Re: A new type of team game
Date: August 25, 2010 11:52PM
In a team game if all of your lands are closer to the middle, it's a massive advantage as you have more backlands. When just one land is much closer to the middle, it can be a double-edged sword: it gives your team more backlands, but it also gives the opposing team the chance to focus all their efforts on the front player to reduce the number of enemies.
eg. Ulster Denmark Muscovy vs Gascony Genoa Bulgaria - north should have no chance
Ulster Denamrk Muscovy vs Grenada Belgium Nicaea - if Belgium survives long enough, north again should lose, but if they can kill off Belgium it's a 3v2 and they're looking good.
What I've tried to do is use this idea to create a feasible objective-based game that will give some variety. In the 2 games I've played so far both have been very close and quite tense throughout, so it seems it may work.
On your idea of a 2v1v2 (if I interpreted it right), my first thought was that the 1 would be quickly annihilated (which he could well be), but with a bit of diplomacy it might be interesting. Each of the teams of 2 wants to focus on the real enemy, and so might be willing to make land concessions for assurances that the 1 won't attack them so they can focus on the other 2. But after thinking I still think the 1's chances of victory look very slim. If you want to play it sometime you can be the 1 and I'd be happy to see you prove me wrong.
Even if this particular suggestion doesn't work out, it's nice to stimulate some thought among others about other game modes that could be fun: I don't think 3v3, 2v2 and 1v1 are the only options available to us.