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

510RE: Team Games

Expand Messages
  • Keith Dowsett
    Jun 17, 2008
      Keiths idle thought about six player team games.

        a) As was discussed before it's the lowest scoring team member that counts for the team score.

        b) at the end of each round the two lowest scoring players discover who their team mates are, but aren't allowed to reveal it except by their play.

      So a runaway leader will handicap your team because he won't know which of the lower scoring players he should be helping.  The only problem might be if the two lowest scoring players are on opposing teams they could spend the rest of the game sabotaging each other and never leave the bottom spots.

      Just my monday thought,

      Keith.


      Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:27:30 +0000
      From: lbgc@...
      To: lbgc@...
      Subject: [lbgc] Digest Number 206

      London Board Games Club

      Messages In This Digest (4 Messages)

      1.1.
      Team Games From: Founder.
      1.2.
      Re: Team Games - some thoughts From: Neil Parker
      1.3.
      Re: Team Games From: Brian O'Farrell
      1.4.
      Re: Team Games From: jmalmolda

      Messages

      1.1.

      Team Games

      Posted by: "Founder." bobroscow@...   bobroscow

      Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:28 pm

      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

      1.2.

      Re: Team Games - some thoughts

      Posted by: "Neil Parker" vedantananda@...   temtemsefekh

      Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:26 am


      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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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
      >

      1.3.

      Re: Team Games

      Posted by: "Brian O'Farrell" ofarrell.brian@...   ucd_diplomacy

      Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:45 am

      I like the idea of taking an ordinary game and introducing a team mechanic
      over it.

      I think an area domination or bidding game would be perfect for this
      interesting twist.
      Notre Dame would be one that springs to mind actually, though not purely
      area domination as it has mutiple additional features.

      Not sure how it would work on Railway Tycoon though, interesting I am sure,
      odd certainly.

      Brian
      1.4.

      Re: Team Games

      Posted by: "jmalmolda" jmalmolda@...   jmalmolda

      Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:21 pm

      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@yahoogroups. co.uk, "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
      >

      Yahoo! 360
      Share what matters
      Share your photos, blog.
      Control who sees what.
      Yahoo! Toolbar
      Get it Free!
      easy 1-click access
      to your groups.
      Yahoo! Groups
      Start a group
      in 3 easy steps.
      Connect with others.
      Need to Reply?
      Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
      Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web


      Get fish-slapping on Messenger! Play Now
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic