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

Re: Team Games

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.