Coop Play - just like doubles, triples, quadruples - but sharing the same color and same units with a player/s from a team
Specifics:
Example: Player 1 and Player 2 Vs. Player 3 and Player 4. The co-operation needs to be exact and true, it must have trust and deals. So, players 1 & 2 share the RED color. They start on different spots, but whoever plays first, can choose what to do. Likewise, in doubles games, you and your team mate would get - 10 red and 10 blue territories. Why not make it all red. And Team 1 is RED. Team 2 is blue. They also get all blue territories.
Then we/they need a real strategy, what should each do, on each turn.
This way, we would create a much more realistic environment, where both of the players would need to co-operate and would avoid deadbeating in doubles/triples/quadruples games. Of course, I guess this type of games would play only skilled and true players, who can trust in the teammate.
Just to be honest, I missed the "freestyle" game type. It should be set to Sequential, as Freestyle would mess the whole concept of being "strategic". Or maybe not, but then both of players need to be online at the same time which can be easy in 2 vs 2 games but in 4 vs 4 probably impossible
dakky21 wrote:Just to be honest, I missed the "freestyle" game type. It should be set to Sequential, as Freestyle would mess the whole concept of being "strategic". Or maybe not, but then both of players need to be online at the same time which can be easy in 2 vs 2 games but in 4 vs 4 probably impossible
Yeah Freestyle wouldn't work - and would be messy!!
The main query for freestyle is - when a player takes his turn - he gets X armies... - if in Freestyle all 4 people took their turns at the same time - they'd get X * (upto)4 armies - with which they could annihilate the opposition...
So Freestyle games would simlpy be - first team to co-ordinate and go first = win.
dakky21 wrote:Just to be honest, I missed the "freestyle" game type. It should be set to Sequential, as Freestyle would mess the whole concept of being "strategic". Or maybe not, but then both of players need to be online at the same time which can be easy in 2 vs 2 games but in 4 vs 4 probably impossible
Yeah Freestyle wouldn't work - and would be messy!!
The main query for freestyle is - when a player takes his turn - he gets X armies... - if in Freestyle all 4 people took their turns at the same time - they'd get X * (upto)4 armies - with which they could annihilate the opposition...
So Freestyle games would simlpy be - first team to co-ordinate and go first = win.
dakky21 wrote:Just to be honest, I missed the "freestyle" game type. It should be set to Sequential, as Freestyle would mess the whole concept of being "strategic". Or maybe not, but then both of players need to be online at the same time which can be easy in 2 vs 2 games but in 4 vs 4 probably impossible
Yeah Freestyle wouldn't work - and would be messy!!
The main query for freestyle is - when a player takes his turn - he gets X armies... - if in Freestyle all 4 people took their turns at the same time - they'd get X * (upto)4 armies - with which they could annihilate the opposition...
So Freestyle games would simlpy be - first team to co-ordinate and go first = win.
C.
Thats exactly was Casual Freestyle Quad is now
This would be worse - as people would get the full bonus per team - not just a quarter of it.
Yes but I thought of getting 3 every round not 6 like in classic doubles games. This would be double player one team and the team as team would get 3 each round. It may be cool or even demanding to create a new style, where it would be doubles freestyle, where Only a team play together but they get only 1 bonus despite there are 2 or more players in the team.
I mean Team 1 from the picture - Player 1 and Player 2 get to play simultaneously but whoever starts the turn first of them, get the bonus for the whole team, the whole team has same cards, the whole team is just like now - one person playing with 3 players behind his back (who are giving advice, ideas etc)..
dakky21 wrote:Yes but I thought of getting 3 every round not 6 like in classic doubles games. This would be double player one team and the team as team would get 3 each round. It may be cool or even demanding to create a new style, where it would be doubles freestyle, where Only a team play together but they get only 1 bonus despite there are 2 or more players in the team.
I mean Team 1 from the picture - Player 1 and Player 2 get to play simultaneously but whoever starts the turn first of them, get the bonus for the whole team, the whole team has same cards, the whole team is just like now - one person playing with 3 players behind his back (who are giving advice, ideas etc)..
That could work though...
Imagine 3 people attacking on different fronts - would be pretty uber!!
I presume in sequential it would be far simpler to work...
Player 1 & 2 = Team 1 Player 3 & 4 = Team 2
Player 1 plays for team 1 Round 1 Player 3 plays for team 2 Round 1 Player 2 plays for team 1 Round 2 Player 4 plays for team 2 Round 2 Repeat as necessary
(Also this would open up the possibility of 32 player games (8 teams * 4 players) and octuples (Doubles with each player being represented by 2 players))
For freestyle a fix would be (in a 3 team game):
R1 - Player 1 of T1, P1 of T2, P1 of T3 R2 - Player 2 of T1, P2 of T2, P1 of T3 repeat as required
it can all be done. And a new style of battle royale would open, I'm on sjnap's side...
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict?
‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits
(4th Jan 2010)
dakky21 wrote:Yes but I thought of getting 3 every round not 6 like in classic doubles games. This would be double player one team and the team as team would get 3 each round. It may be cool or even demanding to create a new style, where it would be doubles freestyle, where Only a team play together but they get only 1 bonus despite there are 2 or more players in the team.
I mean Team 1 from the picture - Player 1 and Player 2 get to play simultaneously but whoever starts the turn first of them, get the bonus for the whole team, the whole team has same cards, the whole team is just like now - one person playing with 3 players behind his back (who are giving advice, ideas etc)..
Alternatively - it could be that the deployment oscillates aroudnd the teams...
e.g. 4 player doubles... Round 1 Player 1 & 3 get the bonus (i.e. the ability to deploy) Round 2 Player 2 & 4 get the bonus (i.e. the ability to deploy)
good idea but i think it should be were the terr were divide as if four ppl play
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
I am sure this would enhache gameplay and that players would be really happy to see this (at least long-term pairs who now play classic doubles, triples... together)
A new gameplay option where more than one player shares control of a single colour on a battlefield. The Host specifies how many Generals per colour when creating the game
Specifics/Details:
Same maps with same gameplay, and numbers of different colours up to 8 separate armies. However, Team Red can now be two or more players. When the game ticks around to that colour player, any on that Team can make the move when it's Red's turn (whoever gets there first). One player makes a move as normal then it's over to Team Green.
Option on freestyle speed games - this approach would work if you had some form of voice comms (teamspeak or ventrilo) with your partner. It'd be utter chaos but great fun! You would have to agree who gets what reinforcements but could then have a number of Generals doing simultaneous attacks along a broad front line - a co-ordinated surprise attempt to wipe out an opponent for instance.
Scoring could be tricky, base it either on who took the most turns in a side, OR make it fixed scoring i.e. everyone can only lose 20 points, and all points go into a kitty at the start of the game. I can hear the howls of protest on that one already lol, this needs more analysis and work if this suggestion gets accepted
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Utter chaos and fun in large speed maps (Imagine Hive with 3 generals per side on 8 colours of armies all attacking at once!)
If someone isn't available due to network problems, vacation, work commitments etc, you know that the rest of your team can take the turns for you so this won't hold up the game
Came across this and kind of liked it. It's basically 1v1 games, but with a team. Either player could take the turn. I'll keep it archived for now though.
It would be a big help to people who work for a living and can't take their turns every single day, but don't want to always be bugging someone to sit for them.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
Doc_Brown wrote:So, this would basically be a singles game where each player had a sitter every other round?
There wouldn't be every other round as you can play for both players, and your teammate can play for both players. You are both the same color and need to have some degree of communication and teamwork. It can get to 1v1 if only 2 people play, and the other 2 just making strategy, commenting and watching.
I want to play this now
