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..........