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

Re: [lbgc] Team Games

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.