Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

507Re: Team Games - some thoughts

Expand Messages
  • Neil Parker
    Jun 17, 2008

      Well my first thoughts are that any war game with more than two sides or nations could do it.  Axis and Allies is an example of one which works well - i think it lends itself well to team play because although there are two 'sides' there are 5 nations to play - so in a five player game you get the negotiations between players as to what units to buy, where to send them and arguing/determining which is the greater priority move to make.

      Interestingly in addition to points for winning, each 'nation' could (if you used the rules) get bonus points for any overall increase in territory at the end - Russia often did quite well here - so either the player or the nation gets these points.

      Other games than spring to mind are Warrior Knights and Kingmaker, but i'm not sure the rules of Kingmaker are deep or robust enough to cope and WK could be brutal if you had no idea who was on your side. What about Kremlin - an old flawed game but with great theme and also potential - could it work with factions of players? I think conquest type games may work well here -

      TI3 interestingly would also work well, provided you adopted a rule from a 2 Player variant i've read ie the winner is the player (or in our case the team) who has the highest scoring of all lowest scoring player/nations. You could even have more than 2 teams, maybe 3 or even 4 factions (of 2 each). TI3 is too long to lend itself well to the level of replayability needed for a league, but the principle could be transferred to another game if a similar one could be found.

      Some games could work well with hidden allies, but others woud operate well with open alliances at the start. Reminds me of the PC game, ST: Birth of the Federation. In addition to 'vendetta' rules (akin to Bob's Apocalypse with targets) it had team play which worked quite nice - each team had access to map information gained by the other player/s and would ally in battle.

       

       


      --- 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
      >

    • Show all 8 messages in this topic