-down Timer is on joining another coalition After leaving one? It's NOT a cool-down timer on going to war with any former coalition members?

      So if I wanted to betray my coalition, I can park units in his empty provinces and cities... Leave the coalition, then immediately declare war on former coalition player and capture every territory I've stationed units into...

      That's pretty low... but nothing in game mechanics prevents me from doing that?

      Scenario II
      I enter game with a few friends, and we end up being thrown about the map... not close to each other at first... after the "Surviving into week 2" phase is over, and to get there some joined other coalitions... we begin dropping our initial "Coalitions" of convenience, and ally up for the End Game...

      Nothing in game mechanics prevents that either.
      I don't think you're missing anything here. These are two examples of the ugly proceedings that we see in games currently and that my proposal (--> link to it <--) would prevent.
      Again: Betrayal must be possible, but please not in a way that you enter a coalition a different coalition afterwards - because that allows to win easily by being a dick. My proposal would accomplish that: You could still act like in Scenario I, but then would have to continue alone, brandmarked as the traitor who messed up his diplomatic relations and doesn't come into question for anyone who's looking for a reliable ally. That would be both fair and realistic.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      then would have to continue alone, brandmarked as the traitor who messed up his diplomatic relations and doesn't come into question for anyone who's looking for a reliable ally. That would be both fair and realistic.
      Just one problem with this.... it has no real world precedent.

      Soviet Union was neutral towards the Allies during the start of the war, when Germany attacked it was taken in by the Allies. Slightly different situation in Italy, but they were taken in.

      Without stating at start of game.. which countries must have positive or negative Diplomatic relations, you open the possibility of North and South USA fighting each other (which is 150 years out of sync with what was happening in USA in 1941)

      By giving players diplomatic freedom, you break the Role Play aspect of the game. If on the other hand you Force Diplomatic standings... then you might as well change the map to 5 playable countries and AI's.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Just one problem with this.... it has no real world precedent.

      Soviet Union was neutral towards the Allies during the start of the war, when Germany attacked it was taken in by the Allies. Slightly different situation in Italy, but they were taken in.
      Soviet Union: Fine. My proposal doesn't prevent anyone from first being neutral and then joining a coalition. Furthermore, if translating political relations in real 1940 into CoW terms, Britain+USA+Canada+Australia were a coalition, but Soviet Union was a third party fighting the same opponent.
      Italy: I already wrote about the role of Italy above - see --> this post <--.

      The half of my suggestion you're criticizing with this is not to allow countries to join a coalition after they had been part of a different coalition. If you're saying that rule wouldn't be realistic, please give a "real life precedent" where such coalition hopping ever happened.


      About your proposal: OK, making a few diplomatic relations fix as you suggest might be nice as an event map or maybe even as one scenario, but in the regular competitive scenarios full diplomatic freedom at the start is just right.
    • I'm thinking that there SHOULD be Diplo options at start of game.

      Option I - Anything Goes - make/break diplomacy at will with NO penalties (great for going in with team mates or Alliance games where the "Teams" were decided upon before entering the game)

      Option II - Limited Diplomacy - Current Penalties Apply - 1 day for getting kicked, 3 days for quitting

      Option III - Set Diplomacy (Historical Maps)- Game Begins with certain diplomatic standings between certain nations set in stone and can not be changed
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
    • @EZ Dolittle, that's a very good example and I halfway have to let that count.

      On the other hand, one might see the situation on the Balcany before WW1 as no coalitions existing at all. In 1912/1913, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece had a pact against a common thread - the Ottoman Empire. So these three fought the same enemy during the first Balkan War. But already during this first war, quarrels between Greek and Bulgarian troops meeting in Saloniki showed these three nations weren't a unity for good, but just a loose cooperation for the time the common opponent existed in Europe.

      Shortly after that first war, Bulgaria went insane and attacked Serbia and Greece at the same time, immediately losing the first battles because Serbia and Greece anticipated that and had prepared their defense. So Rumania and Turkey seized the moment, seeing that there was no way Bulgaria could stand its ground and both joined in against Bulgaria to get their part of the cake. But you clearly couldn't say they were in a coalition with Serbia + Greece. Also Serbia and Greece had a quarrel for ownership of one of the provinces they just conquered from Bulgaria, which showed these two weren't best friends either.

      Aftwerwards, during WW1, all these countries joined one of the two world-wide coalitions. But before WW1, they were acting in a very opportunistic way, at any point of time just seeking their own advantage without having any long-term ties with one of the other nations on the Balcany.

      Nevertheless your example is good, as it shows that sometimes alliances could change quickly. OK, point taken. But still I want to keep up my proposal due to it's intention: It...

      Hans A. Pils wrote:

      ... would force coalition leaders to select members with consideration. Also joining a coalition would become a step that has to be well thought-out. And best thing about it: At the moment, defeating one coalition member often doesn't help you further, because that coalition can afterwards just let another player join in and replace the lost member. So that's like fighting the ten-headed hydra from the Greek mythology. Is frustrating and not fair for opponents of that coalition. With my proposal above, this frustration would be gone. Also coalition members would have to take care more for their partners, since losing a team member would mean to have to continue with one member less until the end of the game. Which would be an interesting aspect and bring more team spirit into the game.
    • Right now all the games begin with the same diplomatic stance... Free-for-All.

      Would be interesting to have some variety in that, even the same map with different Diplo options would, essentially make the entire game different.... pretty much doubling or tripling the number of maps with limited coding.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"