Thingol wrote:

Not sure why playing consecutively is a bad thing if it's the same for both sides? Is there a mental block there?

Yeah. It's counterintuitive to me. I mean, I wouldn't play chess that way.  Call me conservative, but the whole point of taking turns is, well ..to take turns.

personally, i've had some not-so-fair games with the ABBAABBA/snake turn order. Bs usually have an advantage in back to back pillaging not negated by standard 1st turn bias 

Let's see - the first time a team can take advantage of the back-to-back turns (ie- transferring troops which can be used in attacks by both players in the turn) is the B's first turn, but this is negated somewhat by the As having a first half-turn. As a person who makes it a point to be as objective as possible (which sometimes irritates some homers I watch football games with), I think this is as 'fair' as you're gonna be able to make a team game without going into the quirks of tiered starting bonuses or other radical ideas. If A's first player takes a turn and doesn't factor the back-to-back turns of the B's into consideration, than that's on him/her.

Now Weather, you can point to examples of seemingly unfair ABBA games. I'll wager you can also find a multiple of that in ABAB games if you looked.

btw, I find too many maps do 'nothing' to offset the ABAB advantage for the A's. In such games, if the Bs start off with the better luck factor, they have a chance to win. IF the A's start off with better luck, (player caliber anywhere near equal) it's pretty much game over.

I think ABBA leads to an even better teamwork effort and certainly would reward better strategical minds.

M57 wrote:

Makes a certain amount of sense for a first round I suppose, but who wants to play in a game where teammates play consecutively for the entire game?

 

I'd like to try it. Maybe I'll find it has drawbacks I haven't thought of.