Curtail Ally Spamming

I think it would be simple to implement a income penalty if a player allies more than 50% of the existing players in a game. Say a 15-20% income penalty per ally once you ally more than 50% of players in the game.

This doesn't make sense, it would make more sense that you gain income, because of trade. but we don't want that .

What if the game has, like, 4 players? Or if it's a game with fixed teams?

As my original post said, it only take's affect if you ally MORE than 50% of the currently total amount of players, so even teams would not be affected.

Skrevet av the99percent, 30.05.2012 at 13:52

As my original post said, it only take's affect if you ally MORE than 50% of the currently total amount of players, so even teams would not be affected.

3 players. 5 players. Any number.

Anyway, aside from this nitpicking, I think this is a bad idea. This adds drama to the game, and allyfags are always harshly punished by more experienced players.

man, really? Even team's does not mean even number of players, im not saying even and odd, i'm saying fair teams, teams in which the number of players on both sides are equal, this is what even teams means. I know english is not your first language, but it is a bit frustrating when you do not understand what I am saying, and you are trying to converse with me.


3 vs 3, 5 vs 5, as I said those would not be affected, as the amount of allies are equal to 50% not MORE than 50%

so for example


3 vs 3 , nothing would change

5 vs 5 nothing would change

1 guy vs 3 people who are allied against him . using 15% penalty as an example. 50% of 4 player's is 2 players, so only when they reach 3 player's allied, all 3 would all receive a 15% income penalty.

if it was 1 vs 2 vs 1, their would be no change.

antoher example

10 players total,

4 vs 6

half of 10 is 5

so the team with 6 players would all have a 15% penalty applied to income.

As you can see not too drastic

but it get's worse as the imbalance grows

lets say 3 vs 7

now the 7 would all have a 30% income penalty

I think a greater reduction in SP from allied victories is a better solution, but I dont know that one will be implemented.

I think i would be enough if we can set a maximum number of alliances as a new additional game option.

Guest - I do not liek that system, as it does nothing to help game balance during the actual game.

Skrevet av Guest14502, 30.05.2012 at 16:12

I think a greater reduction in SP from allied victories is a better solution, but I dont know that one will be implemented.

the current system deters me enough haha.

you have to share out half of your enemies sp.
i had a 5v1 with me as europe, and walked away with more sp than anyone of them alone after losing.

Skrevet av nonames, 30.05.2012 at 17:44

the current system deters me enough haha.

you have to share out half of your enemies sp.
i had a 5v1 with me as europe, and walked away with more sp than anyone of them alone after losing.

It deters me to a bit lol. But if the other players want it bad enough I don't mind an ally win.

p.s. how can you lose 5v1's as Europe lol. I win those all the time and your supposed to be better than me. >_< (But of course my main strat is GW and I almost always get almost to or above 1,000+ units by week 15-18.)