New Team Gameplay

Now that team games are getting more refined here, I find there are a lot of instances where you have to take troop numbers from your team mate/s and this is not realistic in war with allies, is there a way of programming team games so that you can just swap territory positions with them rather than kill them? There could be a (swap position) button next to the (attack) button to use one or the other whenever you are linked adjacent to your team mate, it is kind of the same thing as attacking when it's your team mate, except you wouldn't have to kill any troops and would have to forfeit a card if only making that move! Obviously you would also have to attack someone else from somewhere else to get a card if you need one and would not be allowed to attack from a swapped position on that turn or perhaps yes you could, would that be unfair or complicated? The ability to kill your team mate for their cards would still be available too, although this is also against realism... perhaps we could force all teams to lose the ability to kill team mates troops at all? This would be like playing as one player, but with 2/3 colours and 2/3 minds. Maybe too much suggestion for 1 post? Anyway, the swap thing would essentially be like having a 4th part of a turn instead of just reinforce, attack & fortify, it can be reinforce, swap, attack & fortify and can be part of the attack sequence, just the same as we can make multiple attacks right now. I think, if it's possible it will put a whole new skill level and realism into the team game.

You're not the first to have a problem with the unrealistic option to attack your own team and kill your own teammate. Rather than cluttering up the interface or adding another step we could just make so that when you attack your teammate their troops change to your color and you can then move troops in. If it's the last of their territories then you get their cards. I would say for etiquettes sake your teammate might want you to place on some of their other territories during placement phase before you take an adjacent territory of theirs and commandeer their troops during the attack phase. Unless you've already discussed it in advance. I haven't yet had the chance to think this through. It's possible it could give a huge advantage to the team that goes first in certain setups. But we may not know about all the potential exploits unless we code it and try it out.

It will completely, utterly change the game, as there is nothing to stop you getting your allies cards.

Vexer's solution would mean you could just build near each other, then when cards are high, "swap" all of one teammate over, take his cards, turn in twice with the addition of his swapped troops, and easily run the board. The way it is now, to sacrifice to a teammate takes actual skill, as you have to make sure only THEY can kill you. It is a valid strategy, but I like that it is hard to pull off with two to three other teams between your turn and your teammate's turn meaning if you weaken yourself too much, any other team can kill you before your teammate has a chance. What Matty said is spot on. The first team to have a turn with a combined 7 cards, or 6 with two turn ins since they can talk to each other and figure out if they have two turn ins - just swaps entire armies over, adds the two sets, and wins.

For now the only thing I could see that could help here AND be fair is that if you have 1 unit on a territory, and your ally attacks, that you always roll a 1 as defence die (and the attacker always a 6 (or a 2, whatever)). But that's only for attacking your teammate when there is 1 unit on the territory.

There seems to be a bit of split views as to whether or not this would make the game too easy. I have also heard from lifeinpixels and he also likes things the way they currently are. Just to clarify, my suggestion was only to be able to swap positions with your team mate if they are 'adjacent' to you. There would be no opportunity to just combine all your team mate's troops to you. And I also should have clarified that this should only be the case with 1's, not any other troop numbers, that would be complicated and unfair. This would mean that just as it is now, if your team mate has more than 1 in a territory, you have to attack them until they have 1, to maintain the strategic element of sacrifice for cards. Consider this, to take your (ally) team mate's position when he has 1 troop there, you normally lose 1 for 1 and you still have to leave 1 behind. In reality you would group with an ally and leave 1 troop (platoon) or more behind to hold a territory. [quote=Vexer]Rather than cluttering up the interface or adding another step we could just make so that when you attack your teammate their troops change to your color and you can then move troops in. If it's the last of their territories then you get their cards.[/quote] For this to be the case with Vexer suggestion of how it should be carried out above, you would still have to be adjacent to all your team mate's troops in order to overrun them for cards, just as you have to be now. If you planned on using your team mate for cards in any setup situation, you would still have to place all your troops in a position that could get their cards and could block others from getting them before you in exactly the same way. Also if you attack your team mate or any player you leave a trail of your colour behind, which is exactly the same when swapping positions with your team mate except you don't have to lose troops to combine with an ally. Even though some don't wish to change anything about the team game system, I feel I needed to clarify these matters to give fresh thought to the suggestion and maybe keep the feedback going a little longer to throw back and fore with different views on it.

1. Feel free to comment anything concerning team games - they are not even publicly released (you have to have some hacking skills to start your own teamgame, or moderator access), so defenitely nothing is certain about them as of now. 2. Then what exactly do you mean by swapping? - Does that mean that you get your allies territory, and he gets yours (as in; swapping, trading)? That doesn't make any sense to me. - Do you mean that your allies troop will be yours without a fight? (as in; swapping sides, giving for free) - Or do you mean that your allies troop will die (be disbanded) without a fight?

Yes my original suggestion was to swap position, but Vexer stated it would only really work if when you attack your team mate, he becomes your colour.... if i am reading it right? Also that would mean that your ally's troop (1) would be yours without a fight. I believe that to attack anything larger than 1 should have to be an actual attack for fairness. I still like the Swap idea as it keeps your team mate intact too, you just exchange your position if adjacent, again only if they are just 1 troop. This is why I suggested it should be a new (Swap) button next to the (attack) button when you select a team mate's territory to attack.

Back to the original point of this thread (allies dont attack each other in war) neither do they become one country, or in this case, one colour. If one needs to take their team mates it should just be put down to "collateral damage". That is the harsh reality of modern warfare anyway

And you can always fortify all but one army to your teammate... it takes good communication, but it does work...

My suggestion was never to combine troops with ally, but to swap territories, which is realistic. Allies fight alongside each other regularly, but usually in a neighbouring areas. Not killing your ally is also realistic. I find myself all the way back to my original suggestion with the added clarification of only swapping where there is an ally 1 troop. It's a shame there can't be a swap button that appears next to the attack button when you select a team mate to attack. It would mean you can still kill your teammate for cards by selecting the attack button. Why not have all your troops intact when you are working with them and not fighting them, i.e. not kill each other just because you want to pass by each other. I don't want to keep pushing this, it was a suggestion & feedback, so I'll wait and see what the feedback is and hope that my suggestion is now clear.

i think I misunderstood what you were trying to accomplish with your first post. It it possible to have a swap button next to the attack button. But if your argument is realism then it falls short because it only solves part of the problem. You still have to kill your allies troops to take a region or get their cards. If we want realism then we need a solution that solves all the problems. If not all then we might as well go with what is best for strategy and forget realism. I like how it is now for strategy. I think we should think on this further. It's quite possible there is a perfect solution out there.

But if you combine tram's suggestion with Matty's (defender dice always 1 and attacker always 6 when the defender is the teammate and he olny has 1 troop in that province) I think we have improved a lot the situation. Maybe it's not the best solution but it's a good beggining.

On a related note, would it be out of the question to take color choosing out of the player's hands for team games? Just join, then your color is assigned based on the team you end up on? Blue / light blue yellow / green purple / pink orange / red Like colors same team. Could try to add these 3 extra player colors again for triad games: [spoiler][img]http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/4963362-T600450.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

@Vexer [quote=tramadol]It's a shame there can't be a swap button that appears next to the attack button when you select a team mate to attack. It would mean [size=14][b]you can still kill your teammate for cards by selecting the attack button[/b][/size].[/quote] Remember you'll always have a choice of swapping with or killing the remaining 1 troop, exactly as you can attack them right now. The difference the swap button has to the no-lose dice suggested by Matty, is the swap keeps your ally intact, as I said you wouldn't ordinarily kill your ally to use their positions, but you would if their sacrifice would win the war. True realism would mean to stop all attacks on your allies and therefore no ability to take their regions or cards, but alas that would not work in risk team games at all. Therefore, I believe this is the closest you can get to fair realistic play with your team. Also I don't know if it could be programmed, but I [b]don't[/b] think you should be able to swap with and attack the same 1 troop in the same move. This would be unfair as you could gain better vantage points within bonus regions this way.