I like aspects of both the team game and gunboat. So I thought: why not have a team gunboat game? Maybe the nations could be divided into triplets or quadruplets with one player per nation, 3-4 players per team, 3-4 teams per side.
I think this type of game would actually be closer to the feel of the old GSI fog-war days than gunboat presently is. In the GSI days most players typically communicated with 2-4 close allies, whereas NO communication is generally allowed in gunboat. So I think a team gunboat game would bring the game closer to its roots, and would allow us to enjoy the benefits of both the team & gunboat aspects. When I tried gunboat I missed being able to talk to people about the game, which is one reason I favor these mini-teams. But another thing about team games is that its fun to talk with opponents too. I’m not sure its necessary that there be restricted communication between opponents.
This would also help solve the problem of filling gunboat drops since a fellow team member could fill the position. And Gunboat would become more affordable for guys like me who live off student loans.
Seems to me that you are describing something that sounds more like a Grudge game - where you pick up 12 nations (split amongst as many players as you feel your team can field) and then play another Grudge team. Grudge games like this have anything from 1-12 players on a side - closely co-ordinating. Most teams have anything from 6-10 players nowadays (some double up and playing 2 nations) and a few teams have players running 3 nations or more.
We’ve tried triplet of nations per player but they are very hard to fill if a player drops out and the game suffers badly then. No longer competitive just playing the turns/numbers out until you win. GB games usually end up with some drop outs and then if we can’ find replacement players you end up with a 3rd nation for some players on each side. It works well that way.
I guess what I am describing is neither Gunboat nor Grudge, if I understand Grudge correctly. I am looking for some of the limited communication of gunboat–and it doesn’t sound like Grudge has limited communication (?)–with some of the benefits of team play. I am talking about ONE nation per player, but with communication limited to only 2-3 other players. Let’s calls it a Limited Communication game.
I imagine in gunboat that people don’t want to pick up dropped positions because they are already playing two or more postions. But with a Limited Communication game it wouldn’t be hard to fill dropped positions because one’s “team” (ie the players that one is allowed to communicate with), would probably gladly fill the position. Also, players could shadow for eachother while out of town, etc… I think it would be a more stable game than gunboat.
I suppose a similar idea could be to put together a Limited Communication game that includes Neutrals–that would really bring the game back to its roots. But dividing up the 10 allegiance players would be difficult since only 2 or 5 divide evenly into 10. 2 is pretty stingy and 5 wouldn’t put much of a limit on communications. This also might be boring for neutrals if communication is limited–they’d be in their own little world. The idea of Limited Communication with Neutrals would work only if these problems were solved.
Okay that sounds like a Grudge game with limited communication… As per usual get enough players together and we’ll support it but my present feeling is that it won’t be very successful. How would it be policed?
Would we have to send on the diplos - say 3 diplos a turn per player, = upto 75 diplos a turn - that’s a LOT of work for us and I doubt that players would want to pay for that (IMO).
You’re probably right; I doubt people will go for this considering you are the only one to reply here. (incidentally, thank you)
But there wouldn’t be any diplos. team memebers would communicate normally by email, sharing pdfs etc. The only limit on communication would be between “teams” that are on the same side. Only names & email addresses of YOUR team would be provided. So for example 4 “teams” could each have 3 players, each playing one nation, all of whom could communicate freely with one another on their team but not with any of the 9 other nations on their side. Its the same as a triplet (or quaruplet) gunboat but with each position being divided between 3 players (or 4) rather than controlled all by one guy.
There is no policy against sharing gunboat positions. So I guess I could just join a triplet or quadruplet gunboat and share the position with some buddies. But I don’t think such a game would be good. Presumably other positions would be run by only one person and as you said: “We’ve tried triplets of nations per player but they are very hard to fill if a player drops out and the game suffers badly then. No longer competitive just playing the turns/numbers out until you win.” Not only that but what if the guy goes out of town–who will shadow? Four nations miss their turns. Not enough variety of S & T if one guy controls so many positions, etc. I think one player per position accross the board would make a better, longer, more stable game.
Maybe I’ll find enough players in a year or two. In the meantime a can try to figure a way to include undeclared neutrals.
I could see the possibility in this type of scenerio. 3 teams of 4 nations each - your turn includes a list of your “allies”, except there’s only 3 instead of 9/11. The “policing” is simply the same as with current gunboat, whatever that is… (don’t play). The game must rely on the honour of the participants to not communicate outside their Team.
or some such like that. Would be more difficult to find 3 sets of 4 DS that are close together due to the outliers (Witch King-Dragon Lord-LongRider-???) that sort of thing. Trying to take relative economies, complimentary SNA’s, etc, into account might make the nation-groupings something that would never be agreed upon, mind you, but in the FP groups I outlined, I gave each Elf a Double-Scout ally.
I would be interested in a variant like this, just for fun.
I think the idea is a great one, a throwback to the days before mass email, the days where you actually had to call someone up on the phone to find out what the hell was going on! Gunboat is good and I’m having a ball in the game I am in but it does miss out on the interaction angle, which can be alot of fun and makes the game what it is (but these days in a normal game can be just too much).
I’d say with the groupings, spread them around, more to hamper the freep as opposed to anything else
Wow! People are actually interested! When I find enough players I’ll contact you guys to see if you are still interested.
I also think spreading the nation groupings around is better because it allows each 4-man team to stay heavily invloved accross the map throughout the game. That way if the opposition on one section of the map is overrun, the game won’t become boring or frustrating for the team. Also, spreading the nations around prevents super tight coordination between neighbors, which sounds like a drawback but I think it would make the game more interesting and challenging. For example, Arthedain, Cardolan, and Dunland wouldn’t be able to go sack Rhudaur by coordinating with eachother as if they were one big nation. Instead they would have to make guesses as to what their neighbors’ plans are.
On a similar line of thought, when picking nation groupings I think it might be better to avoid synergy between SNA’s. For example, hooking the CL up with the DrLrd (as his double scouter) might be too potent. Of course that is the way things are in a regular game, but I also think the CL is too strong in regular games. When I first read that Brad allocated one double scouter to each Elf, i thought “good idea!” but then I thought about it more and wondered if it would be better to try to divide the double scouters from the strongest agents when possible (but in this case one elf MUST have a double scout). Otherwise the nation combos that included the elves seemed well balanced.
But the Dwarf-Eo-Card-Cors combo sounds too militant. I would try to include at least one strong non-militant “character” nation in each group, at least one nation that is good w/ mages, at least one that is good with agents, one weak economy, one strong, etc…
With these points in mind I here propose a possible nation grouping for the DS in 1650. You’ll find problems with it. Suggested changes welcome, though no nation grouping can be perfect.
Cloud Lord + D.Lieut + Rhudaur + Dog Lord
L.Rider + QA + Witch King + Blind Sorcerer
Ice King + DragonL + Fire King + Harad/Corsairs
Well I am just now trying the 1650 scenario but I would be interested in a team only communication game as long as the team filled their own drops or one person picked up a 2nd nation etc. all within in the team.
As long as there was some rule that each of the 3 teams could only play their 4 nations be it 4 players playing 1 nation or 1 player playing 4 nations, I think it would be a cool adventure.
As per usual get enough players together and we’ll support it but my present feeling is that it won’t be very successful. How would it be policed?