Supporters and allies

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

    • StrangeTalent wrote:

      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.
      Yes.

      You can't win the game based on your coalition's score though. I'm in a coalition now where our score exceeds the game maximum for victory, yet the game goes on. I think this is terrible. Not being able to win as a coalition eliminates the purpose of having one in the first place.
    • "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.
      With like, Malta?
      Yes, it is for players who is far more experienced than others and seek a little challenge in games.
      if you want to be challenged, join the game with experienced players , something along the lines of the Player's league . and prepare to be beaten if you join;)
      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.
      can say that i am in a map, where the coalition i formed we started with 3, but because another coaltion kinda tried to recruit all and those who didnt join were enemies. we ended up being 6 players against over 12. and still fighting those whose left of the other coalition. i would hate to turn against those 5 other players, cause we have been together quite some time now.
      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