The major point of coalitions is to encourage strategy on a grand scale, meaning that there are better and smarter ways to expand than simple straightforward conquest. Coalitions are boring and tedious to face, yes. They don't really stop you, just slow you down and make you frustrated, yes. Now if there was only another way, some sort of strategy, that would allow me to expand and achieve the same results, faster, and with less tedious and boring wars against coalitions, then I would certainly be encouraged to work out and use such a strategy instead...and no strategy is not "gamey", strategy is what it is, a way to achieve your goals that seems most suitable to your current situation. If you don't want to use it, then you are choosing a less effective strategy, meaning that your game experience might be less rewarding and more frustrating.
I agree in part. The presence of coalitions does indeed encourage alternative strategies. And, as I gave examples of in an
earlier post in this thread, they are somewhat successful in doing that, and for me at least have enhanced the game by forcing me to think differently, which I have enjoyed.
Therefore I would not say that coalitions are completely broken, or serve no purpose, or should be removed completely.
But it's still possible for a feature to achieve some of its goals, but to do so in a sub-optimal way. I believe this description fits coalitions perfectly. They do serve to encourage (or often, require) alternative strategy. But they would serve that purpose a lot better, and would add to the game much more, if they were improved along the lines detailed by many people in this thread.
Coalitions force you to think of alternative ways to expand, and to be smarter and more varied in your techniques. This is good. But in effect, they act just as a roadblock, with the only strategically rewarding action being to work out how to go around them. I'm forced to vary my strategies because coalitions sit there blocking me from going direct; in varying my strategies, the game improves.
But it would improve a whole lot more if it was sometimes strategic to go around them, and sometimes strategic to go through them, and the strategy and risk/reward of going through them was balanced and interesting in and of itself. It should be possible through careful planning to expand without facing serious coalition opposition - perhaps therefore expanding slower than one otherwise might. It should also be possible to expand fast and hard, thus facing serious coalition opposition, and then be able to carefully plan and strategise for how to handle and defeat the coalition. It's this latter part that is missing.
Late game coalitions usually do not represent a serious threat, they just block you from doing anything further. There's no risk, there's no reward, it's just an anchor. Yes you can plan carefully to avoid the anchor. But it would be even better if you could also plan carefully to
remove the anchor.
Good strategy should involve weighing up risks and rewards. pros and cons, with a variety of different choices available, all of which should be variable according to circumstance and according to an individual's ability and preference. Coalitions don't meet that definition yet. But they could and hopefully after more patches, they eventually will.
.png){kind=avatar}
