Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Eminent Domain: Escalation» Forums » Variants

Subject: Team Play Variant For 2v2 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Noble Knave
United States
Santa Barbara
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been really enjoying EmDo lately, but have found that the casual players don't want to play against those who've got a bunch of games under their belts. My idea for a solution was doing a Team Game (2v2) when I had four players, to pair a newer player with a vet. Here's what I've got so far:

1) Teammates sit opposite one another in turn order.
2) Teammates may follow or dissent from each others' roles as normal, except:
3) You may never collect points from dissenting a teammate's Warfare role.
4) At the end of the game, teammates add their scores to determine the winning team. If any player wins due to a card effect, her teammate also wins.

I don't think there needs to be any other rules, but I'm happy for suggestions/comments/ideas. It's also possible that this would need tweaking for Scenarios, but that's why I'm looking for help.

I'm hoping to playtest this soon, appreciate any feedback in the interim so I can try it out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noble Knave
United States
Santa Barbara
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I should also mention that I had another (fairly common) idea for determining which team wins:

The top scorer from each team is not considered for determining winner. [Effect: really encourages teamplay by making it so one person cannot carry her team, has to help boost teammate's score without falling behind in order to actually win].

This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the player with the lowest score's team loses, but is a nicer way of saying it
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nushura
United States
Boston
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hmm...it seems that this forces team A to go with The same strategy and team B to go a different direction. why not simply give the beginners a starting scenario and use the basic setup for advanced players?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kenny VenOsdel
United States
Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nushura wrote:
hmm...it seems that this forces team A to go with The same strategy and team B to go a different direction. why not simply give the beginners a starting scenario and use the basic setup for advanced players?


I could see this being a problem as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablo Zamalvide
Uruguay
Montevideo
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love the idea. Absolutelly love it. However, it will require extensive tweaking, both in rules and in individual card effects. If you wish, you can count on me for suggestions and playtesting. Meloves tinkering with games.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablo Zamalvide
Uruguay
Montevideo
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, we shouldn't discard the idea of having several multiplayer formats, each with its strenghts and weaknessess.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noble Knave
United States
Santa Barbara
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Leon Trotsky wrote:
I love the idea. Absolutelly love it. However, it will require extensive tweaking, both in rules and in individual card effects. If you wish, you can count on me for suggestions and playtesting. Meloves tinkering with games.


Glad to hear you're on board I also love to tinker.

Leon Trotsky wrote:
Also, we shouldn't discard the idea of having several multiplayer formats, each with its strenghts and weaknessess.


Will keep that in mind.

kvenosdel wrote:
Nushura wrote:
hmm...it seems that this forces team A to go with The same strategy and team B to go a different direction. why not simply give the beginners a starting scenario and use the basic setup for advanced players?


I could see this being a problem as well.


I appreciate your concern, and it is a valid one. My first reaction was to think that you draw 2 cards when dissenting from your teammate, which would make the choice much more stark. However, that would be a big difference.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pablo Zamalvide
Uruguay
Montevideo
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Two questions that may have some value:

* Would choosing a strategy as a team be inherently a problem, or just a feature?

* If it does become a problem, which is the best way to "fix" it both maximizing balance and fun?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noble Knave
United States
Santa Barbara
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Leon Trotsky wrote:
Two questions that may have some value:

* Would choosing a strategy as a team be inherently a problem, or just a feature?


The obvious schism would be whether to go Colonize or Military, and that would be beneficial to go with your partner. Of course, your opponents might glom on as well. Peace Treaties would be the obvious big factor here, which is why I suggested that you can't get points for dissenting your partner's Warfare. If that weren't the case, there'd actually be a strong incentive for one to go Warfare and the other to go Colonize/Peace Treaty...

I don't necessarily see teammates pursuing a joint strategy as a problem. It would enhance the team aspect.

Quote:
* If it does become a problem, which is the best way to "fix" it both maximizing balance and fun?


That needs playtesting, but my instinct is that getting a double draw for dissenting from your partner is clean and would fix a lot of the issues.


I almost got three other people to playtest this last night, but we had a holdout. Alas.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.