Conceding Territories To Teammates

[drunkmonkey]

I suggested the "perfect rolls" idea to avoid "Hey, we got a bad drop, but if we trade territories, we're in control". If your teammate has to lose all troops in territories he's conceding, you actually have to weigh which is more important: keeping the troops, or taking the territory for yourself. With the other concession ideas, there's no penalty to just trading territories at the beginning of the game to get the best position possible.

[DoomOmen]

Last two posters make it seem like both teams aren't able to concede. I'm pretty sure the amount of concessions teammates can make will balance out for both teams. The more territories you have adjacent to your teammate, the less adjacent spaces you have to enemies, meaning they, too, have more adjacent spaces to their teammate. The drop is significant whether this suggestion is implemented or not, but this suggestion, if implemented, will not negatively affect or make the drop any more or any less significant.

A lot of ideas seem to get shot down because people say it's unfair, but all the rules apply to all the players and they all benefit and are all disadvantaged by them.

If your teammate has to lose all troops in territories he's conceding, you actually have to weigh which is more important: keeping the troops, or taking the territory for yourself.

This situation already occurs in team games. If you are weak and in danger of being eliminated, it may not be a good idea to reinforce your teammate with your troops, but if you have plenty of strength, it's no problem. Whether you have to be attacked by your teammate or if you can just give your teammate troops makes no difference in this regard.

[fumandomuerte]

This will kill a big part of the strategy involving teammed games imo.

[DeadCenter]

For those opposed - it could even be set up as one of the GAME OPTIONS when starting a team game. That way, those in favor can select it and those against can play by the original team rules. As for me, I'm definitely in favor!

[DoomOmen]

This will kill a big part of the strategy involving teammed games imo.

I don't see how. Maybe you could explain. What is strategic about killing teammates? The only argument I can fathom is that having to hit your teammates to take their territory makes you contemplate the situation and whether or not it is prudent to hit and weaken your teammate at the moment, but I would much spend all our combined efforts on the enemy and not on whether or not we should hit each other.

I think the opposite. I feel that the less time we spend on killing our teammates, the more time can be spent on the real strategy of eliminating the enemy.

[jrh_cardinal]

I'll admit I haven't read every post thoroughly because they are all so long, but I don't think this would work.
If you don't put limits on the amount of concessions per turn, then it would be impossible to eliminate someone if you are the other team (assuming the player is smart and protects his teammates adjacent terits), which is a huge aspect of winning the team game. Once the game is down to 2 on 1, 3 on 2, or 4 on 3, the team with the extra man has a huge advantage. If a player was able to give his cards to his teammates, no one would have an advantage, even though the other team went through a lot of work and armies to eliminate the player. Also, this would cause problems with the max of 5 cards at the start of your turn rule, as players would be getting cards when it wasn't their turn.
If you were to make a bunch of limits and such, then the rule becomes too confusing and hard, and completely changes the teams game in a different way, because there would be a whole new strategy to keeping all of your teammates terits over 10, etc,etc that takes away from what team games are about in my opinion.

[fumandomuerte]

This will kill a big part of the strategy involving teammed games imo.

I don't see how. Maybe you could explain. What is strategic about killing teammates? The only argument I can fathom is that having to hit your teammates to take their territory makes you contemplate the situation and whether or not it is prudent to hit and weaken your teammate at the moment, but I would much spend all our combined efforts on the enemy and not on whether or not we should hit each other.

I think the opposite. I feel that the less time we spend on killing our teammates, the more time can be spent on the real strategy of eliminating the enemy.

One should avoid taking teammates territories unless it becomes necessary. This new way of playing teammed games (specially doubles) will give all the advantage to the first team taking turn.

[DoomOmen]

JRH:
It has been discussed that we limit the amount of concessions per turn. I would suggest it be limited to two or three; probably two. I would also suggest that a player not be able to concede his last remaining territory, which would go a long way in preventing a player giving his last territory, and thus cards, to his teammate. If a player concedes all of his territories to a teammate except his last, he runs the risk of allowing the enemy to eliminate him more easily since the enemy gets to go before his teammate. Now a player could concede all but his last territory to a teammate and maybe the enemy can't reach that last territory because he is too far away or the player is protected by his teammate too well or perhaps the enemy that went between those players has been eliminated already, but that is all part of the strategy.

One should avoid taking teammates territories unless it becomes necessary. This new way of playing teammed games (specially doubles) will give all the advantage to the first team taking turn.

The first team to go always has the advantage. By the time the second person of a team goes, he has already been reinforced by his teammate who took the first turn. This makes who goes first no less or more important. The only change is that now this person doesn't have to attack his teammate.

[TheForgivenOne]

Rejected many a time