Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Another potential snag with the flexible team model might be keeping track of these shifting alliances. Could be something of a headache, especially the larger the game. Who keeps track? Must the admin keep a list? If so it might wind up looking something like this:

Turn 5 Pangaea and Arco report they are now allies
Turn 7 Man, Gath, and Ulm report they are now allies
Turn 11 Pangaea, Arco, and T'ien Chi report they are now allies
Turn 15 Abysia and Caelum report they are now allies
Turn 16 Arco reports they are no longer allied with Pangaea and T'ien Chi'
Turn 20 Abysia, Caelum, and Arco report they are now allied
Turn 23 Man reports they are no longer allied with Gath and Ulm
Turn 27 Agartha, Man, and Marignon are now allies
Turn 29 Gath, Ulm, Pangaea, and T'ien Chi' report they are now allies
Turn 33 Marginon reports they are no longer allied with Agartha and Man
Turn 34 Abysia reports they are no longer allied with Caelum and Arco
Turn 37 Abysia and Arco report they are no longer allied with each other
Turn 40 Arco and Caelum report they are now allies
Turn 42 Man, Agartha, and Abysia report they are now allies

etc...

Would this list or such shifting alliances be made public knowledge? Known only to the players themselves? or just to the admin? Seems in order to satisfy the multiple nation victory condition the admin would need at least need to know. At what point must nations report they are now allied/a team? At a certain turn? If not made public knowledge until a certain point in the game, would teams be able to work covertly together?

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Though house rules could impose any notification requirements desired, the minimal version would just require nations to disclose their alliance in order to show they've filled the victory conditions.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

You could create a webpage for it. The IP that makes a change could be recorded. A password for each nation might be better to keep it from just anyone being able to change anyone.

With pbem the team could be part of the subject line, so sending in Pangaea with a new team on the subject could be recorded.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Hmmm, so the minimal version would have a group of allies only disclosing or declaring their alliance once all opposition was defeated. So at some point, they would say to the admin and perhaps to all others players, guess what guys, we are a team and we hearby declare victory as such, all of our oppenents having been defeated. They don't need to necessarily say how long they have been a "team", just that they are team for purposes of having met the victory condition.

So players could go into the game knowing whom they want to work with in advance (unless both nations and players were kept confidential) and work covertly as a team, only declaring an official alliance if they are successful in their schemes.

Would certainly appeal to more experienced players, those who prefer FFA, and those clumps of players who tend to play together frequently or exclusively. If noobs are in the game as well, I still worry that you've got something that could potentially devolve into an "Elites" vs. "Lamers", Noobs vs Vets situation, but without the noobs having the offset of superior numbers and the benefits of fixed teams from the start.

Knowing the status of alliances at any given point might be beneficial.

Also, you would of course not have the benefit of fixed team starting placements located near each other. Something which allows team to directly support one another and present a united front.

Perhaps both 'fixed start but flexible teams' and 'FFA freelancers' could be tested together in a single game to see who fares better. FFA'ers on one side, Team people on the other according to your preference. Either side being free to form, disband, or reform into new teams or alliances. :)

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

As I said, you could house rule it anyway you wanted. That would be a minimum and it's certainly abusable. Requiring announcements is certainly reasonable, though it raises the question of definition: What has to be announced? Since the formal "alliance to claim victory" only matters once you're within shooting distance of victory conditions, do you have to proclaim other forms of cooperation?

Working together all game and only admitting it to claim victory is a possibility, but so is fighting all game and actually making the alliance at the last moment to win the game.

Would also allow interesting possibilities for betrayal. With the right timing you could throw the game by switching alliances and never even have to fight the people you'd betrayed.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I agree, it's a wonder there aren't more of these 'calahan style' team games.

Or 'Calteam' games as we will call them.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Cool. Calteam is a nifty meme. Do it man!