safariguy5 wrote: chapcrap wrote: Bones2484 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:I just haven't seen a strong reason (yet) why the current mechanism results in a less enjoyable game. I would not have coded the system this way, but now that I've thought about it, I don't have a particularly strong objection to it.
Team games are about the team
, not the individual player.
Which team do you feel is strongest in the below scenario?
Team 1 (23 total armies)
A - 1 army left
B - 1 army left
C - 1 army left
D - 20 armies left
Team 2 (76 total armies)
E - 19 armies left
F - 19 armies left
G - 19 armies left
H - 19 armies left
I think it's clear that Team 2 deserves the win in a Round Limit game, but current coding would give it to Team 1. Even though the rule is clear, I'd be disappointed to lose a game this way. I would support this change.
While I agree with changing it to total troop count, I will say that I have been in situations where the team who had the most dominant player was in the better position to win in the end. For instance, in a doubles 13 Colonies game, I was down to 1 troop for the last 7 or 8 rounds and my partner had slightly more troops than either of the two opponents and a bonus. With my tert being sheilded, he was able to withstand the opponents and we won even though they were the stronger team by troop count.
While my example is a hole in the argument, I think that typically the team with more troops is stronger and should be the team to receive the win. I would have even been ok with that happening in the example that I gave if it would have ended at the point where my partner had not weakened them and us losing because it is a team
game and the whole team matters, not just the strongest person.
How long did this team game last? If you set a reasonable round limit, a game like that probably would have ended before round limit was reached.
Well, I didn't want to go back through all of my games and look at them all to see which specific one it was, but the longest one was 12 rounds I think.
So, you're right in a sense, but it was meant to be a general example, because it could be something that happens that would effect this.