StrangeTalent wrote:
Yes.FinnDaddy wrote:
Do the victory points "pool" to meet victory conditions like the team games do? Otherwise a coalition of 4 active players might not be able to end the game without breaking the coalition and attacking each other......If they do pool, it really opens the game up for more diplomacy as a viable option.
Supporters and allies
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
"Not being able to win as a coalition eliminates the purpose of having one in the first place."
It's my understanding coalitions were created, primarily, in response to the overwhelming request for a private chat among allies.
If a coalition of 3 members hasn't defeated all other active players (so the coalition can retire the game) then it doesn't deserve to win.
If a coalition requires more than 3 members (resulting in the retire option not to be available) then it doesn't deserve to win. -
It seems to me that coalitions should be temporary in nature rather than being equal to team warfare. As one coalition dissolves another will be formed. This is part of the diplomacy of the game. Sometimes sides will change as part of competing interests change. They will be most effective in the way they can allow a bloc of smaller nations to protect themselves against a much larger aggressor. It is my opinion that large nations should have no need of (no business, even) coalitions because it can lead to stagnation and games that go on for ever and ever.
-
Diktatorius wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
Diktatorius wrote:
Please make that all players can play with small countries. It would be harder and more fun.
You can find it here, in "finding co-players section -
sivad wrote:
It seems to me that coalitions should be temporary in nature rather than being equal to team warfare. As one coalition dissolves another will be formed. This is part of the diplomacy of the game. Sometimes sides will change as part of competing interests change. They will be most effective in the way they can allow a bloc of smaller nations to protect themselves against a much larger aggressor. It is my opinion that large nations should have no need of (no business, even) coalitions because it can lead to stagnation and games that go on for ever and ever.
would say that we are quite equal when coming to armies and land so there i would have seen it nice if we were able to win the map, if we just got rid of the last players/the other coalition. since it us or them.gunsofwar
EN Moderator -
Have them give their provinces with VP to the person with the most and youll end the game.
-
Sir McSquiggles wrote:
Have them give their provinces with VP to the person with the most and youll end the game.
gunsofwar
EN Moderator -
what if a coalition would need 80% of points to win. Thus coalition members wouldn't have to fight each other.
-
would rather say that if a coalition should be able to win they should get atleast 90% or everything. but as long as it is possiblegunsofwar
EN Moderator
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Users Online 1
1 Guest
-
Similar Threads