It's bad enough in single-player games to go later in the turn order (most maps don't deal with this advantage fairly), but it's doubly bad in team games when your partner also goes behind others.

In team games, why not reverse the turn order for the teammate in symmetrical fashion?

(ie - 2-player team games would go ABBA for teams A and B).

Wow... A double whammy approach... I don't think that would work well for any board with capital eliminations.  For instance, on a board like invention, -BB- or A--A would provide two consecutive runs at eliminating one of your opponents without a chance to adapt between the runs.  That said, I think it's perfectly fine with ABAB as the ramping card scale makes up for it in the long run so long as team B can make it despite the turn discrepancy through to the first round of trades...

With well-designed boards (for instance with altered first round per/territory bonuses when necessary) this shouldn't be nearly as much as an issue.  Moral of the story: play boards that are fair in the first place.

Not sure either of you are thinking this through deeply enough.

There are positives and negatives to either approach and both should be considered.  Berick, what are the 'positives' of having an ABBA order?  Once you can tell me that, then I'll know you've thought things through.  Otherwise, your answer just appears to me to be the knee-jerk response.

Certainly, one can admit that going 2nd and 4th is a disadvantage to going 1st and 3rd, right?  Can we start there?

I thought I told you a positive for ABBA, I could team with players in the know and eliminate my opposition from capital elimination boards really quick! ;-)

That said, I tend to pick to play team games on boards that don't suffer so much from 1-3 versus 2-4.  When I first devised strategies for 2v2 civil war, for instance, I preferred 2-4 to 1-3, though, as others have mimicked my strategy it has evened out a lot more and perhaps 1-3 is slightly advantageous again when playing players who "get" the strategy.  For 3v3v3v3 civil war, and the like, though I definitely prefer being 4-8-12 because the card trades are way more important down the line.  I have been playing a lot of 2v2 invention of late and I notice no appreciable advantage to 1-3 there.  It's pretty even no matter first or second.  For CC I definitely prefer getting to go 1-3, though that board also has its own quirks that can give strategic players advantages, just look at Gen Monty and VIKTORY in team tournament games.  That one is their bread and butter!  2v2 blind antastic definitely has strategies that can be exploited that make 1-3 versus 2-4 less relevant unless playing against players who get the strategy there.  Even then, placement, luck and mitigating mistakes will probably have more to do with winning then 1-3 versus 2-4.  I tried to get into 2v2 anarchy recently but people don't join those.  I'm not sure on 1-3 versus 2-4 for that one yet?

Thingol wrote:

Certainly, one can admit that going 2nd and 4th is a disadvantage to going 1st and 3rd, right?  Can we start there?

I don't think this is a given. Card scale was mentioned as the balance.

Then can a special rule be put in place to allow ASM to always go last (so he can take advantage of that additional army or two)? 

Thingol wrote:

Then can a special rule be put in place to allow ASM to always go last (so he can take advantage of that additional army or two)? 

sign me up for that special rule for 3v3v3, 3v3v3v3, 3v3v3v3v3, 4v4v4 & 4v4v4v4 civil wars to go last!  Definitely a slight advantage to going last in those set-ups.  Works out to be a heck of a lot more then an army or two!

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1735/Seat_assignment_in_Team_games

Cool.  Thanks for the link to that thread Amidon. 

I'd have to agree with Boris' arguments.  In my 4 team tourney games on Invention, we have gotten blown out twice when we went 2nd and cruised to 2 easy victories when we went first.  In our 5th game now, we went 2nd, so let's see how that plays out.

Now, I've had one other team game on the map, an open game, in which KD and myself went 2nd and still beat Baruquisha/Willy Wonka, but a) we got really good luck that game and b) we made some very clever moves.  And even then, it felt like quite an effort that could turn against us any turn where our luck dissipated.

As for M57s first response to the effect of 'avoid these maps', it's really not realistic as it's one of my favorite maps, albeit for single-player purposes.

Now, as for the back-to-back turns giving someone a huge advantage, I don't buy that.  Why do I feel that way?  From personal experience.  I've played many a game where that was the setup and never recall feeling that the back-to-back turns was a deciding factor.  I did feel lowsy while my opponents were taking back-to-back turns, but then that swung back my way when my team took it's turn. So - both sides get back-to-back turns.

In that same tournament my team is 1&1 from the 1-3 positions and 2&0 from the 2-4 positions, so, I'm not seeing the same, though, small sample size that is.

In my regular team invention games I have a 47&2 record.  One of those losses was in a 2v2v2 barbarians so I only have one loss at 2v2 default invention and that was... from my team being in the 1-3 positions...  Much larger sample size and it's still not showing any kind of 1-3 preference in my games played.  I think that for the invention board there are many more important factors then 1-3 versus 2-4 to take into account, so, for the purposes of your argument you might consider focusing on a different board?

As for Boris' thread and argument, I couldn't disagree more and especially for the large game example he gave.  Large player games are usually played on large boards like civil war.  Players' territories are scattered everywhere and eliminating any one player early on is easier said then done.  The cards ramp QUICKLY and before you know it, it is the later players that are reaping the benefit of their position and their team is getting 6*4=24 more troops per trade round in 4v4v4v4 then the team that went first!  Usually the board is still spattered, even by the fifth round of play, in a 16 player game and those 24 additional troops are huge!  I already said I would gladly have my team go last in such games, and I stand by that.

I dunno what I think, but, berickf, you're a poor example to base your argument on. I.e., you're too good, you win all the time anyway. 

I do think for some simple (low territory count) maps the team order is a killer, like WGWF.

smoke wrote:

I dunno what I think, but, berickf, you're a poor example to base your argument on. I.e., you're too good, you win all the time anyway.

lol

How about a handicap for berickf?

I haven't seen terriblethunderlizards in ages and he's one of my mainstay allies for large civil war games.  Now, imagine if you handicapped me and in so doing him... He'll never come back!

I can't even imagine playing something like a 4v4v4v4 on WGWF.... That's a lottery, not a game!

And though I don't think I have ever tried that particular set-up, I still can't help wondering if the quickly escalating cards might still give advantage to later seats.  After all, usually WGWF goes to cascade based on card trades...

Even if you think I'm a poor example, you still have to admit I've played a lot of team games!  I've also won many of those games from what are being construed as the "less desirable" seats as well...

Even if you think I'm a poor example, you still have to admit I've played a lot of team games!  I've also won many of those games from what are being construed as the "less desirable" seats as well...

I have to agree with smoke.  You are a poor example to use for analysis' sake...I don't care how many times you say otherwise.   And as far as card sets, as someone wrote earlier, if a player was so concerned about the sets, he/she could simply place units and end turn once to get a bigger set.