We have dynamic alliances for FFA's, so could we have them for team games? Treat each team as one entity, and have them be able to function otherwise as if it's an FFA?
I still want completely seperate layers of army control. Where you can choose how many players and coms per "army", how many "armies" per team, how many "teams" per game. This way, you could have 1 team with 3 coms and 2 armies and 4 players, 1 team with 4 players and 3 armies and 4 coms, 1 team with 4 players and 1 army and 4 coms, 1 team with 4 players 4 armies and 4 coms, and 1 team with 2 players 2 armies and 4 coms. Any diversity you could imagine. Example also shows different loss requisites, the minimum amount of coms you must retain per army. Makes it possible to have 3 coms per team but teams must keep 2 coms. So, they have to defend all of them well, losing just 1 isn't tragic but could even be used as a combomb, but you can't risk losing 2. I already see more problems with it since it's so old, but hey, that just means it has actually gotten better since. So that's good.
It'd be even cooler once we can host more than 10 players total. Imagine 10 teams of 2 with the dynamic alliance.
How would that work in public games? What if one player wants to ally with black team and another doesn't? How do they decide? Also if one player isn't communicating and both players need to press the button to ally, it won't work.
If not share army, each individual in a team can ally freely. If share army, there should be a vote for every player that is online(if someone leaves or is afk for too long, or has crashed, they counts as offline. Also in share army there needs to be some sort of communication anyways). EDIT: Made my reply clearer
