for consecutive-turn team games.
  • 27 posts
  • Page 2 of 2
Radman911 wrote:
Thanks for the tips. :P
(Not that I needed them anyway, lol.)
Spoiler (click to show)
dwcalvert wrote:
Can we add to the general strategy guide for TEAM GAME beginners that is *generally* at the advantage for each player to attack the guy who plays AFTER him?

For instance, in a 2v2 game in which the order is red, blue, black, green, where red/black are teammates and blue/green are teammates, *generally speaking*

RED (A) should always be looking to attack/weaken BLUE (B);
BLUE (B) weaken BLACK (A);
BLACK (A) weaken GREEN (B);
GREEN (B) weaken RED (A), and repeat.

At the conclusion of each turn, the teammate should then be looking to fortify to his/her teammate, again, to strengthen and prepare for that next attack. Just some basics that are frustrating/not happening playing with some new team players. :)

There are obviously some exceptions, as no strategy is perfect. Sometimes you need to eliminate one enemy in a region to prevent future retaliation, and sometimes you need to take enemy territory of the opposite color for the purposes of gaining regional bonuses, but *generally speaking* you need to attack the guy who plays after you to succeed.

PS- I keep using *generally speaking* because every time I try to explain this to new teammates, they give me one of the obvious exceptions, and continue to attack the wrong guy all game. :)

Thanks D12- The team game feature is an awesome addition to the site!!!
123playcard wrote:
"Team" game meaning you need to find someone has similar thought / strategy to yours. I am against playing "team" game with random team member 
Hoodlum wrote:
dwcalvert, that is a good strategy that I use especially when playing with a new partner. when a partner says,, "got a plan?". I will usually give them this one, it's simple to explain at the start and then as the game develops, a plan comes together. by trading time, I would be planning with my partner to contain one of the opposite team to make that kill.
( อก
Hoodlum is online.
Matty wrote:
123playcard - Mar 26, 10:45 AM
"Team" game meaning you need to find someone has similar thought / strategy to yours. I am against playing "team" game with random team member 
I sometimes invite 3 good friends in a game, and then we have a 2v2 team game with random teams.

I know all of them kinda well, so the teams are always good.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Brutus315 wrote:
Beta, I play a similar scenario to Matty - I'm part of a group that will often play team games with teams that are randomly determined. We will often play with multiple teams of two or three (8 or 9 players) and occasionally quad v. quad games. 

I'd like to hear your take on how that, if at all, changes your strategic framework. I think the same strategies generally apply, but would love to hear your (and anyone elses) thoughts.

I am also curious about your thoughts on how you approach fortification and team borders. The fortification scenario is extremely important at a tactical (as opposed to strategic) level. Adjacent vs. Chained vs. unlimited. In an unlimited scenario, the turn order that DW rightly mentioned becomes even more important. I have had success using unlimited fortification by shifting troops between my partner and I at a level that would be ill advised in the other fortification scenarios. 

Sharing a border obviously is preferred, but depends on the map and drop. 
UltrasPlot wrote:
I have to disagree with DW and Hoodlum, preferring to attack the player that goes BEFORE me, as they cannot retaliate before my partner (hopefully) finishes them off. As far as region borders, etc. go, regions are just as relevant here as in an ordinary game - they are peripheral and few skilled players will bother breaking a bonus that is not the largest on the board.
Brutus315 wrote:
UltrasPlot, in a four player game, that strategy would work for either enemy player, right? Wouldn't you pick the player you and your teammate have the best chance of eliminating? If your partner has a stronger position, have him attack first and you can finish them off, or vice versa?

And I agree that many bonuses aren't worth breaking, but I never mentioned regional bonuses. I meant in the context of being able to share troops, i.e., at least having 1 territory bordering. That would seem to be important under your scenario if you're looking to avoid or prevent retaliation and can't finish them off in 1 round.

Of course I never claimed to be a skilled player... 

huskers01 wrote:
There's many strategies to use but for the new player dw is right on point. It works. The board plays a huge factor in what a player does on his/her turn. Sometimes you need to attack the other player because of position but you should always go back to this strategy to keep the player ahead of you troop count as low as you can get it within reason. Play this way until a kill can be made. That's my opinion. Every team is different and uses different tactics and strategies.