Need to Be Able to End a Round When Only Coalition Members are Left

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

    • Need to Be Able to End a Round When Only Coalition Members are Left

      I am playing a round in a coalition with three other players. We have killed off every other player, both real and IA. So now we sit and do nothing since we will not attack each other. It would be nice if we could get an option to end the round once this situation occurs. The coalition idea is great but this situation that should be addressed and rectified so we can end the round and move on to new games. Thank you.
    • 4-man coalition isn't too much in world map at all, you should think all maps before making comments...

      I totaly agree there should be an option to end match especially in world maps, still some of you could go inactive so rest can retire without problems but playing months with some people and at the end when you should celebrate your victory you have to ask them go inactive that's totaly nonsense..
    • Funske wrote:

      i am currently playng several 100s , and there are coalitions of 10 + members , who just bully other players , and that is kiling the game
      Correct.

      Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      4-man coalition isn't too much in world map at all, you should think all maps before making comments...
      Coalition members should also think a little ;) :
      If there are such good friends in a coalition with more than 3 members and never want to fight each other, then they should eliminate all other players and AI and let the provinces with the victory points occupy primarily from a favorite member.

      And under certain circumstances, if victory points still not enough for him, the other members have to give him some VP-provinces of their own - and then they are indeed a good coalition as they said, and understood the purpose of a coalition in this game. :thumbup:

      But if that's too much effort for a (large) coalition, a reward is not really deserved and they should just leave the map. :thumbdown:

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Funske wrote:

      i am currently playng several 100s , and there are coalitions of 10 + members , who just bully other players , and that is kiling the game
      Correct.

      Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      4-man coalition isn't too much in world map at all, you should think all maps before making comments...
      Coalition members should also think a little ;) :If there are such good friends in a coalition with more than 3 members and never want to fight each other, then they should eliminate all other players and AI and let the provinces with the victory points occupy primarily from a favorite member.

      And under certain circumstances, if victory points still not enough for him, the other members have to give him some VP-provinces of their own - and then they are indeed a good coalition as they said, and understood the purpose of a coalition in this game. :thumbup:

      But if that's too much effort for a (large) coalition, a reward is not really deserved and they should just leave the map. :thumbdown:
      If you are missing 600 points then 3 of your friends will give you 30 capitals, 3 each day for 10 days? Is this your solution? You must be joking...

      Ill share my last match which i experienced exactly the problem:


      We had a 4-man coalition which isn't too much in world map and we couldn't decide one to go inactive so everybody went inactive except me and i ended the match:


      I felt no joy at all while ending the match, it was terrible. I am not saying 10-man coalitions should get same option that would be another nonsense. But 4-5 man coalitions should get retire option in world maps. If you have no experience about issue please keep your comments away because you didn't feel what i experienced, one day when you are in same case you will feel exactly same. After playing 70 days together, fighting 10 wars together, killing and dying together you have to say ''you are out, go f. inactive'' that's compeletely nonsense and ruins victory's fun...

      And i totaly agree 10-man coalitions another nonsense that should be fixed, there should be coalition limit depending on map scale. For world map it should be 5 or 6..
    • Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      But 4-5 man coalitions should get retire option in world maps.
      Problem with that is that it's hard to program, I think.


      Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      And i totaly agree 10-man coalitions another nonsense that should be fixed, there should be coalition limit depending on map scale. For world map it should be 5 or 6..
      And this one isn't hard to program, I think, and it should be implemented.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      ...

      If you are missing 600 points then 3 of your friends will give you 30 capitals, 3 each day for 10 days? Is this your solution? You must be joking..
      Have you overlooked that CoW is a strategy game?

      Somewhere must be an upper limit for coalitions; to "win" a map - and until the introduction of a "cuddly mode" there is only this "normal mode" with 3 members. ;)

      So you should think even at the beginning of a coalition of the possibilities to end the map.

      That's why I said: Coalition members should also think a little! :D :
      If there are such good friends in a coalition with more than 3 members, then they should let occupy especially urban provinces with high VPs primarily by a favorite member.

      And where is the problem now?
      If you had a bad strategy or has forgotten to do that, then of course at the end you have to change some provinces with your friends (either time consuming via trade :( - or quickly via "private war" ^^ ).

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Ggoddkkiller wrote:

      ...

      If you are missing 600 points then 3 of your friends will give you 30 capitals, 3 each day for 10 days? Is this your solution? You must be joking..
      Have you overlooked that CoW is a strategy game?
      Somewhere must be an upper limit for coalitions; to "win" a map - and until the introduction of a "cuddly mode" there is only this "normal mode" with 3 members. ;)

      So you should think even at the beginning of a coalition of the possibilities to end the map.

      That's why I said: Coalition members should also think a little! :D :
      If there are such good friends in a coalition with more than 3 members, then they should let occupy especially urban provinces with high VPs primarily by a favorite member.

      And where is the problem now?
      If you had a bad strategy or has forgotten to do that, then of course at the end you have to change some provinces with your friends (either time consuming via trade :( - or quickly via "private war" ^^ ).
      You are not trying to find a solution which will make the game more fun, you are trying to have a nonsense argument to prove something only God knows. I and other fellas trying to have more fun don't need this but still ill answer so contamination in this threat will be lesser and possiblity of devs seeing the real problem and fixing it higher...

      Coalitions are new feature, actually it came after we started to play that 3 African country together so we built a coalition right away without even knowing we won't win after only our coalition left. After defeating american coalition we get another member from America to streght up our coalition. Because there was high threat from our eastern borders we simply couldn't fight against every country there and invade entire continent. You know there are 100 players in world map, 3 man can't fight against 97 players if you can imagine.

      For same reason, ''good'' friends can't let favorite member capture capitals or other VP provinces because simply there are threats in everywhere if you keep a land unoccupied that means that player will continue producing troops and damaging your coalition. I didn't wait for my coalition members for most of time because we needed to end enemies fast. There were 5 big coalitions including us and we fought against all four of them. I alone killed more than 1 million enemy soldiers, i have no idea how you could imagine ''good'' friends letting you capture VP provinces...

      Yeah, backstabbing a real solution if you are dishonorable enough. Sadly im not dishonorable enough to do that and i can't have any fun from doing that..

      Saying do that, do this is very very easy thing. But actually doing something is a lot harder, i put my screenshots and told what i experienced. If you know better, you can put some screenshots which proves wining a world map with 3 players would be really nice to keep argument going, other than that i can see no reason to keep it going.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Ggoddkkiller ().

    • If the other players have left the game and been gone for a while and the AI has taken over then kicking them from the Coalition and taking their territory is not back stabbing. Matter of fact once they go inactive they are no longer in the coalition. On top of that a good Coalition leader will make it know to their members that they better inform if they are going to leave for more than a day or two. They have been informed that if they are absent for too long they will be kicked and their territory surrendered. Another reason why it wouldn't be backstabbing. If they are good friends as you say then it wont matter, they left the game! Proper communication is fundamental.

      I don't agree with limiting anything about Coalitions, diplomacy is just a part of this game as anything else is and taking over the WORLD shouldn't be an easy thing to complete. If your games have to go for months and months so be it. World Wars last years, in here we do it a few weeks.
      "It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz

    • Sorry Ggoddkkiller, I see you haven't really understood the context of my postings.
      But I think, make it "easier" never really make it "better".

      And, by the way, world maps have also been won before the coalitions came - and it's still possible to deal some units with your allies, before occupy all provinces of a fought down nation...

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • Of course, with the implementation of the coalitions a customized system to end the maps has been forgotten - should be done, that's also my opinion ^^ - and not only that.
      So most important, for my opinion ;) , they should introduce a limit for coalition members, and consistent with this a way to end the map, matter if as a coalition or as solo players.

      As example (and I would enable in no case more players) [and yes, that's just my own opinion :D ]:
      10 player map - maximum coalition members 2 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      22 player map - maximum coalition members 3 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      50 player map - maximum coalition members 4 - able to finish the map with 4 or less active players.
      100 player map - maximum coalition members 5 - able to finish the map with 5 or less active players.

      But no matter how the rules are, or will be, there will always be players who can not realize and apply the existing possibilities of this game - and so they will always have any difficulties and be displeased. And that's my conviction. :P

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D