Not having an adjacent team members to be able to actually coordinate with is what spoiled the attempt we did have, since it rendered the 'team' aspect of very limited utility.

As such, principle 1) of the above is pretty much a non-starter.

@Halt @ Butterhead while past ER games are pretty limited sample size, worth pointing out that there's only been 3 solo victories in total and Denmark has won 2 of them, while North African countries have historically done pretty well during the draws, so those countries might be a bit stronger than you would assume just looking at CPs.

Might be good to get input on the teams from @Drano, since he's played this map a fair bit. Probably the biggest challenge will be getting teams that are closer enough together to actually coordinate but not so close that a team will be able to get a stalemate position very quickly.

I have/am in 14 Europa Renovatio games and am in queue for another 2.

In my experience, it could be balanced to have some historicalish looking teams for the sake of balance - counteracted by other "historical" teams, ultimately being anonymous. In saying this, "historical" teams would be 2 teamates being neighbors, with their other 2 teamates also being neighbors (but located elsewhere on map)

The idea would be 9 teams (each separated in 2 "pairs"), with 18 pairs needed. The 18 pairs would have to be listed and then scrambled, (with some balanced alterations by the host) leading to a combined team of four.

For example, Castille and Aragon being one pair, end up being scrambled with Poland and Lithuania. The full on team is unknown, but the team would consist of those 4 countries (with everyone knowing that Castille and Aragon are 2/4 of their team, and likewise with Poland and Lithuania)

Pair ideas I have that would be balanced (and some of them pretty historical :D) and make for a fun game

-Scotland/England
-Denmark/Norway
-Sweden/Livonian Order
-France/Burgundy
-Brandenburg/Teutonic Order
-Milan/Savoy
-Switzerland/Bavaria
-Austria/Hungary
-Bohemia/Saxony
-Poland/Lithuania
-Castile/Portugal
-Aragon/Naples
-Morocco/Tlemcen
-Tunis/Mamluks
-Pope/Venice
-Genoa/Great Horde
-Ottomans/QQ
-Novgorod/Muscovy

^^ Leaves no definite strong nation (pair). A further explanation can be done to show why exactly it is balanced from my experience if need be, but ideally I don't want to type it all out :p

Have completed 13, am currently in 1 ER game. IN queue for another 2*****

I would argue that putting any of Mamluks, Ottomans, and QQ on the same team will spell near-certain death for the other one. And Pairing Genoa with GH would highly favor a land-based genoa, which could be interesting but also means genoa basically starts with 1 maybe 2 centers if you count the one in the Aegean.

Also, I don't think putting any two African nations together is necessarily great, but if teams are known I suppose it could be okay (I realize my two suggestions means Mamluks doesn't get a pair...)

I've lost count of how many ER games I've been in. It's been a bunch. Interestingly, I have never played a country that is landlocked to start, and never played an African power.

Factoring in the above, teams of Mamluks/Morocco (and thus Tlemcen/Tunis), Ottomans/Genoa (or Ottomans/Venice) and thus QQ/GH could be interesting?

AJManso4's idea in general is pretty solid, too.

AJManso, you and I have squared off against each other several times, and have never been allies. While we haven’t been in agreement diplomatically, you’re a strong, experienced player. I very much like and agree with what you say here: it comes from both creative thinking and hard-earned ER wisdom.

Except re: Africa, where I agree with erikip. Like him, I’ve never played an ER game with a power who is landlocked at start (though I’ve seen players like Drano absolutely whip ass from a starting position I would not relish, lol).

Unlike erikip, I have played several African or near-African countries (like Portugal, who in all games I’ve played in has absolutely been solidly in the “African region” when it comes to diplomacy and war — especially those of the successful kind).

AJ, I find your “pairs of pairs” idea brilliant. Maybe my reaction stems (just a bit) from out previous ER team game, where my country (Morocco) was isolated far from all my teammates. And for which I enjoyed the (very) humbling privilege of being the first player to be eliminated. It’s all my fault, and I’m blaming no one but myself. But it did raise the question: what does it mean to be on a team?

I like pairs, and it would make (I think) for better “team” play (because are you really even on a team when your teammates’ ability to help you is limited solely to diplomacy?) I don’t make the rules, and am not complaining. I’m sharing thoughts, and pointing out that when you talk about “teams”, well... that can mean different things to different people. To me it means having someone you can count on and that that can help you directly — in the military sense of help. Pairs does that.

Africa, however (to Erikip’s point) is a special case. My advice is be careful there, because whoever controls Africa will likely have a significant advantage over all the others.

So then the question is: what to do?

Perhaps splitting QQ, Mamluks and Ottomans among separate teams? iMO having a hotly contested Africa is a good thing all players: one reason African powers have done so well is that they have tended to resolve their theater faster than the other areas, giving them a critical early jump. Plus, they can build many fleets, and they have means to reasonably safeguard their centers from invasion. In my experience, no other region shares all 3 of those characteristics to the same degree.

So what would I recommend? That any 4-player team with an African pair be teamed with a landlocked pair on the opposite end (west or east) of the map. So that the two pairs on the team cannot coordinate with each other early on. Because there will be some teams with no African pair, and they should have a the chance to catch up.

Those are my thoughts. I’ll go with whatever the powers that be decide. You are all smart and strong players. It’ll be fun whatever we decide. But I do sense the search for optimum balance. And I applaud and support the effort.

Cheers

Ok guys, so I have never played a ER game from start to finish. so if any of these teams are completely broken, please let me know so I can change them:

My ideas-
teams of 3:
1. Novgorod, Sweden, Norway
2. Scotland, England, Denmark
3. Brandenburg, Poland, Saxony
4. Portugal, Castille, Tunis
5. Papacy, Naples, Venice
6. Morocco, Tlemclem, Aragon
7. QQ, Mamlucks, Ottomans
8. Savoy, France, Burgundy
9. Muscovy, Great Horde, Hungary
10. Livonian Order, Lithuania, Teutonic Order
11. Switzerland, Milan, Genoa
12. Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria.



OR, teams of 4:

1. England, Scotland, Bohemia, Bavaria
2. Castille, Portugal, Poland, Teutonic Order
3. Morocco, Tlemclem, Austria, Venice
4. Aragon, Tunis, Saxony, Brandenburg
5. Denmark, Norway, Hungary, Ottomans
6. France, Burgundy, Novgorod, Muscovy
7. Savoy, Switzerland, Sweden, Livonian order
8. Milan, Genoa, Mamlucks, QQ
9. Papacy, Naples, Lithuania, Great Horde

Re all:Completely agreed regarding mouse’s mamluk team change and the regard for africa’s other pair of team being landlocked. Mamluks was a tricky case and it’s good to discuss, i agree that tunis/tlemcen, mamluks/morocco, QQ/GH could be better. But the question remains for the ottomans, genoa, venice, and the pope. Some sort of mix of venice or genoa going to one or the other

^^ should be able to fix the previous problem at hand

I personally like the teams of three option

The teams of 3 option has a major flaw in Team #7. Mamluks, QQ, Ottomans, is an exceedingly dangerous team.

1) It removes a major weakness of Ottomans to have their eastern and southern borders so much safer than normal.
2) There are absolutely 0 threats to either Mamluks or QQ off the bat. Mamluks easily controls CGH right away with easy builds around them. Tunis has no ability to pressure Mamluks realistically, as they only have 1 unit anywhere near striking range, and also a lot more neighbors near home. And Venice is isolated in Crete and facing Ottomans/Mamluks in the Mediterranean.
3) QQ has only 1 option in this team setup - move north. They literally are boxed out of anything else. This means Team 7 and Team 9 (Muscovy, Hungary, GH) are almost guaranteed to fight right off the bat, or QQ will end up sitting on their hands realistically. Not to mention QQ would be in a fantastic position given that they could devote every unit north with zero risk to the rest of their territory.

Simply put, that corner of the map is far too "safe" to put those 3 on a team. This could probably be true for many teams. Put 3 neighbors together, and a lot of them can form regions that are near blockades pretty quickly. The middle groups would be in the worst postions, while edge groups benefited from safety of the board edge.


I too am a fan of the "pair of pairs" idea. And with Poolside's focus on Africa as well. The long board edge in Africa means once someone consolidates, they're quite safe and can focus on external expansion instead of having to worry about their defenses as much like a power in the middle of the map would have to. Don't have the answer to what those teams mean at this time, but I think AJ and Poolside have the right idea.

I honestly don't think Africa is as strong a position as is being generally assumed. If it's split 2-2, especially if that split is outside vs middle rather than east v west, then it takes long enough to properly unify that the requirements for an actually strong, secure Africa (namely, a sea border in the northern Med rather than on their own coastline) is significantly less feasible. The desert zones are amazing for flanking, as is CGH, and the coastline is simply too long to hold against a sustained attack.

A more general rule of "pairs of pairs can't be adjacent" with more expansive 'adjacency' definitions for coastal nations (eg. Mediterranean coastal pairs are all 'adjacent' for pair exclusion purposes; ditto 'Atlantic', 'North Sea' and 'Baltic' coastal pairs) would be sufficient balance things out, imo.

butterhead's 3-groups is mostly fine, if that's the preferred team sizing, but I definitely agree with drano regarding Ottos, QQ and Mamluks being a tad too strong together. Also, the inclusion of Tunis with Castille/Portugal seems odd - that's the only grouping where one partner is completely non-adjacent by any reasonable measure. Maybe Castille/Portugal/Morocco?

I think I like the pairs-of pairs idea better as well.

To "fix" the African powers though, instead of isolating them completely, perhaps they could have a partner across the Med north-to south? It would disrupt AJ's neat other pairs, but perhaps something like

Mamluks/Venice
Tunis/Naples
Tlemcen/Papacy
Morocco/Aragon

That way Africa should still be hotly contested, but wouldn't resolve so quickly, but also the African powers won't be super isolated from their teammates.

I think overall I like erikip's idea and it can probably applied more generally - edge powers that otherwise would have too secure of a position can be appleid to powers on the interior rather than their most direct neighbors.

On specific teams, Mamluks/Venice and Morocco/Aragon teams put a lot of pressure on the Ottomans and Castille, respectively. The Ottomans tend to be fairly strong in general and probably will be fine as long as they have another nearby ally - perhaps Hungary or even Genoa (QQ or Golden Horde might be overcorrecting). Castille can be quite naturally paired with Portugal I suppose.

i love the pairs of pairs idea, and I really like butterhead's ideas in general. Maybe the pairs could be a bit like this:

Team A-Team B-Team A-B-A-B-A-B
stretching across the map. For example:

Scotland(A)-England(B)-Denmark(A)-Bavaria(B)-Hungary(A) are something along those lines. That way each team can help each other, but there is not too much easy defence.

Additionally, the Africa-Asia countries can be split up considering diagonals and snakes end in their corners

I agree with erikip on his idea regarding how to "fix" it -

-I like Tunis and Naples the most.
And Tlemcen/Papacy
Morocco/Aragon look fine

Mamluks Venice is still kind of weird, but QQ/Ottomans/Mamluks are in weird positions, and we still are missing out on Genoa

So I believe it would definitely end up with Ottomans and Mamluks separate teams, with each getting either Genoa or Venice. making the Aegean quite the battle zone. And setting up Ottomans and Mamluks to almost guaranteed fight which should be the natural goal anyways

Could do Ottomans/Genoa, QQ/GH, Mamluks/Venice. Then it becomes a triangle between the 3.

I'm sorry friends, got caught up with stuff in real life. I'll have to withdraw from the list of players from both ER and DS.

agreed @ erikip


Also soooo whats the final consensus? It appears people spoke up for the pair of pairs idea, and the set up of all the pairs. We just need to finalize it and rules

Also we ideally need a host to be the game moderator and not a player (also the one that scrambles the pairs)

Could you post the pairs of pairs again? With the modifications.

I think we settled on that one team needs 60% of the centers, if I'm not mistaken.

Maybe drano would do it

-Scotland/England
-Denmark/Norway
-Sweden/Livonian Order
-France/Burgundy
-Brandenburg/Teutonic Order
-Milan/Savoy
-Switzerland/Bavaria
-Austria/Hungary
-Bohemia/Saxony
-Poland/Lithuania
-Castile/Portugal
-Pope/Tlemcen
-Tunis/Naples
-Morocco/Aragon
-Ottomans/Genoa
-GH/QQ
-Mamluks/Venice
-Novgorod/Muscovy

Can we not put Scotland/England together this time? Securing the British Isles guaranteed (and basically giving Norway no realistic way to hold the islands nearby) just doesn't seem right, even with known teams.

England/Norway, Scotland/Denmark perhaps?

France Burgundy is overpowered

well, England/Scotland and France/Burgundy were meant to be natural counters to each other

France/Burgundy is surrounded by several german teams, Aragon, Castille, England, Savoy, and the Pope