[Septimius Severus]

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?