Start a new topic

TURNCOAT - player statistic to show % of alliances broken

IDEA: A player statistic visible to other players that shows your % of alliance broken before <x> number of turns.

[Note: exact number of turns to be defined.]

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below

105 people like this idea

Although the idea has merit, I vote NO. It is clear through thorough inspection this would be game breaking. Additionally, the statistics would never be accurate. However, as another user stated, it would be nice to see how many alliances player(s) have globally, but this is material for another suggestion vote post.
I think people are trying to make alliances too official. It's really just a form of communication. "Hey, I wont attack you." And breaking an alliance usually means "you've pissed me off!"


1 person likes this
I think its a great idea. It doesnt change the game in any fashion. Thats ridiculous. What is does is let you know what type of person your playing with. On the board game, least you could see your players......enabling you to read there gestures revealing the level of commitment. And yes you will have to break your alliance when it comes down to you n allie. As i do. But the people who dont break the alliance and turn round and attack you while still being an allie, well those are the ones I would appreciate knowing their "TurnCoat" %s.
What I've experienced lately is expert players who join a game together and are allies right from the get go. Not sure of the purpose because they're ultimately going to have to play each other. but why bother to wipe out beginners and intermediates just to battle each other?
I ally everyone immediately and only pick and poke at people's single unit territories to get my cards. Then once I'm positioned properly, I blow through everyone in one round. The purpose of the alliance is to say that I don't want to pick a fight with anyone. If they want a continent, I'm back off and letting them have it. I don't see an alliance as a "let's team up on people" but as a mere friendly gesture to say "when I do this thing, I'm not actually trying to kill you." In the end, it's still a game of trust when dealing with an alliance which is beyond just saying you're in an alliance. you need to keep your stacked armies away from your "friends" and in my case, make it look like I'm not going after anyone at all. In the end, you're going to kill everyone or be killed. It's not a team game.


This is ridiculous because it is part of the game. Just remember this, you can make alliances with people, but at some point they will be broken. You can't play the game without breaking alliances. I have played against a few people who never break alliances and they are so freaking boring. If they did add this feature it would make the game too "safe" and it would reward the boring players.
I expect the allaince to be broken at some point. If you want to make it more honorable make a rule where if they break the allaince and attack you without letting you know x number of turns beforehand that their attacking roll has less percentage chance of success due to the deceit. Having stats on whether you break an allaince wouldn't be accurate as to win the game the allaince has to be broken.

This would be stupid and meaningless. As others have mentioned, you have to break all your alliances in order to win the game, whether officially broken or not. Second, the only way this works at all is if the alliance is automatically broken if you attack a player you are allied with…otherwise players could be technically allied and still trying to kill each other—there are plenty of instances where this happens already. The automatic alliance break doesn’t work very well either, since there are plenty of instances where players trade undefended territories with allies to get cards.

The game designers should also not want to include any negative statistics, and would be much better off focusing on improving the ranking system (it sucks—there are too many variables in this game to base it strictly on a w/l percentage, which looks like what is happening), and adding a chat feature so people can create better alliances, and perhaps dissuade would-be attackers from foolish strategies that only cause both players to lose.

lol. Notify turns in advance? Come on. The game can end in 1 round if things heat up just right. I consider alliances nothing more than a form of communication. The only other method of communication is emoticons and those are quite limited on an individual basis.


I think a olayer vote may be better. You need to attack alliance members to break borders of enemys or to capture continents.
Yes. Very correct. At some point you Will break your alliance. So a score on breaking alliances is NOT good idea. Instead a score of 1-10 how likely they are to be committed in one. Scoring to be determined on how often they "attack" their partners who are in alliance. Not break the alliance. There should be no fault score for cutting off ties from an alliance. Just attacking those who you have one with. And no. Not any attack. But an attack on a continent, would be what it should refer to. Because attacking singles or doubles or triples for cards is not a break in a treaty.

What would the cut-off be? 4 armies? 5? 7? 10? Does that number increase as the game progresses? What if I'm not holding a continent, or have 15 armies in a random territory in northern Asia that an "ally" decides to attack? What if I accept an alliance, am minding my own business picking up cards, and my supposed ally is acting aggressively toward me? Maybe he hasn't attacked the continent I'm holding, but he's clearly amassing the bulk of his force on my border or trying to pin me into a certain area to force me to attack another player or prepare to kill me. If I break the alliance, even if I'm not ready to escalate hostilities, that may trigger him to do so. 

Trying to enforce and monitor alliances is pointless and doesn't illustrate the fluidity and tension of strategic alliance on a competitive field.
I think it should be on double crossing because if someone has attacked you constantly you will break it but that is not something that should be bad for you
I think we should be able to say how many turns for a allaince. So u could request a 4 turn allaince or a final 2 deal. Would be nice. Also just like real risk everyone laying sees who makes allaince normally

1 person likes this
Login or Signup to post a comment