Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombre
Number of words: 590
Number of ideas: 0
|
Number of words: 6
Number of sarcastic comments: 2
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
Hybrid Mode
