Cross-teaming between coalitions is bullshit and should not be allowed

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

    • Cross-teaming between coalitions is bullshit and should not be allowed

      I was in a game as the uk and I was part of a very good european coalition. Then suddenly iran start attacking us and I thought: well no big deal he is in a good middle eastern coalition it'll be hard but we can still win so no big deal. Then as was I checking the intelligence bar I saw that he had right of passage to other players and at the same time saw mozambique was attacking us aswell (which was part of an african coalition). Although I'm still active in that game, I have no hope of beating those two combined and this isn't the first time that this has happen. Anytime a coalition is sucessfull players get envious and start making deals behind close doors. A coalition only has the limit of 5 playes not much else. It shouldn't be allowed that 2 coalitions should team up to beat another coalotion. Even if you think that it shouldn't be banned you have to admit it's bullshit when that happens. That's all I have to say. And before you say that I should have teamed up with other coalitions to beat up those guys well first off I did but most importantly and second of all you shouldn't try to solve a problem by being part of a problem. This is conflict of nations not diplomacy of nations

    • Well, you're just spare parts, aren't ya, bud?

      I wish I could be more sympathetic to the original poster, but I just don't see how I could be. What's the philosophy supposed to be here? That no one who's not in a coalition together should be able to team up? That one group can't outnumber another? That the coalition that's in the lead should always be allowed to stay in the lead?

      Come on, bud. I solo through most games, and coalitions fight me and team up with other coalitions against me all the time. *shrug* What are you going to do? that's the game.

      Public maps aren't 5v5 maps. If you want that, you're going to have to join an Alliance and play in their games. Public games are free-for-alls where any number of players can work together against any other number of players. There is not, and won't be, a rule that if you have the strongest group of five nations, the other players aren't allowed to try to find a way to beat you.

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Well, you're just spare parts, aren't ya, bud?

      I wish I could be more sympathetic to the original poster, but I just don't see how I could be. What's the philosophy supposed to be here? That no one who's not in a coalition together should be able to team up? That one group can't outnumber another? That the coalition that's in the lead should always be allowed to stay in the lead?

      Come on, bud. I solo through most games, and coalitions fight me and team up with other coalitions against me all the time. *shrug* What are you going to do? that's the game.

      Public maps aren't 5v5 maps. If you want that, you're going to have to join an Alliance and play in their games. Public games are free-for-alls where any number of players can work together against any other number of players. There is not, and won't be, a rule that if you have the strongest group of five nations, the other players aren't allowed to try to find a way to beat you.
      ok maybe it shouldn't be a rule but at least you have to admit it's a bullshit move. Also I was very clear in the original post. No two coalitions should team up to defeat another. In many games consisting of teams it is generally not allowed when they cross team and most of comunity of those games think it's bullshit move

    • shrek6satan wrote:

      ok maybe it shouldn't be a rule but at least you have to admit it's a bullshit move
      I don't know. I mean,... I understand why you're disappointed. You thought you had it wrapped up, and then got something you didn't expect.

      There are some crummy "moves" in the game. Sabotaging or playing traitor against your own coalition; ditching your coalition on the last day to get the solo win; using Right of Way an ally gave you to fly in and take over that ally's cities; that kind of thing. Those are all considered by some people to be "jerk moves".

      Working with another coalition to take out the strongest coalition, though? How is that a "jerk move"? What do you expect them to do? They're just exercizing their last option to keep from losing. So it's bullshit if they don't just sit there and lose? I'm not sure I agree with that.

    • shrek6satan wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      welcome to battle royal.
      sorry sir this behavior is considered acceptable and unpractical to restricted

      we already have hard time with multi accs and wolfpack
      what's multi accs and wolfpack?
      Multi accounting is when a person uses two or more accounts in the same game to get an unfair advantage.
      Wolfpacking is when several players from the same alliance join a public game and team up like a 'wolfpack' to conquer the map.
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      shrek6satan wrote:

      ok maybe it shouldn't be a rule but at least you have to admit it's a bullshit move
      I don't know. I mean,... I understand why you're disappointed. You thought you had it wrapped up, and then got something you didn't expect.
      There are some crummy "moves" in the game. Sabotaging or playing traitor against your own coalition; ditching your coalition on the last day to get the solo win; using Right of Way an ally gave you to fly in and take over that ally's cities; that kind of thing. Those are all considered by some people to be "jerk moves".

      Working with another coalition to take out the strongest coalition, though? How is that a "jerk move"? What do you expect them to do? They're just exercizing their last option to keep from losing. So it's bullshit if they don't just sit there and lose? I'm not sure I agree with that.
      think it on this way. You were doing your own thing with your own coalition you know just conquering surrounding nations and all that and all of the sudden a country from another coalition starts attacking you. Nothing special it's all out war between the two coalitions nothing else but then suddenly another country from another coalition starts attacking you aswell and then you find out by intelligence and spying that this whole time they were sending messages plotting to attack us giving each other right of passage sending each other troops and so on. When a player has the balls they attack other coalitions by themselfes with their coalition not needing the help from outsiders. For me that's fair. You know how many games I've lost because of that tactic. Like I said in the beginning I could do the same thing but I would just be part of the problem. So that's my way at looking at things. The other thing I notice you say is that this only happen because we were the top coalition. No we weren't. we were the underdogs actually. But iran and his coalition were just too lazy to actually make strategy and couldn't handle losing "muh troops". So they sucked other coalitions off to attack us. And if I'm salty? Yeah I am. Because it's a jerk move. Period.

    • Tifo_14 wrote:

      shrek6satan wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      welcome to battle royal.
      sorry sir this behavior is considered acceptable and unpractical to restricted

      we already have hard time with multi accs and wolfpack
      what's multi accs and wolfpack?
      Multi accounting is when a person uses two or more accounts in the same game to get an unfair advantage.Wolfpacking is when several players from the same alliance join a public game and team up like a 'wolfpack' to conquer the map.
      can the first one actually happen? Maybe if you use vpn but other than that I don't know how they can do that

    • The other posts here, so far, have been a little more kind than me. I'm sorry but the level of whining in your complaint is over the top. Consider that game one of the cheapest life-lessons you will ever get.

      [sarcasm ON]

      @shrek6satan I agree.

      I think you should put on your very frowniest frowny-face, and write a sternly worded letter to Dorado, Bytro, and everyone in those other two alliances.

      The nerve of those colluders, using diplomacy to defeat your alliance instead of letting you defeat them. Don't they know it's their job to roll over and play dead when confronted by your alliance's awesomeness?

      Just to make a point, I recommend you and your allies do this: The next time you find yourself in a 3-alliance game, diplomatically ignore the other two alliances again, just like you did in this game. If the other two team up to beat you in that game too it will prove that you're justified in complaining that when you ignore making deals with the other alliances they pull BS stunts like attacking whoever they think is either winning or needs to be "taken off the board".

      PS: It's been a long time since I was a tween-ager. When did it become a sign of maturity to use "Satan" as part of your user name? Did I miss the memo on that one? Is doing that a way to ensure people will take you seriously now?

      [sarcasm OFF]

      SMDH

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • shrek6satan wrote:

      think it on this way. You were doing your own thing with your own coalition you know just conquering surrounding nations and all that and all of the sudden a country from another coalition starts attacking you. Nothing special it's all out war between the two coalitions nothing else but then suddenly another country from another coalition starts attacking you aswell and then you find out by intelligence and spying that this whole time they were sending messages plotting to attack us giving each other right of passage sending each other troops and so on. When a player has the balls they attack other coalitions by themselfes with their coalition not needing the help from outsiders. For me that's fair. You know how many games I've lost because of that tactic. Like I said in the beginning I could do the same thing but I would just be part of the problem. So that's my way at looking at things. The other thing I notice you say is that this only happen because we were the top coalition. No we weren't. we were the underdogs actually. But iran and his coalition were just too lazy to actually make strategy and couldn't handle losing "muh troops". So they sucked other coalitions off to attack us. And if I'm salty? Yeah I am. Because it's a jerk move. Period.
      I understand the situation you're talking about, and it doesn't matter whether or not you were the top coalition; that was just an example of two coalitions working together to beat one.

      Alright, try this: You're Germany. France and Poland agree to attack you at the same time to take you down. Is that a jerk move?

      If not, why is it different for coalitions than for individual players?

      If so, is it a jerk move if France and Poland are in the same coalition?

      Public map games aren't intend to be only 1v1 and 5v5. You may wish they were, but they aren't. It's designed to be a free-for-all. You're not going to like this game very much if you can't accept that. I'd guess that at least half the time (probably more), wars in this game do not have an even number of nations on each side.

    • shrek6satan wrote:

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      shrek6satan wrote:

      ok maybe it shouldn't be a rule but at least you have to admit it's a bullshit move
      I don't know. I mean,... I understand why you're disappointed. You thought you had it wrapped up, and then got something you didn't expect.There are some crummy "moves" in the game. Sabotaging or playing traitor against your own coalition; ditching your coalition on the last day to get the solo win; using Right of Way an ally gave you to fly in and take over that ally's cities; that kind of thing. Those are all considered by some people to be "jerk moves".

      Working with another coalition to take out the strongest coalition, though? How is that a "jerk move"? What do you expect them to do? They're just exercizing their last option to keep from losing. So it's bullshit if they don't just sit there and lose? I'm not sure I agree with that.
      think it on this way. You were doing your own thing with your own coalition you know just conquering surrounding nations and all that and all of the sudden a country from another coalition starts attacking you. Nothing special it's all out war between the two coalitions nothing else but then suddenly another country from another coalition starts attacking you aswell and then you find out by intelligence and spying that this whole time they were sending messages plotting to attack us giving each other right of passage sending each other troops and so on. When a player has the balls they attack other coalitions by themselfes with their coalition not needing the help from outsiders. For me that's fair. You know how many games I've lost because of that tactic. Like I said in the beginning I could do the same thing but I would just be part of the problem. So that's my way at looking at things. The other thing I notice you say is that this only happen because we were the top coalition. No we weren't. we were the underdogs actually. But iran and his coalition were just too lazy to actually make strategy and couldn't handle losing "muh troops". So they sucked other coalitions off to attack us. And if I'm salty? Yeah I am. Because it's a jerk move. Period.

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      shrek6satan wrote:

      think it on this way. You were doing your own thing with your own coalition you know just conquering surrounding nations and all that and all of the sudden a country from another coalition starts attacking you. Nothing special it's all out war between the two coalitions nothing else but then suddenly another country from another coalition starts attacking you aswell and then you find out by intelligence and spying that this whole time they were sending messages plotting to attack us giving each other right of passage sending each other troops and so on. When a player has the balls they attack other coalitions by themselfes with their coalition not needing the help from outsiders. For me that's fair. You know how many games I've lost because of that tactic. Like I said in the beginning I could do the same thing but I would just be part of the problem. So that's my way at looking at things. The other thing I notice you say is that this only happen because we were the top coalition. No we weren't. we were the underdogs actually. But iran and his coalition were just too lazy to actually make strategy and couldn't handle losing "muh troops". So they sucked other coalitions off to attack us. And if I'm salty? Yeah I am. Because it's a jerk move. Period.
      I understand the situation you're talking about, and it doesn't matter whether or not you were the top coalition; that was just an example of two coalitions working together to beat one.
      Alright, try this: You're Germany. France and Poland agree to attack you at the same time to take you down. Is that a jerk move?

      If not, why is it different for coalitions than for individual players?

      If so, is it a jerk move if France and Poland are in the same coalition?

      Public map games aren't intend to be only 1v1 and 5v5. You may wish they were, but they aren't. It's designed to be a free-for-all. You're not going to like this game very much if you can't accept that. I'd guess that at least half the time (probably more), wars in this game do not have an even number of nations on each side.
      it's one thing when two nations ally themselfes to take down one nation. It's another when it's two coalitions do that. In the example you gave it's almost certainly day 1 and so most of the nations have the exact amount of troops. One on one it's pratically impossible to conquer an active nation on day one . So compromisses must been estlabished. That's why coalitions exist: they're there so that different nations with similar interest can cooperate better. And coalitions only have a limit of 5 not 10 or 15. Another thing to consider: I can deal with two nations attacking me not two whole COALITIONS . it's one thing to made agrrements with other countries and another with whole coalitions. In the example I gave I did give one detail: it was three coalitions not just two

    • I think I have to disagree with you, then, bud. I don't see two (or three) coalitions teaming up against one coalition to be that much more "bullshit" than two or three players ganging up on one. I understand that you do, but I can't support you here. I think it's fine.

      I almost always solo now, though, so I've gotten used to the entire world banding together to fight just me.

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      I just began a game as North Korea. Japan and South Korea began fighting each other immediately. I jumped in late and conquered both. Is that a bullshit move?

      If not, why not? I didn't let them determine a 1v1 winner between the two of them.

      PerigeeNil wrote:

      I think I have to disagree with you, then, bud. I don't see two (or three) coalitions teaming up against one coalition to be that much more "bullshit" than two or three players ganging up on one. I understand that you do, but I can't support you here. I think it's fine.

      I almost always solo now, though, so I've gotten used to the entire world banding together to fight just me.
      If you were in my situation how would you deal with three coalitions attacking you then?

    • Well, you can either beat them or you can't. But just because you can't win in a situation doesn't make it "bullshit". Once you're already in that situation, there's not much else you can do besides trying to survive it.

      The other thing that I would try to do in that situation is to learn from it. WHY did three other coalitions all agree to attack you at once? Coalitions usually only work together if there's something in it for them. What's in it for three coalitions to attack you? If you're strong enough that it takes three coalitions to beat you, then you seemed threatening to them. If you didn't seem that strong to them, then you must have done something else or it was just coincidence. Regardless, players normally spend their game time a certain way for a certain reason. Figure out what convinced three coalitions to spend their time all attacking you, and then try to figure out how you can avoid that in the future.

    • Even though you may not like the diplomacy aspect of the game, you still have to account for and be aware of other players. I go through entire games without conmmunicating with a single other player. I'm always watching them, though, and I'm thinking about what they are thinking and planning. As the game goes on and significant borders get closer and closer, you have to be aware that there's going to be a point where you are necessarily seen by other players as either a target or as a threat. When that time comes, all you can really do is hope you have prepared well enough for it leading up to that point.

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Well, you can either beat them or you can't. But just because you can't win in a situation doesn't make it "bullshit". Once you're already in that situation, there's not much else you can do besides trying to survive it.

      The other thing that I would try to do in that situation is to learn from it. WHY did three other coalitions all agree to attack you at once? Coalitions usually only work together if there's something in it for them. What's in it for three coalitions to attack you? If you're strong enough that it takes three coalitions to beat you, then you seemed threatening to them. If you didn't seem that strong to them, then you must have done something else or it was just coincidence. Regardless, players normally spend their game time a certain way for a certain reason. Figure out what convinced three coalitions to spend their time all attacking you, and then try to figure out how you can avoid that in the future.
      maybe because they're lazy pieces of shit and have to resort to this kind of dirty tactics. I still don't know how you cannot grasp how unfair it is to play with these kind of people. With the example you gave when 2 nations attack it's a much more susceptible and a much more predictable scenario. If you're say south korea it's very likely that NK and Japan will attack at the same time. But how can I predict when 2 or more coalitions are collaborating. I could spy on them but if they catch my spy it's basically undeclared war. Like how am I supposed to predict this kind of scenarios. Lets go to my example. I did nothing to provoke either iran or mozambique. Maybe it was stretch to conquered some territory in africa but still

    • Well if 3 main coalitions left; smart play is two smaller coalitions to take out the leading coalition.

      Thats just good strategy. If #2 and 3 fight odds are #1 will take them both out; where as if #2 and #3 fairly even than once take out #1 both #2 and #3 stand a chance to win.

      Guess you never heard; all is fair in love and war!
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp