i've thought about it...

the idea of having roles within the game (especially for large maps which have separate fronts...) the idea of internal politics and team strategy/tactics discussions. (which i've had in tournament play where our 7 person team was playiny 7 boards of diplomacy) The idea of allowing player become citizens of a given power (thus allowing for defectors to join or leave and potentially infiltrate and play 'badly' within the team...)

i'd love to see bankers aswell as citizens with internal democracy/dictatorship, aswell as revolutions... i'm afraid the current code isn't setup to show allow all of the roles i'd like.

ambassador, general+admiral, and president could easily be implemented with the current code base, but not democracy, banking (either bankroll style, or bourse) nor espionage...

i do really like the idea that some players would flee a country when it is being wiped out and apply for citizenship elsewhere... but that realy requires elections to appoint roles (or dictator powers for the appointments) - this may also help alleviate NMRs, as a side effect...

team play is definitely something which interests me.

I get the feeling that kind of game and coding would require a whole new website focussed on it...

@Orathaic, something like Slobbovia? That could an interesting thing if there was a way to implement it and actually gives me an idea for a special set of rules, that and Victoria 2 interactive AARs :p

@shpe: no, not like Slobbovia. The purpose of the game would be to win.

the purpose of appointing commanders (appointed by dictator in the case of a dictatorship and by and elected president in the case of a democracy) would be to ease the burden of having many many units to move each phase, and lots of complex tactically decisions to think through...

other players on the team may help with these decision but only one player can enter the actual moves. (though who this player is may vary...)

This would be a soft requirement, you would never HAVE to appoint a commander, the president-dictator can simple be commander-in-chief and order all units aswell as conducting all diplomacy...

However, it is harder to have a constructive conversation with your team if you're ignoring their suggestions and running the country entirely solo...

think of Chaos on a world map. Lots of players wiped out are free to apply for citizenship of newly emerged nations...

I'd also be firmly against any nomic actions (or ability of the players to change the rules by voting to change them, ie that one possible move within the game would be to change the rules of the game... this level of meta can be bad for the unity of purpose - that is the reason everyone sat at the table in the first place...)

The aim would still be to solo, but your nation would be composed of multiple players potentially a majority by the end.

Hhhhmmm... I see it looks like a new frontier of the game adds to explore! :)
I wish I could be more able to manage the Variant creation, so I go on learning...

@Oli, meanwhile I study Pirates Variant to see the working example (I wish I could have even the time to play it LOL, damn summer time...) :)

So, what level of team support would be easy? Multippe players with a combined SC count, so on the classic map 18 SC for a team would win; donations of SC and/or units to team mates? Treating attacks on team mates as attacs on yourself (you don't cut your own support by attacking, and can't self-dislodge your units, or even support an enemy in dislodging on of your units...)

On classic you could have E-F, A-G, and three independant powers... Or a more flexible option could work like classicVS where you can choose the countries which are on each team...

Once this level of coding is done more complex maps (with multiple fronts of 10-20 units for each player) will be more playable...

Orathaic, at the moment I studied the idea for a map I am preparing, which is in fact very simply structured with exagonal simmetry to give all 6 players the same chances; the Team work is needed cause the topic of the scenario, rather than any other reasons: in Battle of the Sexes, I wish to have a game where 2 Teams of 3 players each (Males and Females) fight only the other sex and are forbidden to attack or conquer "buddies"

@ravenger: i think once written it would be available to include in an other variants. Which could be cool.

There is certainly room for team play in most games.

Have you looked a the code? I think it would be a difficult change - adding team and moving several checks of player ownership to team ownership...

Eh I would be still able to understand the code! I'm still a beginner :)