Nerf Coalition size

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

    • Nerf Coalition size

      Hey,

      I've been playing for several months now and love the game. I usually play WW3 or Flashpoint.

      The most satisfying games have been the coalition conquests. But, not all of them are satisfying:

      1) Coalitions where no one chats are almost as dull as playing on my own.

      2) Coalitions that steamroll the rest of the solo players are also a bit boring. Yes, I see my numbers grow and research more unit types, but the lack of competition after day 20 or 30 brings boredom.

      3) The best games for me pitted four or five major, active coalitions with lots of strategy and tactical chatter within my team.

      4) Most often in games, I see two or three coalitions with four or five members each, plus a few duo coalitions. That is only a maximum 3x5=15 countries in large coalitions, out of 64 players.

      5) Several times I have seen only a single coalition form, consisting of the five strongest players at around day 15 or 20. Together they have maybe 200-300 cities. Well folks, there you now have at day 20 your inevitable winner of the game. People want to be safe and obtain an easy win, so it is natural to wait to see who is winning, then make a safe bet joining other strong players. For the other players, yes we can put up a good but fruitless fight, but for both sides, wouldn't it be better to have ongoing competition from start to finish?

      My suggestion is to reduce the number of members of a coalition from the current five, down to four or even three. Or, limit by a measure such as a maximum VPs or number of cities at the time of joining, to encourage more coalitions, or early commitments to a coalition. Maybe even a bonus (resource production, mobilization time or research time) by being part of a coalition early in the game.


      Your thoughts please!

    • There are maps where the number of members in a coalition is limited to 3. There is also a map that doesn't allow coalitions at all.

      I'm a little unsure from your post what goal you're trying to achieve. I think I'm hearing you say, "a larger number of truly competitive coalitions per game". I don't think that's as much a function of the game rules/limitations, though, as it is a function of the players on your map.

      Sometimes, when there are ten (or more) solid players on a map, you'll get two strong coalitions facing off in the end of the game for all the marbles. I think this happens less often now because of a change that was made. Ever since they changed it so that WWIII maps allow Rank 1 players (it used to be Rank 2 minimum), I've noticed that an individual WWIII map has A LOT more inexperienced and inactive players. When only 20% of the players on a 64-player map are experienced and active, it makes it a LOT less likely that you'll get multiple full, strong coalitions.

      So you're suggesting we lower the maximum number in a coalition to less than five. I'm not sure that necessarily gives you what you want. Sure, one solid coalition of five members could theoretically be two solid, competing coalitions if one more solid player could be added. However, I have a number of solo wins on 64-player (4x speed) maps with 5-man coalitions. Reducing those coalition caps just increases the ease of solo wins, in my opinion. Also, I've played in plenty of games where there were only two competitive players on the whole map and the others were just kind of along for the ride.

      The other aspect that I think you're missing is that you always have the option of having fewer members in your coalition. If playing in a 5-member coalition is not challenging enough for you, then make/join a three-man coalition, even if other people have five-man coalitions. You wanted it to be more competitive, right? There you go. I'm not trying to be a smarty pants; that's what I do. That's one of the big reasons I play solo. I agree with you that sometimes playing in a dominant 5-man coalition gets boring, so I solo to make it more challenging.

      Basically, I get what you're after, but I'm just not sure that reducing the number of players in a coalition accomplishes that. What I DO think creates "a larger number of more competitive coalitions per gamee" is when the requirements for joining are raised. A map with Rank 5 minimum requirement for players would have a much better chance of giving you the competitive coalitions you want.

    • sundance175 wrote:

      What do you guys think of a map option that is 1x speed that has less victory points and could be concluded in 1 week. Might have a little more activity if people know it is a short game but still regular speed? I do not mean get rid of any other modes but just to add one.
      Well, I'd say it's interesting, but not fascinating. Interesting due to the short game. Not fascinating because it will end up being almost all infantry.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      sundance175 wrote:

      What do you guys think of a map option that is 1x speed that has less victory points and could be concluded in 1 week. Might have a little more activity if people know it is a short game but still regular speed? I do not mean get rid of any other modes but just to add one.
      Well, I'd say it's interesting, but not fascinating. Interesting due to the short game. Not fascinating because it will end up being almost all infantry.
      That's a valid concern for sure