Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I've been thinking lately regarding MP teams and alliances and have some ideas that I wanted to share with fellow players, but am also wondering if anyone else had any ideas or opinions in response to these questions:

1. What constitutes a "team" in terms of team size and working methods?

Technically, I suppose a team game can be launched with tiny teams of as little as two players each and with as little as two teams (2x2).

But are two players really a "team" the way many think about the word? Sounds more like a duo or just a pair of nations or a tiny alliance to me (though technically correct). When I think of a "team", I generally think of a larger group of people who have a diplomatic relationship of some sort and who work towards a common goal and usually have a leader or captain or facilitator of some sort.

2. How are teams different from alliances and other diplomatic relationships between players?

Seems to me there is no real difference. Teams are just fixed alliances with established diplomatic relations between individual players.

3. Should teams have leaders, or can teams be run in a Democratic/voting/consensus fashion? Which method of administration is more efficient/appropriate for a given team size?

The larger the team, the greater the benefit that a leader or captain can bring in terms of efficiency, order, and decision making. Even in a "leaderless" team or very small team, someone (or certain people) must handle certain mundane tasks, or consensus must be reached to prevent chaos from ensuing.

4. Do all team games have diplomacy to some extent (even those that say they don't)?

I believe all team games, regardless of size, have diplomacy in the strict sense of the word, but this diplomacy is fixed at the start between certain players. Also, while there may be no overt/explicit alliances in games with no diplomacy rules, all games (FFA or team) involve some form of covert/implicit/implied alliances or diplomacy between teams and players. This could be best described as an "understanding" which may be based on military strength, player mood, or circumstances.

5. What are the benfits/drawbacks of small teams vs larger teams?

Larger teams = more effort and a greater time commitment (especially if your overall strategy is complex). The ability and willingness to work, communicate and get along with others is paramount. The general wisdom among some experienced players is the larger the team, the more difficult communicating becomes. While generally correct, it depends on how it is handled and the participation of everyone. On the plus side, you have more feedback/input from more people. You can count on more support and help from more people. There's more of a cushion for noobs and the loss of a single teammate or even two is not as devastating. Larger teams may also help foster a greater sense of team identity.

Smaller teams = usually require less effort and communication. You still must be willing to get along with teammates though and work together. On the negative side, the less people you have the less input and feedback you have. Unless a game is all noob, noob players may find themselves under greater pressure. Also, a loss of a team member on a tiny 2 nation team can be the end of the game, whereas with more players, you have more of a safety margin. Thus I think larger teams are more suitable for noobs in games that involve players of varying experience levels.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Number of words: 590

Number of ideas: 0

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Actually, so far as dominions goes most team games I've seen are just 2 man teams.
Pretty much. To be honest though, "alliances" appear to be an extremely rare phenomenom, or at least lasting ones do. Sure an "alliance" might form to deal with a particularly large threat, but it almost always lasts only as long as the threat exists.

In those rare games with teams of more than 2, a leader of some sort is almost always a good thing to have. Such a person will be able to lessen friction, and should also be the most experienced person on the team. Thus they can act as a general adviser to their teammates.

Of course there is diplomacy! The only way I could see there not being diplomacy is if there are only 2 teams, since there really isn't anything to discuss.

Large teams can easily be extremely awkward, and there is an excellent chance that players will be forced to work with someone that they dislike or have no respect for, and can leave them frustrated with the incompetence of a member. This hurts team dynamics obviously. Whereas with a simple two man team you pick someone you like and want to work with, which makes it much more fun. As for newbs, I don't necessarily think that larger teams are the way to go, since there is a decent chance that they will be the object of frustration from others on their team, simply because the don't know how to play very well. If they are in a small team though, they are presumably with someone of a similar skill level, who won't put so much pressure on. Even if their teammate is more experienced, its more likely that they will take some responsibility for helping in a small team than a large one.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Seriously though, on question 3 (the only question that doesn't have a completely obvious answer), democracy ruins games of dom3, as I'm sure veterans will attest. So many games are scuppered by votes and attempts to gain consensus that's it's not even funny. I see games that can barely even start because voting on settings is going on.

You need a tyrannical but detached admin and in large team games you need to communicate frequently but never, ever call votes.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Pretty much what sombre said, the only time voting should come up is when a victory concession is happening.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Haha, democracy. Fun thing.

Only good leader is a strong leader that can make decisions. And like Sombre+Trumanator said, too much voting = bad. Only time voting should take place is when the continuity of the game is at stake (ie. if everyone think nation x is winning).

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

In sports are two players without one being the leader referred to as a "team"?

In Dom3 Id consider that an alliance. As compared to the games that assigned a few noobs to a vet captain which Id consider a team. Im not sure where the divider would be. I guess a dodgeball team has no leader (and might actually be a fair comparison to Dom games). But in general Id associate a group with a leader as a team.

And tho this moved into game admin, Id have to say the same. Tyranny is easier and more efficient. Of course the drawback of tyranny is rebellion. Too much of it and you drastically cut down the number of people who want to play in your games. Too much democracy has the same effect. No fanatical extreme is ever right.

There are things you can say in favor of democracy but I dont think efficiency is one of them. Particularly in war. A tyrant leader who is definitely veteran over teh rest would make more sense. Im not saying Id desire, join, or enjoy it though.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

If they're on the same side, yes. See Tag Team.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I find myself very much in agreement with this and also feel that because of the investment/commitment of a team game that teams shouldn't be random. Too much work, too much at stake to be grouped with an a**hole. Incompetence doesn't bother me nearly as much as lack of effort/communication. In the team games I've been in so far I've been lucky to play with great people but in these same games I've observed other teams breaking down on an interpersonal level. I would like to add that team games can be a lot more fun that playing with yourself ;)

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

any size, it depends on the situation(both in dominions and in real life). a team must however be larger than 2 members, that would be a duo, couple, etc. also the smaller the team the easier it is to manage, while the larger it is the more benefits it can achieve due to sheer size.

the first distinction between teams and alliances is that teams are predefined while alliances happen during something. for example, in dominions your NaV game was all about a team vs team action, those are well, teams... in standard games however, when 2 or more people unite against a common enemy than they can form an alliance, note that it happened during the game not before the game started.

the second distinction is that teams are permanent(or well, until the game ends as far as dominions go) while alliances are temporary, usually uniting against a common enemy than dissolving once the common enemy is no more. a good example of this from real life would be world war 2. at first Germany declared war on France which had previously allied itself with Britain due to previous German aggression, while Russia was allied with Germany and even supported it with Iron and Steel for the German factories. however Germany eventually betrayed Russia at Operation Barbarossa, than Russia allied itself with the US, Britain and France to complete the "Allies".

from the second distinction comes the major difference as far as diplomacy between the members. in a team, due to its permanent nature, the cooperation level is very high, and some members even do things that won't be the best for them individually but would be best for the team. such as a member(say Ulm for example) becomes the forge ***** of the team, not because he will personally benefit from it, but because the entire team will be much stronger. in an alliance however, due to its temporary nature, cooperation levels are relatively low, and every agreement between members needs to benefit both of them, or else it wouldn't happen.

yes, teams should have leaders, even a democracy has a leader(president/prime minister)... a team without a leader is a team that doesn't function properly and doesn't gain as much as it could from being a team. however there are different types and styles of leaders, and different styles of management. so there's no 1 way to lead/manage a team.

for example, your NaV is built more towards a single leader who is supposed to be a mentor/educator(game wise not real life wise obviously), while a team filled with expert players for example, say Baalz, Micah and Jurri, could be run more loosely and perhaps democratically, unless they decide to let 1 of them become a dominant leader and agree to follow his lead.

I assume you mean diplomacy not within the teams themselves. that would depend on the game rules first and foremost. if there isn't a rule that bans it than it is bound to happen. same deal as diplomacy between individual players... 1 team becomes larger and stronger than the rest, the other teams form an alliance between themselves to eliminate the stronger team, than go back to fighting each other.


small teams are easier to manage, and usually the cooperation levels between the different individuals are larger. larg teams are a lot harder to manage, and the cooperation levels inside the team are somewhat lower, but the sheer size of the group lets it do things a small team just can't do. in dominions for example, a large team can easily wipe out a single opponent in 1(or well, 2) turns, by participation of most or all the team members. in real life a large team(say a large corporation) can gain larger discounts, be it for raw material, supplies, vehicles, etc.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I must be missing a lot because the original question is easy as far as I am concerned.

I agree with Sombre (no disrespect meant), 590 words and no ideas.

A TEAM..is any number of players that fulfill a purpose with no redundancy. Each 'member' of the team has a role to fulfill that will make the team a whole. Whether it is a sports team or a Dom team, each member has its role and the 'team' need not be bigger than the smallest number of members needed.

To quote a corny cliche (Corny but true), "There is no I in team but there IS an I in win" So it takes the team to win to allow you to say ..I won.

THAT, is my definition of a team game.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Number of words: 6

Number of sarcastic comments: 2

:D

But seriously, interesting comments. I even agree with Sombre that in large games, communication is essential. Seems many believe teams should have leaders/captains rather than adopting a leaderless or Democratic approach to major decision making.

I must say I tend to agree with Gandalf and 13lackGu4rd in that two people on a team (while technically a team) is more a partnership or alliance than a full fledged team. I'd tend to think that in such tiny teams, the members would simply use consensus (aka mutual Democratic decision making) since there's really no reason for a leader.

Some players resent having a leader. Captains can have a difficult job sometimes, they must be firm, yet allow team members certain flexibility. Leaders are looked up to for their knowledge, abilities, and characteristics, yet they are also human, and as such have flaws just like everyone else.

Also agree with pyg, about team games probably not being random in any way. Generally a good idea to know who you are playing with and what nations you'll have to work with. Though I think most/many will make at least some effort to work together to get things done even if thrown together.

Allowing team members to pick their own members, or captains to assemble their own teams, can be a great way of minimizing friction and can maximize effectiveness. Though I commend anyone who is able/willing to work with those they don't know.

Team games are great, in that they teach and build communication and cooperation skill. And in games with leaders, also leadership skills. These are skills which have uses and benefits that extend outside of the world of Dom3.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Seriously, does it even matter what the definition of "team" is? You don't make a game thread titled "Small game of duos", you call it "Small team game."

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

It is interesting to learn what the various opinions of a "team" are. That is all.

But I do take exception to the idea that most team games here are of the tiny, partnership, duo variety. How many such duo games are currently running with threads on Shrapnel?

RAFT, Heat vs. Cold, and the entire NvV and NaV series are examples of team games with teams of more than just 2 players each. I think 3 or 4 players is probably a good managable team size, but larger teams can work as well if the communication and effort is there. Depending upon the hosting interval, forums are good for larger teams, while chat makes sense for tiny teams with shorter hosting intervals.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Aand, here's the advertising.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Aaaaaand do you object because it was a clever way to solicit players and get comments, or because because sept is being effective at proselytizing?

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

prolific=/=effective

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I wish his games success, just as I wished that Azsomething guy luck with his mods. I hope everyone in them enjoys them fully.

But I don't enjoy transparent touting of a game/mod/map/whatever everywhere, particularly when it's disguised (however ineffective the disguise) as a discussion thread.

If you really think this is a clever way to get players, wow. Hahah, ok dude.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Well Sombre, once again, I am not attempting to really get players, just wanted to share an opinion and get some input on various team game questions. If you think my posts are offensive, innappropriate, I've broken any forum rules, or they annoy you it would be more effective and more polite to lodge a complaint with the moderators.

In the meantime, please allow everyone else their right to post and make use of these forums without having to worry about being jumped on, attacked, or criticized for every single thing they say or do. Feedback, commentary, and constructive criticism is always welcome. So is civil debate. But I think we should all try to be as positive as possible and help one another whenever possible. I'd like to think we are all/can all be friends here and not let differences or the past get the better of us. Betake yourself to my busom Sombre, and let me wrap my loving arms around you and call you friend. :)

And don't always take everything I post so seriously, especially the self promoting, ad-man, advertising variety, I sure don't. ;)

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Who are you responding to? I don't see that idea being presented here.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

See one of Trumanator's posts above.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I think they are rare, but I think teams of 2 are also pretty rare. They're definitely a bit more common though, possibly because the overall game size is smaller so more of them are packed into the same period.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

to me.... an alliance is a diplomatic agreement you have promised to uphold.... which means you are 50-90% likely to not break it but easily still could for any reason at any time...


a TEAM is a matter of the game rules... you cannot violate your team because your team is literally only one entity.... in basketball you cannot score points for a third team consisting only of yourself and attempt to outscore both your opponents... it simply is not possible


the way i see it is... you either have teams composed of 2players or two teams full of players...


any other configuration is going to be a nightmare for many obvious reasons

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Sorry if that previous post wasn't clear. It was as Gregstrom pointed out in response to the suggestion that teams of greater than 2 are rarer. I think the opposite to be the case. And if one looks at the all of the team games currently running with active threads on Shrapnel, the majority have 3 or more players on a team.

But I do think that the more players on the team, the more solidly you get into real team dynamics and the further you get away from at least some of the FFA mentality. Cooperation becomes more important. Team identity is increased. The load on each individual is reduced and task delegation becomes more of an art. Everything that it means to be a "team" increases when there are more than 2 people in the team. IMHO. :D

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I prefer alliances. The problem with teams is you might get stuck with a nutball teammate and you can't do anything about it without breaking the game rules.

Alliances are better because you can make other alliances and then gank your old ally and remove him from the game making a better game for everyone else. It's especially effective if he doesn't suspect you are about to backstab him.

If team games had a rule where you could gank an underperforming teammate I'd be all for it.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

You're correct that recently there has been something of an uptick in larger team games. However, a look at Tyrant's admittedly outdated Hall of Fame shows a definite prevalence of team games consisting of several 2 person teams. There are 6 of this type on it, and I believe that there have been at least 3-4 more since its last update. Contrast this with the single "large scale teams" game on it currently (which I actually organized and admined btw), and even if we add your 3 NVV and 1 NAV games completed there is still a definite difference of around 9 or 10 to 5. For simplicity's sake I'm only counting completed games.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

That is an interesting idea and I recall players suggesting it from time to time. To make the fixed nature of the alliances in team games flexible like regular alliances. I can't speak for other team games but I know captains in my games do have control of rosters and can replace/bench players at will with alternates or anyone else they can get to sub, though they can't change the nations their team has been assigned.

I suppose a team game could have a rule that after a certain number of turns or at the captain's discretion or option, teams could go FFA (every player for himself) but with the option to freely ally still intact, which would of course cease to be a strictly team game (it would sort of be combo team/FFA game), but it would probably satisfy many who are more inclined to FFA type games and it would provide a mechanism by which a team could rid itself of under performing members and yet still ally with their selected old teammates. Team identity would suffer though, but it would provide an incentive for team laggards (likely noobs) to shape up. It may be something worth exploring in future games and perhaps may even be possible in NaV. The option to disband the team at the captains desire. Though that would be something of a last resort I would think.

I may be wrong about this, but it is probably safe to say that were other completed team games (with more than 2 players per team) that didn't make it into Tyrant's post as well, and if I recall correctly the team section of the opening post was a later addition. I say this because I sort of remember asking Tyrant why there was no team section. And if you count in progress games of course, if could be said that each type was at least equally prevalent. But I agree with others who posted here, there are still far fewer team games overall in comparison with the vast numbers of FFA type games.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

all you have to do if you have a duo with a ****ty teammate is fire him and play both yourself :-p


i'd say the average dominions player doesn't have the heart/drive/communion/or time to properly play on a team of 4+ players


being on a team of 4 in one game is as much work as being in 2or3 games alone

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

This is most definitely true :D

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

You could also randomize the teams every 4 turns. Or just make one player on each team change sides every 4 turns. That would definitely add to the excitement.

On the other hand, you could assign random NAP's every few turns. The moderator simply forces certain players at random to go peaceful. Retreat sieging troops. Cancel air drops.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Hahahah.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Hehe, yeah, you could, though it would sorta double your workload depending upon the size of your teammates nation. :D

Absolutely, the larger the team the more time and effort required. Hence part of the reason for the rarity of team games in general. I still think 3 or 4 on a team is managable. Amazingly we had as many as 12 in one of the NvV games. Though there were some communications issues, it was still able to be successfully carried off, gods only know how but it is a testament to the captains, players, and teamwork in general.

Depending upon your available free time, its sort of a choice, you can either play in 3-5 FFA type games or in my case 1 FFA and 1 team game at a time. Playing in fewer games simultaneously does have its advantages, if real life gets in the way, your HD explodes, or any number of things happens, you don't need to find a sub for 4 or 5 different games. I'm surprised anyone has the time for 4 or 5 games at once considering the amount of thought the Dom3 requires in general and outside affairs.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Another interesting team idea is the theory of 'flexible' teams.

Start a game with say 12-15 nations, with everyone in Free-For-All (FFA) mode at the start. Then as the game progresses, and as all the nations and players start communicating with each other as their nations make contact in-game, various teams get formed and disbanded as and when they are needed, and decided entirely upon by the players controlling each nation. This is good as the players themselves get to decide who they team-up with, so it avoids players having to be teammates with someone they just don't want to be in a team with (for whatever reason),


Some examples of 'flexible' teams are........

Two nations forming a 2-nation team early in the game to mutually benefit their expansions, but who then later decide to disband the team when it is no longer beneficial to them. Or decide to keep the team in place if both the players agree it continues to benefit both their nations. This is good as it allows players to strategically decide in game which nations they want to befriend, and which to attack. Giving the player greater strategic choice usually means a more enjoyable game since nothing is being forced on any player, and it allows them to develop their decision making and game reading skills with regards which nations should be seen as threats, and which should not.

Later, several nations might come together and form a team if a situation arises were a very powerful threat is emerging. And indeed, this 'flexible' team could grow or shrink in number depending on how the game progresses, and reacting as and when to the different events that unfold during the course of every game. This is good as it allows the players themselves to deal with the events that transpire in their game, and alter the composition of the teams accordingly to meet the requirements of the situation.


'Flexible' teams could also allow a game to have many twists and turns. For example, several players may be part of a team that has been formed to deal with a common enemy and tyrant. This happens quite often in every type of game. But with 'flexible' teams, the option exists for players to change sides and backstab their teammates by suddenly siding with the tyrant. This could be especially beneficial for a player if the tyrant is prepared to pay a big bribe for the change of allegiance. This is good because it keeps the game interesting for longer, and allows an air of uncertainty to exist if and when a game reaches the 'attack the leader stage'. This could also bring enhanced enjoyment for those players who like the potential role-playing elements of the game.

In games with non 'flexible' teams, players have a lot less choice, as they are likely either attacking the leader, or are (part of) the leader. With the decision of which being largely made by events in-game rather than the individual player deciding (for example, you can't help it if your team mate doing well is causing you to be dog-piled just because you are on the same team).


These are just a few examples of how 'flexible' teams could be a good idea for a game type. And I think a lot of players would enjoy games which had this 'flexible' teams idea at its heart. As it would allow the players themselves to always be in control of their nation, always ensure it is the players themselves who are making the decisions, and largely avoid unwanted situations where you have to spend several months corresponding with, and tolerating, someone who is basically driving you crazy. Or worse, driving you away from the Dominions community :(

But sadly, it's very rare that I see this type of........Oh, ah, urh, wait, hang on a minute..........

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

A "flexible" variation I remember was the idea of Pantheon. Nicely RPG but the end-game was to have a 4-god pantheon such as fire, air, water, earth. Or heaven, earth, hell, fairie. Or god of war, love, fertility and death.

I think it was set teams from beginning to end but if you did it in the normal open-ended style then switching sides can take the form of stealing away their god of war to be our god of death.
:target:

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Hmm, sounds great calahan, but it also sounds just like what might happen in a regular FFA game with open and unrestricted diplomacy allowed. So no real distinction there. I sort of like it the other way around starting as a team but having the option to go solo or disband, and perhaps reform or recombine into a new team. When we think of the word team as it applies to team games we generally are talking about alliances that are "fixed" at the start versus alliances that form during the game as the normal course of diplomacy.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

You don't say.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

An interesting possibility that might implement the "flexible teams" idea and the pantheon idea would be to specify that a team could fill the victory conditions and win, but not specify the teams up front.

Now, most regular games end by consensus and may acknowledge an alliance victory, but if the rules said that a team with a certain number of provinces or victory points would be declared winner, there would be a formal mechanism. You'd be able to wheel and deal, make and break alliances all you want, but the victory conditions for the game would actually respect the alliances.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

It seems to me that the best part of fixed teams is that it allows lamers to hang on the coattails of great players to get a win on the board. Sadly that hasn't worked for me yet. None of the great players want to play with me so I'm left winning by myself.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

Well I like Calahan's ideas. There are very few games that allow for joint winners. Therefore you always know that at some point betrayal or a concession is essential rather than merely a possibility. If you didn't know this site and how the games operate you might assume that FFA games allow for joint wins. But in general they don't. Unfortunately.

And on this occasion I don't like yours ;) Teams which are set up at the beginning but are destined to dissolve simply remove the trust and the division of labour that team games foster. Which is the pay off for all the extra work they involve.

Some people - possibly you Sept :) - seem to try and make a game more 'epic' than they are. Some games do become epic ones and you don't want them to end or at least last much longer. But the game isn't epic from the start it becomes so by what happens. Most people find the end game dull if it lasts too long and by that stage few people (or teams) can win.

I doubt I am alone in thinking that the early turns are the best. They take less time :) You are enthused about your build and whether it will work or not. The possibilities are huge. Will you find a lot of sites and enhancing ones (good indie mages etc)? Get good neighbours - either to rush or ally with? Will your expansion strategy work or not and will it be foiled or aided by the map/neighbours? Did you race for Artifacts or unique summons and did you win those races? What will the diplomatic tone of the game be and where will you fit in? But after a while all these questions are answered and there is just playing ever longer and more complex turns. At that point you may find yourself in an epic struggle. In which case great :) Or it may not be, even if you are one of the potential winners.

Your idea robs you of much of the excitment of the early game. You are stuck in a team so some neighbours are off limits to attack. And you have to have some sort of equitable split of your lands etc. But you won't get the good parts of being in a team. If you get a bad start it really does matter. You obviously cannot be as open about your plans or make sacrifices for your team mates without getting something in return etc. Yet you will need to coordinate a lot to be competitive as a team. And normally if you are a lame duck early on you get killed off, but being in a team you would limp on until either your team loses or one of your team mates kills you off after a long long time. But you then do get a very long end game as first the teams fight, then the winning team fights amongst itself.... So your idea combines many of the worst parts of Team games with the worst parts of FFA games :(

While Calahan's does the opposite. You get that great early game of a FFA game when there are lots of possibilities. But there is a possibility of trust (not total as in a fixed team, but much better than in a FFA) due to a team win option. So you get some of the pluses of a team game (but not all). And it is NOT in my experience what can happen in a usual game. It is strictly forbidden by convention at least in most FFA.

Re: Team games: Teams vs Alliances
 

I agree with you Hoplo, excepting team games (which seem to be the only ones of late that allow for joint victory), most regular (FFA) games simply don't state joint victory as a possibility in the opening post or provide for it as an alternative victory condition. The expectation of FFA and even fixed teams is of course, that, eventually one player or team must win and all others must be eliminated either through complete anhilation or via concession.

My apologies to calahan if I misread his above post, since I didn't see a specific mention of a joint victory condition and/or how that would be accomplished, just the ebb and flow and changing alliances that normally would happen in a regular FFA game with open diplomacy. Generally the distinction has been team = fixed alliances, vs FFA (with diplomacy) = flexible alliances. So that is what I was pointing out when I mentioned what seems to have been the case with most "team" games to date. Sadly and perhaps unfortunately.

So calahan and some of you are advocating an FFA type game with open diplomacy but with a joint victory option. Why is it that more games don't do this?

One problem I can see with this type of approach (and I am not saying I don't like it) is that it would tend towards the better and more experienced players allying together or being able to survive long enough to ally together and win. Afterall, why choose a rank noob for an ally in-game, when your chances of winning are so much better allying with a vet? Might there be other biases in this type of game? Would some players, especially greener noobs feel excluded?

In contrast, the starting fixed team NaV approach is intended to provide more safety for noobs by mixing them in with more experienced players whom they can learn directly from, but also to give them more time to learn and experiment with all aspects of the game. Something that is all to often missing in many FFA or quick elimination type games. It is of course also intended to foster group identity and cohesion from the start and the captain always has the option to replace players.

Another advantage to at least starting (if not staying) with fixed teams might be they allow more time and greater opportunity for strategy and planning and/or role assignment/task delegation. So the earlier a team comes together the more time for strategizing and planning it has. Thus teams formed earlier, in calahans model, might have a definite advantage and indeed the emphasis might be on allying as quickly as possible to take advantage of it. And of course, going it alone would not be a real option (you'd be at a serious disadvantage) in any sort of game that allowed a joint victory condition (unless a solo victory option say via reduced VPs) was included as well.

Thoughts?

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!