Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[Septimius Severus]

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.