Team games: Teams vs Alliances

[Sombre]

Hahahah.

[Septimius Severus]

Originally Posted by namad

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

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

Originally Posted by namad

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

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.

[Calahan]

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..........

[Gandalf Parker]

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.

[Septimius Severus]

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.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

Hmm, sounds great calahan, but it also sounds just like what might happen in a regular FFA game with open and unrestricted diplomacy allowed.

You don't say.

[thejeff]

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.

[Maerlande]

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.

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

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.

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.

[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?