Game #104 - Initial Second Cycle of Magic Campaign

[Lord Thanatos]

Turn one has happened! How are people feeling about the team version of the game? I would especially like to hear what the newer players think. Does it help to have a set team, or is it seem too rigid?

Have to say I am really starting to hate the team version in all of its permutations.

When one cannot even count on the "evil" teams working against the "good" teams I wonder why have teams at all? Just so those players who like playing with their friends can have predetermined teams from the beginning? I am not certain what having teams from the beginning really adds to the game? In fact, at this point I think I would be happy if the team version simply didn't detract from the game - even if it added nothing.

[Hile Troy]

Turn one has happened! How are people feeling about the team version of the game? I would especially like to hear what the newer players think. Does it help to have a set team, or is it seem too rigid?

Have to say I am really starting to hate the team version in all of its permutations.

When one cannot even count on the "evil" teams working against the "good" teams I wonder why have teams at all? Just so those players who like playing with their friends can have predetermined teams from the beginning? I am not certain what having teams from the beginning really adds to the game? In fact, at this point I think I would be happy if the team version simply didn't detract from the game - even if it added nothing.

Agreed, I have an ally that has not responded to me at this point, T13. I will not play another team game.

[Lord Diamond]

I don't love the team game either. If I play another, I would prefer to drop the neutral team and play evil vs good.

[Hawk_]

I don't love the team game either. If I play another, I would prefer to drop the neutral team and play evil vs good.

I wonder if it could be run as 7 vs 7 or 8 vs. 8.

A game could be played to a set number of turns and the winner could be the side with the most status points at that time.

Another version would be the winner on turn 20 is the side with the most regions. Tiebreak could be status points.

[Yellowbeard]

I must agree that I'm not a big fan of the team format so far. Several reasons:

1. We also had a teammate that did not communicate and dropped early. That immediately put my team at a huge disadvantage against all other alliances. It's showing now, as the vultures swoop in to finish off the weak.
2. The natural enemy situation complicates things dramatically. As the EL/GI/WA, there is only one alliance of the 4 remaining that we don't have a natural enemy in (AN/RA/DW). Negotiations with the other 3 alliances have failed for the most part because of this.
3. In addition, the natural enemy piece isn't balanced: Here are the alliances followed by the number of opposing teams with natural enemies.

GN / RD / SO 3 teams with natural enemies
AN / RA / DW 2 teams with natural enemies
DA / DE / TR 2 teams with natural enemies
EL / GI / WA 3 teams with natural enemies
BL / UN / WI 2 teams with natural enemies


Some thoughts:

1. Remove natural enemies from the team game. All teams are on equal footing and diplomacy is far more open. In an individual game, I can negotiate with 13 other players. Right now, in the team format, we were able to effectively negotiate with 1 alliance. Remove the natural enemies and I can talk to 4 teams with no in game challenges.
2. Diamond's suggestion of evil vs good works as well. So does Hawk's suggestion.. maybe a big 7v7 would be fun. This would be more about coordination of a huge team of 7, than it would be about diplomacy. Could be very interesting.

The other challenges (players not communicating/dropping) are outside the control of the GMs and just part of any game.

I am still having a good time in this game as my other teammate is very communicative and it'll be challenging fighting off 5 different kingdoms at once. I will probably not join another team game in the future, however.

[Yellowbeard]

Not sure if this would work, but another suggestion is to have each team have one natural enemy "team" instead of individual natural enemies. All 3 kingdoms would have 3 natural enemies. You'd have to drop to 4 teams to make it even.

EL/GI/WA
DA/WI/SO
AN/RA/DW
DE/TR/GN

or some other combinations could work obviously. Just thoughts.

[Hawk_]

Not sure if this would work, but another suggestion is to have each team have one natural enemy "team" instead of individual natural enemies. All 3 kingdoms would have 3 natural enemies. You'd have to drop to 4 teams to make it even.

EL/GI/WA
DA/WI/SO
AN/RA/DW
DE/TR/GN

or some other combinations could work obviously. Just thoughts.

I agree with all of Yellowbeards points. I think the team format worked better in the old 1st Cycle days before the natural enemy thing started.

[Lucky Tiger]

I wonder what the initial thought process was way back when in designing the teams. Was there significant testing to balance them and that is why they are as they are? Could there be adjustments to the teams that would not throw off the balance, but would freshen up the play? Adding another kingdom and making it 4 teams of 4, As has been mentioned? Maybe 7 teams of 2?

As a player in the current 104 game. It feels like interest is falling in this particular game. I like the concept of team victory, and would like to keep it. Perhaps letting teams be formed in-game, via a special declared alliance; a use for the marriage order? That way there would be a whole new dynamic for negotiation and each one would be very different. Remove all individual victory conditions and make it team only. Go out find your team and take over the world. Perhaps a generated secret Team victory condidion?

I'm rambleing now so I will stop.

[Ry Vor]

I wonder what the initial thought process was way back when in designing the teams. Was there significant testing to balance them and that is why they are as they are? Could there be adjustments to the teams that would not throw off the balance, but would freshen up the play? Adding another kingdom and making it 4 teams of 4, As has been mentioned? Maybe 7 teams of 2?

Going into the Way Back Machine, I can tell you the team developing First Cycle Steel and Magic, and Second Cycle Steel and Magic, consisted of me and me. Of course I took input from players, but I recall in Second Cycle I was interested in the surprise / newness aspect, and underestimated how fast players would exchange all sorts of info, for example, revealing their unique special orders, secret victory conditions, early strategic objectives.

The natural enemies were conceived mainly to preserve verisimilitude (the backdrop as to why these kingdoms are here and what they believe). Some players were finding it amusing to have an Elf / Dark Elf alliance, or a Red and Black Dragon alliance. In a 15 kingdom game, one kingdom needed to not have a natural enemy, and the Underworld was selected so his services could be available to either side. All variants had 15 kingdoms, and the reduced number of kingdom variants spawned after Phil took over.

I like the team variant, I think there were some unfortunate circumstances with a couple individuals in game #104 that kind of skewed things in an uncommon way. But I enjoy the different strategic aspects with the teammates, and it should also decrease the diplomacy aspects for those players that sometimes get overwhelmed by players who instinctively form large alliances in other formats. While there have been comments on the various teams, and we have already gone to the four team format for Warlords, I don't think anyone has said any particular team is a clear favorite in the 15 kingdom (or 12 kingdom) format.

[Hawk_]

Congratulations to Troll King Nikodemus for his swift victory in Game 104!

The Troll Kingdom is exciting to watch as the orc recruiting armies grow to giant size. On turn 17 the TR captured Zabzanka from Thalion. The 26 brigade Troll army had a value of 124,650 and the DW capitol had a defense of 40,488. The TR was victorious and lost only 5400 troops.