Solo Victory Conditions

    • Solo Victory Conditions

      OK,


      I think it is time to raise the points needed to win a Solo victory.


      The 51% of all VP's needed at day-change to trigger a solo victory is just too dang easy. It is also highly unfair to other players, particularly those that have competitively-strong armies that simply haven't reached enough provinces by a day-change to prevent the victory.

      This would all be fixed if both coalitions AND solo players had the same victory conditions (with coalitions still taken preference when both sets of conditions have been met.


      Now, is 71% too high for a coalition? I think not. But should Solo victory conditions also be 71%? I say yes!


      The reward for playing solo is far superior to that of a coalition victory. Yet, the ease of making a solo victory (especially if one has spent most of the game as part of a coalition) means that there is little incentive to stay in a coalition for a win when you are in a significant lead in VP's.



      What good is it to make the Solo victory easier to achieve than a coalition victory? If you have one very good player who teams up with a coalition, they're going to win it for the coalition anyway. But should that same player be given a simpler and more-lucrative victory condition? Of course not.


      The simple fix to this is to make coalitions have better Gold rewards, first, and to make the solo victory condition either the same as that of coalitions, or at least significantly higher than the paltry 51% threshold.


      I have been in many situations where I had a strong momentum, and lost despite having a bigger army, and running wild across the landscape, only to have the other guy win because he simply got the most points with a few Armored Cars and timing with the day-change to acquire just enough points to win without contesting it by me.


      Why does Bytro allow such an easy victory for a solo player? And why does Bytro penalize the better players who choose to stay loyal to their coalitions by not even letting them get gold for their VP's?


      And, why do the DOMINION maps require the control points to be held for multiple days, whereas the Solo victory requires only having half-plus-one percent of all VP's for as briefly as one minute if taken just before the day-change?


      This is unjust, unfair, and unrealistic. The allied powers of WWII were at a strong disadvantage for the first half of WWII. It was not impossible for the Axis powers to win the war. And if not for a few mistakes early on, they very well could have won. Despite the strong disadvantage that the allies had, they did turn the tide of war and ultimately defeated the Axis powers.


      HOWEVER, if those same world-wide conditions during WWII were present in this game, given the current rules set, the Axis powers would have won the war automatically by early 1943. In other words, the Solo victory conditions of this game are not realistic as the Axis powers would have won the war before the Allies even made any real progress in Europe and Asia.


      But in reality, the Allies won the war because there was no "system" that declared victory when the Axis had far more than 50% of all the military power on earth.


      So, let's fix this. Let's raise the Solo victory conditions to 71%....or at least to 66.6% or some similar number which is much more realistic and far more fair to those whom are willing to fight even if they are at a disadvantage. Don't let players win without having to cement their victory by achieving an insurmountable odds status for their opponents.
    • Devious Rancor wrote:

      The reward for playing solo is far superior to that of a coalition victory. Yet, the ease of making a solo victory (especially if one has spent most of the game as part of a coalition) means that there is little incentive to stay in a coalition for a win when you are in a significant lead in VP's.
      but playing solo is far more challenging? :D
      When you're part of a coalition and get enough VP for a solowin... then wtf have the other 4 ppl been doing?
      and its not like the soloplayer suddenly jumps from 0 to 51% ^^

      about the realism argument: CoW is not a simulation

      Devious Rancor wrote:

      Now, is 71% too high for a coalition? I think not. But should Solo victory conditions also be 71%? I say yes!
      imo the amount of VP needed should scale with the amount of members, but thats just me being used to CoN rather than CoW :tumbleweed:
      Teburu

      GER/EN Forums
      Conflict of Nations Veteran
      I suck at COW
      idk what else to put here :D
    • Devious Rancor wrote:

      51% of all VP's needed at day-change to trigger a solo victory
      I have only done this a couple of times, but 51% looks good for a solo victory. If it looks paltry to you is probably because you are either a top gun player or you had not had to fight it off with any top gun players (e.g. rated 100) like I had in my last game, where I finished second to one. By the way, solo victories in the tutorial board may look easy for a strong player with weak opposition. But it will not be easy when your adversary includes a top gun player (e.g. 100 rating).

      As for coalition victory, I would love to see it come down from 71% to 66% (2/3 of board).
    • Teburu wrote:

      imo the amount of VP needed should scale with the amount of members, but thats just me being used to CoN rather than CoW
      Ah, then you'd probably love the new "CoW 1.5" which copies too many aspects of CoN (a game that was originally spawned off of CoW in the first place). My number one gripe about the new mod (1.5) is that you can't make new factories in non-urban provinces. THAT is why I hate CoN. I mean part of the reason. It also has too many units and the upgrades are too complex (not a bad concept, just too much of it).

      There was ONE thing I really REALLY liked about CoN that I wished would be done in CoW, and that is the ability to turn occupied provinces into core provinces. If CoW had a feature like that (even if it was costly in resources) I think the game would get a little bit better, especially for the novice players and the uber-experienced ones (those in-between would probably find it frustrating since they'd overuse the ability and then starve out their military due to not building enough new units.

      But I digress....

      gusv wrote:

      Devious Rancor wrote:

      51% of all VP's needed at day-change to trigger a solo victory
      I have only done this a couple of times, but 51% looks good for a solo victory. If it looks paltry to you is probably because you are either a top gun player or you had not had to fight it off with any top gun players (e.g. rated 100) like I had in my last game, where I finished second to one. By the way, solo victories in the tutorial board may look easy for a strong player with weak opposition. But it will not be easy when your adversary includes a top gun player (e.g. 100 rating).
      As for coalition victory, I would love to see it come down from 71% to 66% (2/3 of board).
      Well, I've been playing for years, and I can tell you, it's totally weird to win at 51% of the map. Even the DOMINION matches force you to hold the prize for a few days before winning, to give your opponents a chance to unseat you. But if only two players are left, and one has 49.9% of the map at day-change, they automatically lose, no matter how powerful their armies are.

      It's really nonsense, if you ask me. They should either add the time factor to holding 50.1% of the map (not just to the next day-change which can come almost instantly if you time it just right) for several days, or they should raise the rate (or do both!) to something more sensible like 66.67% and make it that way for all players, soloists and coalitionists, alike.