@dfrost
Ahhh, here we go. Now we've gotten somwhere. The other folks were already kind enough to mention it above, but I'll mention it as well, just to make it clear: The more players you add to a coalition, the more Victory Points required for them to win. Battleground USA is a newer map that I've not played much, so I don't know the point break down, but I'll give you the point breakdown for WW3, a map that I do know:
1 Player: 1850
2 Players: 2960
3 Players: 4255
4 Players: 5365
5 Players: 5920
So, yes, on a WW3 map, 5 players could and do formally team up (a coalition) to try to beat me, but then I still only need 1850 VPs to win, and they now need a total of 5920 together.
The point breakdowns are different for each different type of map.
For future reference, I believe the End Game Button appears when there are five or less players left in a game. And, no, there is nothing else in the game that explicitly tells you which players or how many players are still active. You have to just kind of guess by watching what happens on the map and in the news.
If you're eager to see more what "end game" looks like in Conflict of Nations, you could join an Apocalypse map. That map has no restrictions on research times, so countries are able to develop advanced units faster. If, by "end game" you instead mean you are eager to see the later days of the game, you could join any 4x map and get there four times faster than real time.
As for people "teaming up". It sounds like you're figuring that part out. That's just part of the game. There's only one map I can think of that doesn't allow coalitions, and it is rarely offered, and that still doesn't stop people from working together informally. Coalitions are the major parties in the game. You can choose not to join them, like I do, but you're always going to be fighting against them. This is NOT a 1v1 game, nor are the numbers hardly ever even if you are in a coalition, so you might as well get used to fighting against unequal numbers of players at the same time.
Finally, as for players joining a coalition at the end of a game to claim a win they didn't really earn: I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as you're imagining. For one thing, in order to do that, the player still had to be able to survive to the end of the game. Many players didn't, so it's not like this player did nothing to help themselves. Also, most of the time in public games, countries switch coalitions all the time. It's going to happen throughout the entire game. So, when someone joins a coalition at the end of a game, it doesn't seem that strange, because people have been joining and leaving different coalitions the entire game anyway. That's the diplomacy part of the game: honing a series of relationships to survive and advance. Lastly, a formal coalition has to accept a new member. So, if a player did nothing all game (unlikely) and then tried to join the winning coalition at the end, the coalition might feel like that country doesn't deserve a slot and might reject them.
So, real quick scenario to make it clear: Let's say it's a WW3 game, and Brasil, Colombia, Peru, and Argentina are all in a coalition together. Then let's say India is alone but in sixth place. India thinks the South American coalition is going to win the game, so India applies to be their fifth member. First of all, India survived this long, so it's not like they didn't do anything successful all game. The South American coalition can choose to accept India, but, if they do, the required points they need to win will go up by 555. So, either the South American coalition thinks adding India is worth it, or they don't. But, either way, India had to "earn" the win through surviving, gaining enough points to contribute, and being accepted in the strongest coalition.
Ahhh, here we go. Now we've gotten somwhere. The other folks were already kind enough to mention it above, but I'll mention it as well, just to make it clear: The more players you add to a coalition, the more Victory Points required for them to win. Battleground USA is a newer map that I've not played much, so I don't know the point break down, but I'll give you the point breakdown for WW3, a map that I do know:
1 Player: 1850
2 Players: 2960
3 Players: 4255
4 Players: 5365
5 Players: 5920
So, yes, on a WW3 map, 5 players could and do formally team up (a coalition) to try to beat me, but then I still only need 1850 VPs to win, and they now need a total of 5920 together.
The point breakdowns are different for each different type of map.
For future reference, I believe the End Game Button appears when there are five or less players left in a game. And, no, there is nothing else in the game that explicitly tells you which players or how many players are still active. You have to just kind of guess by watching what happens on the map and in the news.
If you're eager to see more what "end game" looks like in Conflict of Nations, you could join an Apocalypse map. That map has no restrictions on research times, so countries are able to develop advanced units faster. If, by "end game" you instead mean you are eager to see the later days of the game, you could join any 4x map and get there four times faster than real time.
As for people "teaming up". It sounds like you're figuring that part out. That's just part of the game. There's only one map I can think of that doesn't allow coalitions, and it is rarely offered, and that still doesn't stop people from working together informally. Coalitions are the major parties in the game. You can choose not to join them, like I do, but you're always going to be fighting against them. This is NOT a 1v1 game, nor are the numbers hardly ever even if you are in a coalition, so you might as well get used to fighting against unequal numbers of players at the same time.
Finally, as for players joining a coalition at the end of a game to claim a win they didn't really earn: I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's as big of an issue as you're imagining. For one thing, in order to do that, the player still had to be able to survive to the end of the game. Many players didn't, so it's not like this player did nothing to help themselves. Also, most of the time in public games, countries switch coalitions all the time. It's going to happen throughout the entire game. So, when someone joins a coalition at the end of a game, it doesn't seem that strange, because people have been joining and leaving different coalitions the entire game anyway. That's the diplomacy part of the game: honing a series of relationships to survive and advance. Lastly, a formal coalition has to accept a new member. So, if a player did nothing all game (unlikely) and then tried to join the winning coalition at the end, the coalition might feel like that country doesn't deserve a slot and might reject them.
So, real quick scenario to make it clear: Let's say it's a WW3 game, and Brasil, Colombia, Peru, and Argentina are all in a coalition together. Then let's say India is alone but in sixth place. India thinks the South American coalition is going to win the game, so India applies to be their fifth member. First of all, India survived this long, so it's not like they didn't do anything successful all game. The South American coalition can choose to accept India, but, if they do, the required points they need to win will go up by 555. So, either the South American coalition thinks adding India is worth it, or they don't. But, either way, India had to "earn" the win through surviving, gaining enough points to contribute, and being accepted in the strongest coalition.
