Guaroz: I've played as an African power facing invasion before. It's not hard to keep back some invaders. The advantage really lies with the defender. I think a more realistic risk for my idealized African alliance would be the Europeans. It's not hard at all for Catholica to get on the continent in the first year and then with a dedicated assault you can form a beachhead.

With my modified teams, the problem would be to make the team dynamic worthwhile. For some players, it would be very difficult to work with the team. I've also been thinking of a compromise idea which might have the best of both worlds (Or maybe it could just have the worst). The idea would be for each team to have two adjacent powers and then three satellite states who are separated from the core by one or two opponents. It would probably take a bit of work to refine, but I think it might have potential. I haven't thought about it yet.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

Still need more. For this version to even get going. Password " team "

gman.
you've faced invasion in a team game? was it the one you linked on Global? If not, could you please link the game? were the teams the same as here?
___________
For what I saw, with your modified teams, it's difficult for each player to work with the team, that's why I like it!
But yes, the issue with this setting is that for the first 'x' years, it wouldn't be a team game, since each Country would be probably just trying to prevail on its nearest neighbours. In the first years, a country could have allies that could be "its allies", not necessarily being the "Alliance's allies". This is the limit of the "chequered" idea.

So how about a "striped" idea? It would let each country cooperate with its allies since the start, without having easy stalemate lines. Examples:
Vertical stripes: Canada, California, Mexico, Inca, Oceania | Illinois, Texas, Cuba, Colombia, Argentina | ...
Horizontal stripes: Japan, Canada, Quebec, UK, Russia | ...
Diagonal stripes: Canada, US, Nigeria, Kenia, Australia |...
Do you think we could work on "stripes"?
___________
Btw, I still think we should try the Wolfman's settings, first.

Still need more. For this version to even get going. Password " team " .
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

Is it a problem, that I will be on summer holdiay in early august? I'd like to play, but I don't know if I could get a sitter...

Guaroz: Not in a team game. In this game: http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=5649#gamePanel

I was Congo and was part of pushing back some small invasions. It wasn't anything really intense though.

The team game was this one: http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=3699#gamePanel

We played with 5 teams of 7 rather than 7 teams of 5.
The teams were:
Team 1: California, Cuba, Inca, Japan, Sichuan, UK, Congo
Team 2: Quebec, Mexico, Oceania, Indonesia, India, Catholica, Somalia
Team 3: United States, Amazon, Argentina, Thailand, Manchuria, Turkey, Nigeria
Team 4: Illinois, Colombia, Brazil, Philippines, Central Asia, Russia, South Africa
Team 5: Canada, Texas, Australia, Song, Iran, Germany, Egypt

I remember this game, we had some good e-mail conversations. Good fun all around.

inho it was that many of the countries were a little too far spaced from one another to make any difference as to whether they were allied or not. I think that this variation of the team-game should be interesting because it goes to the opposite extreme.

@ adalephat how long will you be gone?

I would play in the striped alliance game too. I am on the same page as kaner406 with the idea an alliances that works, in most games, are ones that are together. Thus, I tried to make sure the teams were group together. I see the point of the stalemate lines. However, that is where the Alliances working with other Alliances to attack an alliance would help. Then you can always have individual members on your team trying to probe or setting up false hopes.

This variant lets each member and alliance to decide who builds what to start with. Then some alliances with alliances partnerships could already be set before builds end. Giving both or more a chance to decide who is building what and for what target they are to start attacking at.

Now it could turn out to be the huge draw and it could be the best ever. I just though it was worth a shot to see how this type played out.

It was fun having different groups working together so team 2 and 4 perhaps worked together against 3 and 5, or some variation.

IIRC, team 5 got absolutely pissed because teams 1 and 2 (mine and yours) attacked them right from the start.

Teams 3 and 4 lacked any sort of central organization and mostly just got picked on by the teams which were organized or became pawns instead.

@gman- you couldn't be more wrong. team 5 never got absolutely pissed because we were attacked from the start. we were frustrated that team 2 did so, but really what anyone(ME to be specific) got pissed at was A) a certain member of team 4(fuck you Illinois) not communicating, and B) nobody even paying attention to the fact that Team 2 was going to easily mop up the other teams... haha.

Yeah, and I didn't mind any of that because Illinois basically became my pawn and I was on team 2 which was doing the mopping up.

The main problem with that game was that the 7-power teams were too unbalanced, with some teams able to help each other out greatly, benefiting from an ideal opening location with respect to their teammates, while other teams had isolated players and weren't close enough to each other to help their team get off on the right foot. And that with 7-power teams, there was no team alignment that was really great.

While 5-power teams will have the issue we discussed in that game of being far from each other and not able to employ much teamwork initially (depending on the format you guys choose), all teams will share the disadvantage and midgame survivors will be able to begin utilizing teamwork greatly, which should make things interesting.

Well, we need what, another 20 people to join before we can start?

Still need team players!!! Calling out to you.
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

bump

Bumpity.

@ wolfman maybe 10 days.

http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=8536

Password is " team "

Beginners this is a good way to learn. Especially if your teamed with one or two vets. Just an added though.

@ adalephat, we might be able to do the extend for when you leave. I am sure the group we have will work with you if you can't find a sitter.

I am open to sitting for you. But today i need a sitter for tomorrow only.

Ok still need more players. Team game.

so u prefer random sign up instead of picking your own country/team game?

On a very good point from one of the members. Who sent a suggestion to me, about rather it should be pick them yourself or random, as a PM. They had a great point that if a team was made of RL acquaintances. That they could discuss in minutes what would take everyone else hours or days to get accomplished. It might be a huge disadvantage to everyone else. Depending on how this goes, it could be an option for another game. I can find 4 other good players to play with me also. I don't have any real life friends on the site, but I know several good players on the site that would most likely play with me if they are available. Ones that could on their own not need much communication to achieve a common goal as a team. So for this first run we went with random.

Still need players though. Please join. Give it a shot and lets see how it works out.

I just joined, I'm fine with random because it means I get to meet new players and all of that. I think that'll add to the fun of the game as well - it adds another aspect (how quickly teams can learn to cooperate).

no offense guys, but I wont play a random -team game.
As I trust my tactical abilities I need to trust my teammates' abilities too.

^ if they're better than you, learn from them. If they're your equals, then you have no concern. If they're newer (or worse) then teach them - if anything, it'll make them more likely to do what you want rather than have their own plan (so long as they think you're better than them)