perhaps 5?

@MallahanJr it makes sense to have the tags available within the player list so a task has been created for that. As for coalitions it isn't as straightforward a design decision.
In the case that you come across a game like this please report it to us so that we can verify that they are actually playing to win rather than 'wolfpacking'.

Trained fighters used to fight in a shieldwall will always steamroll their opponents, even if 5 vs 30. They are willing to die for their shieldborther, but they are skilled enough to not die for nothing. They know how to use their sword effectively, and they are confident that their shield brothers will do exactly the same.

With coalitions, there is nothing through rules to do against that. The old boar i am would just point out that someone that never gets some of his bones broken by ennemy attacks, is fooling himself and will decline slowly but cruelly, until he is devastated with no return.

There aren't many solutions. More Discipline, More training, More activity.

This said, i find it quite stupid that a round that can have only a team winner of 5 members, has 7 members total. This should maybe be discussed as "push".

Source : Old competitive veteran, and ex-anti-piracy vice commodore from EvE online.

It is indeed pushing

So... what are you trying to tell us with those 5 BFG Players in one coalition?

Are Alliance members not allowed to play together, train together on public maps?

Playing with 4 other friends in a coalition of 5 isn't allowed? You cant play with more than 4 friends in public matches?

I only join public games in full premade teams (enough to fill a coalition) because I dislike playing with "random" players found on the map. Lets put it this way, as an ingame team leader I have high standards that most players wont fullfill. I(my team) take the game a bit more serious than the casual player.

In Supremacy1914 (similar to CoN) I've witnissed a premade team of 9 players joining a map where the max. coalition size was 7. Yet it was ok and cleared by a mod.

The Rainmen have a policy of 4 players max to a public game. Both to balance the coalitions and also to leave a spot open for a potential recruit. It is hard enough not to find a public game where half the people quit after 5 days.

In Game 2355406 we are 20 days in and a regional coalition suddenly went half inactive. I would rather play with my alliance members then some guy that disappears half way through a game.

"In Supremacy1914 (similar to CoN) I've witnissed a premade team of 9 players joining a map where the max. coalition size was 7. Yet it was ok and cleared by a mod."

Depends on the server. I can assure i would have sent stormtroopers to clean such a blatant case of wolfpacking. The fact that coalitions exist and that efforts have been made to make "team victory" possible, implies a subtle but firm parameter to the game that "the max size of groups that is allowed is the same size than the max size a group can win". It falls under a part of the rules that emits a radiant light of "common sense".

The moderation team that allows 9 players to play in team when 7 is the max for team victory, does what it wants. But we don't have the same view on every server, and to relate on CoN, at least for the French server, I defend it throuhg rules as push/cheatery. On a more personal side, i feel disgusted as a leader, that people that can relate to me by their rank, use their overwhelming numbers to transform the game into a Safari where the animals are the randoms who thought to play a public game.

The game allows team victory, so that means that 5 alliances teammates can play together, 5/5 Coalition. Period. Additional blades, if they are not playing AGAINST their other teammates, i don't think they will convince me they are there for anything else than "winning for someone else", which relates to push/wolfpack. "yeah but we wanna play 9 teammates :/" ---> "then do freaking challenges, don't bully solo players, they have diplomacy to do while you have NOT, and they have to fear the consequences of their choices, and you do NOT."

To be honest, on supremacy, I enforced laws to forbid my members from joining in more than 3 pre-made teams. The reason ?

Morality dictates that you want to let some chances to the others players. And sadly, i did stats for my alliance. Pre made teams of 7, 6, and 5, have an average victory rate of 95%. 4 have less, but still more than 50%... so we settled on 3, because it meant, at least, that there was difficulty. I was willing to enforce "max limit 2", but my people were in disagreement with me.

Also, don't forget recruitment ! NEW BLOOD.

As Herodotus used to say: "Soft lands breed soft mens". Public games are well-known to be of an awful skill level, something that an an moderatly-trained skill level like me can easily demonstrate :



look at my ratio ?!

Does it look NATURAL ? of course not, and it means nothing about anything related to skill. But i play only public games, so, because the lambda player is who he is, i happily steamroll players that don't understand the game, don't train, and most of them would just laugh at the idea that you need to train your body and sleep cycles In real life, in order to be battle ready in the game. Even if they are 4 or five in their coalitions ! Their coordination is so BAD, and they are so allied "by default" without any kind of cooperation, it's laughable.

The only times i got normal ratios, it was when i played against my teammates, because they are not, in average, total retards. And i don't play challenges in CoN (because we are supremacy-based), but obviously, we would got our ass kicked by true players, true warriors, and we would learn through challenge.


In this regard, the more i let my members play in situations and context where they are "nearly sure to win", and not situations where '"they need to surpass themselves to hope to survive once over two", the more the blood of my alliance becomes weak, and the more i'm a traitor to my alliance, trading my comfort "ohh... we are winning so much, we must be goooood" against the pragmatic reality of "Difficulty leads to innovation, Victory leads to decline".

Team play in public game doesn't work like Vaccines. It's not like the team would learn how to play effectively against a team, by killing disorganised bunch of semi-inactive beginners.


Sorry Mc_Johnsen, it's 0% against you, but you just triggered me with the memory of this bunch of retards that play in groups of 10 in solo games, and call it "team play". We had ours in the anonymous round of Supremacy.

"Anonymous Free For All round" ---> lol. Teams of 5 all neighbours, of freaking course.

As Mc_Johnson already said, we like to join as a full coalition. Though not to find challenge but to train team work. Team work is much more essential in this game than in Supremacy, because of the huge number of different units and how they all have different weakness so you have to combine them for maximum effectivity. One of many reasons why I stopped Supremacy pretty much entirely. It also can help to show, if your members are really up to real team play as recently proven.

I public games you will hardly ever find a real challenge, if you don't meet by accident members of another of the big alliances. That is why in general I'm more inclined to play on public events and not public normal maps.

Anyhow we would never join purposely with more than an coalition.

There is also this fact that CoN has not broken mechanisms when more than one army is defending, unlike Supremacy.