I think the greatness of the current alliance system is it's a pure diplomacy strategy. Something like if you don't want to unite with others, then stay where you are and bleed without ceasing if you're fighting with the rest or play like farmville if you can't take it. Sort of "it's your fault if you don't want this strategy." But I think formalizing it like coalition is similar to requiring it and the strategy dies.

Wy San Luis said:

[...] are you going to add features like alliance tournament or something similar to coalition quest where you can get a small rewards by doing a certain task as alliance? If that's the case, there would be a huge imbalance in the game if the top 100 unite, they will get tons of rewards in tournament and the small ones will become like a cockroach..

As so often in these games, the challenge is to strike a balance. To offset alliance tournament wins, alliance rankings, alliance wars or whatever else one might come up with, one could well penalize alliances, especially those that grow especially large (either by no. of coalitions or total no, of members) such as ...

• coalition membership fees, 
• reduced game parameters for coalition members within a larger alliance.

... or any other construct that keep alliances an attractive way to participate in certain events, missions and/or rankings but at the same time making the participation in an alliance a costly enterprise.

Historically, large Empires were usually brought down by their weight, and I don't see a reason why this couldn't be applied here: if a coalition capital, depending on its level, benefits the members, an alliance capital could well penalize these, lower grain production, higher consumption, reduced movement speed, or anything else that can be tied to the size of an alliance, making it always a double-edged choice which (sized) alliance to join.

m2cw
P.

I said:

Startegy dies

LoL. Of course it won't. I'm sure many new strategies will come up once it's formalized. I'm contradicting myself here but my main point is the game balance.

Oh boy I want to have a very, very long explanation here but I can't think clearly now..  LoL.. Gotta go to bed..

I just noticed now that "The Irate Penguin's" initial is "TIP"

No wonder you have lots of brilliant ideas.

Hi everyone. I joined the chat with CM regarding alliance but a little bit late and our discussion goes something like this:

I asked:

How can you maintain the game balance? What if there's a cap of 100 coas in 1 alliance and all the top 100 unite into 1? They will just dominate the map and that would be pretty boring..

Alyona said:

But Coals unite even now, without this feature. We just want to formalize it somehow.

My next question is: 

In what way? Are you just going to formalize it by name and adding logo? Or are you going to add features like alliance tournament or something similar to coalition quest where you can get a small rewards by doing a certain task as alliance? If that's the case, there would be a huge imbalance in the game if the top 100 unite, they will get tons of rewards in tournament and the small ones will become like a cockroach..

Wy San Luis said:

[...] are you going to add features like alliance tournament or something similar to coalition quest where you can get a small rewards by doing a certain task as alliance? If that's the case, there would be a huge imbalance in the game if the top 100 unite, they will get tons of rewards in tournament and the small ones will become like a cockroach..

As so often in these games, the challenge is to strike a balance. To offset alliance tournament wins, alliance rankings, alliance wars or whatever else one might come up with, one could well penalize alliances, especially those that grow especially large (either by no. of coalitions or total no, of members) such as ...

• coalition membership fees, 
• reduced game parameters for coalition members within a larger alliance.

... or any other construct that keep alliances an attractive way to participate in certain events, missions and/or rankings but at the same time making the participation in an alliance a costly enterprise.

Historically, large Empires were usually brought down by their weight, and I don't see a reason why this couldn't be applied here: if a coalition capital, depending on its level, benefits the members, an alliance capital could well penalize these, lower grain production, higher consumption, reduced movement speed, or anything else that can be tied to the size of an alliance, making it always a double-edged choice which (sized) alliance to join.

m2cw
P.

Wy said:

No wonder you have lots of brilliant ideas.

One per month, this means I am done for August :-).

Alyona said:

I  like your ideas actually

Did you have to add the "actually"? ;-)

The reasons for joining an alliance have generally been spelt out in this and a parallel thread: anything from alliance wars, tournaments, rankings, missions, events, ... , and not forgetting possibly the most important one: status. There shouldn't be a shortage of alliances vying for supremacy, possibly even coaxing or pressuring coalitions in joining them.

But thinking of tools to counteract this monopolization is even more fun:

(Pulling numbers out of hat: with penalties added for each member coalition or per member coalition player)

• Graft: -x% bronze reduction 
• Nepotism: -x% timber production 
• Culture: x% unit training speed due to language differences
• Roads/waterways: -x% travelling speed
• Infrastructure: +x% consumption
• Corruption. +x% agreement costs and/or duration
• Morale: -x% off and def values

If these penalties are not supremely draconian, I don't see players not using this option and potentially there's lots of room for ideas here that could help to keep alliances manageable, especially if the penalties grow exponentially. Alliances will always be tempted to add one more coalition to their membership to make top spot, and it would be interesting to see them struggle :-). Perhaps we'll have smaller alliances grouping into (out-of-game) "pacts" or other cooperations to avoid the high penalties, but that precisely could make alliance events more balanced.

That's going to be real job: finding that balance and fine tuning it in-game.

m1cw :-)
P.

Did you have to add the "actually"? ;-)

---