  Coalition logic is a central logic in strategic reasoning studies. In this
paper, we first argue that Coalition Logic models, concurrent game models, have
three too-strong assumptions. The first one is the independence of agents; that
is, the merge of two available joint actions of two disjoint coalitions is
always available for the union of the two coalitions. The second one is
seriality; that is, coalitions always have available joint actions. The third
one is determinism, that is, the grand coalition's joint actions always have a
unique outcome. Second, we present a coalition logic based on general
concurrent game models, which do not have the three assumptions. We show the
completeness of this logic and compare it with Coalition Logic in detail. This
logic seems minimal in the context of strategic reasoning.
