Hello, I have moved this to the correct forum section.


From what I have seen, the large coalitions fall quickly, once the coalition runs out of room to expand and start bumping into each other.

Once the coalitions' members run out of room to expand, they tend to fall into chaos and destroy each other. Even if large coalitions (ive never seen more than 8 members) were limited, people could still ally each other individually, as they did before. Honestly, allying individuals usually ends up in a stronger bond, but they still end up falling due to quarrels inside their alliance.

The limitation in the coalitions should be necessary.

I have some agree to that. They should be limited, but they should also create a new victory condition. If Coalition X, on Map Y, has Z Members, they all win together. X being the name, Y being the player limit, and Z should be the Limit to Coalition Members (based on the map size). Coalition sizes can vary for different maps.

4 Players: N/A
10 Players: 2
22 Players: 4
50 Players: 10
100 Players: 10

This will force Coalitions to create stronger alliances, and allow the larger ones to win all together without having to backstab someone in the end. That plain sucks for both ends. One side is guilty, the other betrayed. Any thoughts on these proposed limits? This is my first post on the Call of War Forums, so please, exercise some compassion if my idea completely sucks.


Thank You for taking the time to read this,

Bluephantom956

Your proposed limits aren't bad at all and it's probably something they are discussing. Honestly, in my opinion, I could care less for limits, it's perfectly fine unless people start abusing them.

Bad idea.


And this is why it is a bad idea.

This coalitions are taking away any trace of individuality from most of the people here. Since they were introduced, I heard so many whining about having to attack people from their coalitions in the end because there is 10 people in them or suggesting that those 10 people should be able to retire together.

Honestly, I hope that thing will never happen, because it would turn this game into a race into getting into some coalition. Perhaps on the world map, in some specific cases, you will want more people to retire together, but it should not be more than 4 or 5. Everything more than that is a bad idea.

I don't have anything against temporary alliances, they are ok, but if you get, for example, into 10-15 man coalition in the start of the world map game, and expect to be there until the end where there are no more enemies, you deserve nothing better than being destroyed by other coalition or being backstabbed in the end.

The only real problem I have with the coalitions is that one day you can have a member in one and the next he flips to another while having all up to date information on every country in the old. Seems to me there should be a cool down period. If you leave one coalition you should have to wait a day or two before you can join another. This keeps back stabbers and double agents from immediately joining another and enclosing information.

Just my $.02

Coalitions should have voting white boards. So that players may post strategic requests and every member can then vote yes, no, or abstain. Also, it would be neat if there were an easy method of embargoing all but one's coalition allies. Perhaps even a condition set by the leader. In order to only trade within the alliance and not support neutrals or enemies through trade.

For one thing, if a coalition needs to rely on an ingame mechanism of communication and decision making it is doomed. For Bytro, I think coalitions might stimulate game play but as noted elsewhere, you need to make some collective endgame for the coalition possible. Otherwise many players will avoid them, including me. As suggested before there should be a limit on the number in a coalition, perhaps 4 or 5 and some type of potential shared win, based on unit power killed or some such. Each member gets a fraction of a win and fraction of gold based on live player kill points for that game.