Warlords/Magic Games: What Is Appropriate?

[HeadHoncho]

For semi-anonymous Warlords and Magic games (which is most or all of these games), what do Ry Vor and the community find appropriate in terms of coordination among SEPARATE teams? Obviously we know that email communication is completely forbidden, and that enemy/ally declarations are completely allowed, but what about things like gifting/trading between different teams?

Personally I view this as against the spirit of the game structure, but I am floating it for discussion as I know there may be other viewpoints out there. Thanks.

[VballMichael]

Seems like the point of these Warlords games is to have 4 teams of 3, with communication allowed only within a team. If two teams declare each other allies quickly and start trading and not fighting each other, feels like we have a 6-player team playing against two 3-player teams. Just my two cents.

[Jumpingfist]

In the two games I am in currently I have seen these teams start to form but actually they seemed to go with the flow of the game. One game a team got the council on turn one and then nominated somene from anther team to gain regional reaction of a third teams region. I had seem nothing wrong with it. It screams let's work together but it is also out in the open and rather hard for the other two teams to miss. I suppose the forth team could go the route of also attacking the same team. With the new gold and food rules basically showing most trades it is out in the open. The other game a team with only two members left has been giving gold and food to another team that started attacking the team that took out one of there members. Again I had no issue with it.

All that said I do get the point. And of the two examples I gave I think the first was closer to maybe crossing a line as it is setting up for two teams vs one on turn 1. When setting up these kind of gambits in this case is also uses precious early resources for the hope of an alliance. Maybe it us not in that teams game plan or they do not want to be told who to fight.

Overall the only thing I have seem in these magic and warlords games that brings them down or less fun is when someone drops. Nothing wrong with getting eliminated but the dropping really add some chaos where one player is likely in a better position to grab these new resources or even figured out the drop a turn or two before it went global.

[Thudargh]

Here's my two cents: Without email or other direct communication between teams, the ability to coordinate is quite constrained. For example, how do you decide how to split up enemy PCs in a region without talking about it? Granted, folks could come up with some complicated Bridge-style signalling, but then why are they playing this format instead of a full diplomacy game?

I personally wouldn't declare a non-teammate as an ally or gift other teams food or gold. That does strike me as against the spirit of these contests.

[HeadHoncho]

I agree with you, Thudargh.

[VballMichael]

I agree also.
I am generally only playing anon and warlords now just to avoid gang-ups, and then in both of my warlords game I find two teams ganging up. Not good. Not right.
None of it is in the flow of the game. it is two teams working together. So the only viable option is for the other two teams to do so.
Now it is 6 on 6. Guess what? We already have that format.
Guess I will have to stop playing warlords and just do anon.

[Hawk_]

I agree with you, Thudargh.

I think is is good to establish guidelines.

Since there are no guidelines players are trying to do whatever they can to gain advantage or survive.

I don't play in Warlord games but with regard to magic games the kingdoms that start in the same regions kind of mess up attempts to form balanced teams.

Either they fight over resources from turn 1 or they lock their 2 teams into a loose alliance.

If they fight over regions it allows other teams to gain an advantage.  If they work together then you have team alliances from turn 1.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jumpingfist]

I agree as well on establishing guidelines.

just not sure about removing all ability to communicate is the answer. I think more player will quite the game if they have no hope if you remove the most basic forms of communication it also start to become a faceless game that people get bored with. To me the point of the semi anon was to stop the teaming up yes. but I feel it does this to the extent needed. players can not coordinate with the other team and they can not choose how to split a region they can just form a basic alliance. i do not find these basic type alliance to be that bad. there are also times I would think to declare an alliance just to keep them from attacking me and nothing more. or maybe offer up an alliance to say hey you win lets fight someone else. you do not know how they will interpret the message and that makes it fun as well.

I would disagree the only option is to have a 6 vs 6. when someone offers an alliance the other team could attack. once formed the 4th team could continue to build while three teams duke it out, picking the right time to attack.

Even with no allies or trading they will still find ways to talk. land on someones PC but not take it. if this happens early they could now have a secret sort of deal that no others know about. at least with alliance declarations everyone knows. I also like that it gives a small look into what is going on elsewhere on the map.

[VballMichael]

If Warlords is ok with teams forming larger teams, I will bow out of those. Thank you.

[Ry Vor]

I did get involved in this issue in a Magic game when one team started declaring allies on another, and did ask the question about whether that violated the spirit of four separate teams.

The circumstance though was that the team declaring allies on another team had one of their original members drop / knocked out.  So I would rather the remaining two kingdoms continue in some fashion than have the whole team drop.  Also from my vantage point, the integrity of those players was impeccable.  Now that is of course subjective, and privileged information and not a "rule", so is not enforceable, although I felt no intervention was necessary.

We did have an issue in 2013 where no Magic games were forming because alliances were forming.  When we went to anonymous outside of the team, this is a popular format as it has planning within the team, but not NAPS and other long term deals.  Yes, there is a signal when a HC issue is supported or voted down, but I think that is perfectly fine, and a nuance that may or may not be followed up upon.  But the declaration of allies, I might propose that be restricted to unless a team has a kingdom resign or eliminated, it cannot declare an ally.  I think that is the best resolution:  its not a per-conceived alliance, but it keeps 2 kingdoms viable by attracting allies whereas otherwise they might drop.  Up to today, I didn't think this had to be made into a rule, but if it is happening in Warlords (sidebar: I am considering freezing new Warlords games for a while given the recent drops in that format which is supposed to be an understood do not do in that format).