What is the purpose of having 3 people on the same team in the same game?
Why not just do sets of games where each player plays another so that in Game A you play the west and in game B you play the East.

There would be more of a team product of a series of games if say there was three members in the team and you limited the games to 1909 then each three years the country is change to a different team mate so that then the product of the game is the result of the entire team's effort.

I'll join

Edi-->
That could definitely work just as well if not better, but what I really wanted to explore through this tournament is building 'team chemistry' and having to work together better than the other team. The only deviation from that I've considered so far is maybe a change for the final game. It could be some other variant or just a standard game or any number of things.

bump?

I might try this. It sounds interesting enough... does that mean that you would be going in with a set team and random country placement?

I like Edi's idea. He's floated it in this forum before, I believe. Count me in.

Definitely count me in. I would prefer if we didn't switch countries. When you do start it email me at [email protected]

Chrisp-->
Yes, exactly.

jman & maple-->
If this happens, you're both on the list.

Good stuff.

Fun fun!!

3 way set teams takes out the diplomacy aspect of the game. Most of the tournament is just going to fall on who gets which countries. The rest will basically be going through the motions.

I'm not sure I understand Edi's suggestion.

I disagree. Yes, it will be more tactical than diplomatic, but that is partially what I'm shooting for. I like the 3 on 3 because I can't think of a situation in which a country drawing would be unfair. The same cannot be said for 2v2v2.

I actually think 2v2v2 with a seventh person with no allies would be better as well as more interesting. Generally 3v3 will just be a race to kill the odd man out first and then enter the other sphere. With Italy out of the picture countries that draw Turkey or France have a big advantage.

What Edi is suggesting is we draft together 21 people and play one game. The first seven people play 3 years, then after three years, the second set of seven people take over the countries and play for another three years, the third set then takes over and finishes the game up, it is then drawn after the last three year period if no one has won. Obviously this has some serious practicality problems.

I agree that 2v2v2 with a seventh would be better than 3v3, but I don't think it would work as well for a tournament. Since the idea is that you stay with your team throughout the entire tournament, a solo player would be alone the entire time.

Well I was just remembering fondly a lone Italy that you nurtured to a solo in a team game I was in. I was a huge fan.

Perhaps you are thinking of the organisation being wrong. Players could be assessed on how well they perform on teams.

OR you could have something totally different, like teams in different games. Its just a normal game with loads of meta-gaming thrown in. The winner has the highest total result in all games. Meaning your diplomacy and actions are contingent on how well someones team is doing in the other games. Might create a more fluid match.

Well I definitely recall that solo with pride, but in that game I had the power of controlling all press, which made things just all too easy.

We could have permanent pairs, with special rules applying for solo players. The top two solo's could be paired in the next round, with a 'wild card' team split to fill the solo roles. I definitely like this option, thanks for the input Centurian :)
What do you think of that?

I think its better. And I would give it a whirl if you started it up.

How are you arranging teams?

I'd use the ghost-ratings. With the highest ranked player as the solo. Or maybe the middle-ranked? I haven't figured out the details.

bump. I'm going to bed but I'll check for feedback in the morn.

Having the highest rated player as the solo invites a quick kill (tall poppy by implication). I would suggest a medium (but clearly proficient) player would be a better choice.

This killing off of top players has been evident in the Leagues I believe. I know who I rate as the best players I have played on here and I can see two of them having been mauled by gangs.

Having said that, I am also a mug for variants and would look kindly on an offer to join in.

Not tried Team Gun Boat yet by the way,

any thoughts?

could be very interesting

I think it looks like fun. Count me in, if the deadlines are not very tight (25+ hours)

Okay, so far this is (generally) what I'm thinking:

-Games are 2v2v2v1. Teams will be made using ghost-rankings, with a mid-ranked player as the solo
-Top teams will progress together; top solo players will be paired going forwards; 'wild card' teams will be split. Numbers will depend on the number of entrants
-The final game will be different than the others. Either a standard game, or some other kind of variant. I kind of like Flashman's idea of team gunboat, which would really test how well you've gotten to know your teammates.

Whatever we decide, we will need a scoring system. Could thewonderllama or Ghostie give some suggestions?

...any more suggestions? I'm going to start working on possible setups