Team Game Starting

[Arralen]

I'm interested playing on Parganos v2 (still), but only if teams aren't pre-made. I hate being pressed to use the kitten/feeder strategy.

Maybe my modified Chandrea Map (with or without the Steel Ovens) would be even better: It's wraparound and has lots of "ferry connections" between the islands, so hiding a week "feeder" nation behind a strong one will not work ...

[Ironhawk]

Your end goal seems to be a team game without team-integrated nation designs, right? If that is the case then you should just request that as a house rule. Cause you can follow an integrated strategy even without knowing your teammates or map in advance, its just more risky to do so.

Make a house rule that is like... honestly I just dont even know how to phrase it. Cause it is such a grey area. If I play a nation and choose to take no earth magic whatsoever in the hopes that one of my allies will have it and be able to feed me earth items, is that a feeder strategy? What level of limitations are you wanting to place on team interaction?

[quantum_mechani]

I think I would draw the line at regular gold shipments. Disaster relief or specific one time gifts are one thing, but regular gold transfer as part of a wider strategy should be outlawed (not sure on the wording myself).

[Ironhawk]

Yeah, its *very* hard to phrase. Because I think its just a fact of life that allies will help each other. Be it with gold, gems, items, etc. That is the purpose of the alliance. I mean, if I was playing in a team game and one of my allies was in very intense combat I would certainly funnel them as much gold/gems/items as I could budget. Cause if they die then the chance of my team losing goes way up.

[msew]

I think the high level goal that people want is for people to not make a team where there is really only one nation "fighting" and the other two nations are feeding that "fighter" nation.


So these are what people are saying:

a) no alchemist pretender
b) play on a wrapping map
c) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting an influx of cash from others
d) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting an influx of items from others
e) no expressly making a nation that is hopeless without getting massive protection from other nations (i.e. the Ulm BF that never made a single army unit and only did blood research)



Looking at the above points it really seams like: b is the only thing needed.

If you can't easily protect your "feeder" nations then they are going to get worked. In the first team game: EVERY round we were alchemizing most every gem we had to fund the vanheim war effort. We were able to do that because neither of the "feeder" nations were in danger of being attacked.

I was playing Ulm BF. My turns took maybe 1-2 minutes. I did: Alchemize for cash, buy a blood mage, set him to research, send cash to vans and/or arco now and again. Once I started getting my blood hunting up and running, I added: "move slaves to a lab" to that list.



As for the notion of utterly random teams and utterly random nations, making complimentary nation designs seems a pretty core aspect of the team game. So the purely random is flawed.

Just like in a "normal" dom2 game you see the list of players playing and you say: Oh okie there are 3 earth nations. I am not taking earth on my pretender because I should be able to trade for a hammer and other earth items.

Not taking earth on your pretender in a team game because you know your team mate has E3 already seems pretty much the same.




I think one of the CORE issues to discuss is: Should you be able to have one of your team mate be the item whore?

Ulm BF can NOT make items with any effeciency while TC is an item making machine. Why would I spend any research points in construction when I know my team mate is going to be spending?



I guess with all that said: I don't really understand where the desire to not have feeding nations exist comes from. What I think people REALLY want is: lack of untouchable feeding nations.

Who cares if Team A chooses to have a feeding nation. If that nation's only job is to feed and is militarily weak then ATTACK it and destroy it.


A wrappable map where there is no "one battle front" forces every nation to be able to defend themselves in some way. And removes the untouchable feeder nations.

[Truper]

The desire to not have feeding nations comes from the idea that playing one isn't much fun. How much fun were you having buying a mage and sending gold to Vanheim? And yet there's no denying that it was an excellent strategy under the conditions.

I don't know if having a wrap-around map is a sufficient preventative measure, especially if it were larger than the one we were using. You tell me. If we used a wrap around map, would your team dare to use a similar strategy?

[msew]

Truper said:
The desire to not have feeding nations comes from the idea that playing one isn't much fun. How much fun were you having buying a mage and sending gold to Vanheim? And yet there's no denying that it was an excellent strategy under the conditions.

Probably as much fun as I would have if I was playing the vans.

It is a TEAM game. The TEAM winning is that matters.

My nation (Ulm BF) was SLOW starter and end game ungodly powerful (given the game settings).

I am more than willing to spend time setting up blood economy and letting my allies take out the indies and shelter me from attacks.



Also I guess people's definition of "feeder nation" is a bit flawed.

A feeder nation would be one who's ONLY job was to feed other nations and have no purpose in the game except that.

For our strategy it was:


Vans: does no research, just makes troops
Ulm BF: only does blood research and alcheminizes
Arco: item construction, site searching spells, global spells, remote attack spells


Vans: early strong, middle semi strong, end weak
Ulm BF: early weak, middle semi strong, end ungodly
Arco: early medium weak, middle semi strong, end strong

Truper said:
I don't know if having a wrap-around map is a sufficient preventative measure, especially if it were larger than the one we were using. You tell me. If we used a wrap around map, would your team dare to use a similar strategy?

Let's play again and you can see what strategy we will employ!


If the Ulm BF can be protected (either by his allies or by him not buying a blood mage every round), he is going to be a force to deal with.

[Ironhawk]

I think that a wraparound map would be sufficient to deter people from picking nations which were too weak to stand on thier own in the early parts of the game.

Also, I was thinking that we should call this an Allied game instead of a Team game? I know it's just semantics, but I think it would do something to address the differing viewpoints. Like people seem to be looking to play a game where all nations are independent and so could stand on thier own, but choose to work together. As opposed to the three nations being a single entity.

Anyway, whats the status on this one? Do we want to shoot for next weekend?

Truper said:
I don't know if having a wrap-around map is a sufficient preventative measure, especially if it were larger than the one we were using. You tell me. If we used a wrap around map, would your team dare to use a similar strategy?

[Ironhawk]

I'd agree with that assessment. I like too how it does not stop "feeding" which we have been having such trouble defining - because, as you, I feel that it is to a certain extent inherit in any team activity - but rather just makes it so that all nations need to stand on thier own due to the game settings, not a house rule.

[Arralen]

Chandrea Map is only nominally bigger:
Lots of it's 100 provinces are small and rather worthless. Furthermore, there are lots of "ferry links" between the island, connecting just the most valuable provinces.

I have tested it in SP and found it very difficult to defend an area bigger than one of the small island due ti the wraparound effects of the North-West / Southeast streched-out "continent": Plenty few possiblities for a pure "feeder" nation to hide ..