I think this is an interesting thread.

My opinion about this is that not that many games work well as team
games, because most of them will end up being solo games played by the
most skilled player.

It is not by chance that some of the games that work very well as team
games are card games, I am thinking about Spanish games, but games
like Bridge or Canasta have similar team mechanics, and the key is
that the cards are hidden from your partner, same as robo rally, and I
think that's what makes team robo rally great.

I like Bob's idea about not knowing straight away who your partners
are, as Inkognito did. I thought that could be an interesting variant
for Struggle of Empires, and I agree that the bidding phase is great,
but what do you guys think about a game of Struggle, 3v3, where you
dont know nothing in the first war, you know maybe 2 people in the
second, and the rest in the 3rd war. Imagine that it might happen that
I know that player B plays in my team, but he doesnt know that, he
knows that player C is not. I think that the bidding could be great
with this extra information. And remember that you dont always want
your enemies as enemies, sometimes you want them in your alliance to
prevent them from attacking you.

Another twist that I found is at the end, the score is the same as the
player of the team with LESS points, I did something like that in
Puerto Rico some time ago and it worked very well, could be worth
considering for games like Struggle, Vinci, Antike....

--- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> My current curiosity is about TEAM board games. I think they add a
> fun dimension, but there seem to be very few of them, apart from our
> own RR variant, Team RoboRally?!
>
> I don't mean games where you are ALL a team versus the board, e.g,
> Shadows Over Camelot, Pandemic or Lord Of The Rings; Nor one versus a
> team (Fury of Dracula). I mean where you are 3 vs 3 etc. Teamwork
> and high fives, team versus team.
>
> Know any? Maybe one of you habitues of BGG can find an old thread
> that was done on this in the past?
>
> I've thought of a twist on team-play that could add fun:
> Imagine you start game X as 6 players. You are 3 vs 3, but the twist
> is that you don't know which 3 at the outset ...
> On Turn 4, you (Player A) learn that Player B is on the opposing team
> (and he learns that of you). On Turn 6 you learn that Player C is on
> your team (and he learns that of you). On Turn 8 you learn that
> Player D is on the oppsing team (and he learns that of you). That
> still leaves Players E and F that you don't know whether they are on
> your team or the opposing team... maybe you've worked that out, or
> maybe you get told one (and thus deduce the other) on Turn 10. Could
> be fun either way. Either way, you go for a team win, not an
> individual win. E.g. as soon as 3 are eliminated, one side has won,
> either 3:0 or 2:1; or else, it's a points/victory-track game and you
> add your points together.
>
> It's a mechanic that's looking for a game!! I think it would add fun
> and high fives as well as a strategic dimension. But added into what
> game?!
>
> Not Struggle of Empires, 'cos that already has a clever alliances
> phase. Not Perilkles, where alliances come from what you have to
> lose or protect re statues. Not Imperial, since the essence is
> investing in one country after another. Not my Alliance, since it
> already has bidding for alliances as its main mechanic.
>
> Maybe my Conquest. Maybe Apocalypse if we are 6, or an ancient
> version of Risk. Maybe Game of Thrones!! (expanded version for 6) -
> like many conquest games, it suffers from the arbitrariness of whom
> to attack, and team-play could give shape to that? Here's a thought:
> Look, I know Railroad Tycoon is already a brilliant game ... but
> imagine playing it one time on this team basis!! ... You would
> gradually discover who you need to HELP rather than HINDER, because
> you win by total team score, not individually ... Which has that
> dimension of high fives at the end that I like in team-play? 3
> people happy instead of 1?! The other 3 blaming each other ...!
>
> Bob
>