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

Team Games

Expand Messages
  • Founder.
    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
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 16, 2008
      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
    • Neil Parker
      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
      Message 2 of 8 , 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
        >

      • Brian O'Farrell
        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
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 17, 2008
          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
        • jmalmolda
          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
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 17, 2008
            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
            >
          • Keith Dowsett
            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
            Message 5 of 8 , 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
            • Brian O'Farrell
              Metro would be fun with this system as its open to support or sabotage. But in that game the highest scoring player for most of the game is unlikely to win as
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 17, 2008
                Metro would be fun with this system as its open to support or sabotage.
                But in that game the highest scoring player for most of the game is
                unlikely to win as the others have greater potential if their team
                mates help.

                On 6/17/08, Keith Dowsett <keithdowsett@...> wrote:
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                > View All Topics | Create New Topic
                >
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Back to top
                >
                > Reply to sender
                > |
                >
                > Reply to group
                > |
                >
                > Reply via web post
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages in this topic
                > (4)
                >
                > 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@..., "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
                >
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Back to top
                >
                > Reply to sender
                > |
                >
                > Reply to group
                > |
                >
                > Reply via web post
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages in this topic
                > (4)
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Back to top
                >
                > Reply to sender
                > |
                >
                > Reply to group
                > |
                >
                > Reply via web post
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages in this topic
                > (4)
                >
                > 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@..., "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
                >
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Back to top
                >
                > Reply to sender
                > |
                >
                > Reply to group
                > |
                >
                > Reply via web post
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages in this topic
                > (4)
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Visit Your Group
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Messages
                > | Files
                > | Photos
                > | Links
                > | Database
                > | Polls
                > | Members
                > | Calendar
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
                >
                > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format
                > to Traditional
                >
                >
                > Visit Your Group |
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |
                >
                > Unsubscribe
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > _________________________________________________________________
                >
                > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/

                --
                Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com
              • macleodandrew
                Its interesting you make this suggestion. I have recently gone through the rules of a game I picked up a while ago called Blood Feud in New York which is a
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 17, 2008
                  Its interesting you make this suggestion. I have recently gone
                  through the rules of a game I picked up a while ago called Blood Feud
                  in New York which is a mafia domination game for six players who are
                  all bosses of a family. The snag with it as individuals is its a
                  player elimination game so someone will end up watching for half the
                  game unless you invent a house rule. Playing as two teams of three
                  would hopefully get round this and should fit with the game I think
                  as there is an aspect of negotiation and cooperation in the game, as
                  well as alot of fighting.

                  Andrew

                  --- 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
                  >
                • George Young
                  Well my first suggestion would be a team based game called Duel of Ages, its always fascinated me playing Ghengas Khan and carrying a laser rifle and trying to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 27, 2008
                    Well my first suggestion would be a team based game called Duel of
                    Ages, its always fascinated me playing Ghengas Khan and carrying a
                    laser rifle and trying to complete a variety of tournaments. The
                    wonderful part of this game is you can coordinate your strategy, with
                    some players defending and blocking the opponent while the others make
                    a mad dash to steal the points. However not knowing who your partners
                    are would definitely change the feel of this game and probably add a
                    nice element of luck which the game sometimes lacks.

                    Nexus Ops which is a very fun little combat game, probably one of the
                    best from AH in the past year might just lend itself to this mechanic
                    but this is just a variation on many other war games.

                    Last but never least Escape from Colditz, this is an oldie and needs
                    not explanation. As the game mechanics work one player plays the
                    officers while the others play prisoners. With some work we could
                    adapt the rules to enable the guard to work based on a mechanic TBD
                    but the prisoners who are teams, and not knowing to start with who is
                    on each side have to escape with all members. The Guard could be based
                    on a proximately movement mechanic or by introducing an extra player
                    to a 4 or 6 player game.

                    Escape from Colditz is a unique game in the currently crowdid board
                    game market and one that I think LBGC should pay some attention to and
                    possibly create our own version. The old Classic was a great game for
                    its day and with the minds in this club it could be a Modern Classic.

                    Just some thoughts however crazy they may be….



                    --- 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
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and will be delivered to recipients shortly.