Changes to Teams

[Shinanygnz (OP)]

Steve

A bunch of us have asked in the past about assigning members in and out of teams and you didn't want to due to mechanics/programming issues.  However, how about this?
Treat a team like a task force command staff, so you have a team leader and then four members under them.  You could then have multi-skilled teams and you can pull out experienced members so they can then lead their own teams.  It also leaves the members subject to all the normal officer rules like health, promotion, auto-reassignment, etc.

Cheers
Stephen

[SteveAlt]

Steve

A bunch of us have asked in the past about assigning members in and out of teams and you didn't want to due to mechanics/programming issues.  However, how about this?
Treat a team like a task force command staff, so you have a team leader and then four members under them.  You could then have multi-skilled teams and you can pull out experienced members so they can then lead their own teams.  It also leaves the members subject to all the normal officer rules like health, promotion, auto-reassignment, etc.

The reason I don't want flexible teams is more a game design/mechanics issue. At the moment, placing people in teams has a downside. You lose the officer who is transferred to the team and you also reduce the overall officer pool, which in turn reduces the number of available senior officers. You also need to decide whether to form a team with the officers currently available, perhaps using up 2-3 good officers and 2-3 mediocre ones or wait to see if better officers graduate.

If officers can be moved in and out of teams, there is no downside. You could have as many teams as you wanted with no penalty and you would never have to wait. It takes away a couple of important game decisions.

Steve

[Shinanygnz (OP)]

I see your point, but I can't see a "realistic" reason for unbreakable teams.  It's no different to any other assignment (IMO of course).  Of the top of my head, here're some counter-balances for having reassignable team members...
Penalties associated with moving people in and out, as part of their skill levels will be in the interaction with other team members.  So a team could have it's base skill level (everyone's totalled abilities) plus an increasing over time skill bonus but then drop that down like when a ship changes task force.  If the team is not actively working on a job, then it's bonus skill points either don't improve or deteriate a a given rate.
Add something like the Intrepid Explorer's Peril Possibility for various teams, e.g. cybernetic team activates ancient security systems wounding or killing members, diplomacy team manages a big blunder (skill drop, possible dismissal, execution/imprisonment by locals), etc.
If you put a ranking system on the teams, e.g. team leader Rx others must be Rx-1 or lower, then the teams can be forced to break up after promotions too.
If you allowed multi-skilled teams, set their primary role to one and all other skill areas are half skill.  Though I think you're right that would probably be too flexible.  Maybe you could have a cost associated with creating a team (support staff, equipment, etc.) and if you wanted it to do a different job it'd have to be "retooled".
Stephen

[Steve Walmsley]

I see your point, but I can't see a "realistic" reason for unbreakable teams.  It's no different to any other assignment (IMO of course).  Of the top of my head, here're some counter-balances for having reassignable team members...
Penalties associated with moving people in and out, as part of their skill levels will be in the interaction with other team members.  So a team could have it's base skill level (everyone's totalled abilities) plus an increasing over time skill bonus but then drop that down like when a ship changes task force.  If the team is not actively working on a job, then it's bonus skill points either don't improve or deteriate a a given rate.
Add something like the Intrepid Explorer's Peril Possibility for various teams, e.g. cybernetic team activates ancient security systems wounding or killing members, diplomacy team manages a big blunder (skill drop, possible dismissal, execution/imprisonment by locals), etc.
If you put a ranking system on the teams, e.g. team leader Rx others must be Rx-1 or lower, then the teams can be forced to break up after promotions too.
If you allowed multi-skilled teams, set their primary role to one and all other skill areas are half skill.  Though I think you're right that would probably be too flexible.  Maybe you could have a cost associated with creating a team (support staff, equipment, etc.) and if you wanted it to do a different job it'd have to be "retooled".
Stephen

Some good ideas. I like the idea of a team bonus that disappears if the team gets broken up. The IEPP for cybernetic teams would work well, or I could have a success chance for each recovery so a low-skill team might wreck the installation instead of recovering it. Its already not a good idea to use low skill archaeology teams because they will not get the best out of ruins and low-skill geology teams will risk missing out on useful minerals. With these suggestions, I think flexible teams are probably workable. Leave it with me for now and I will put it high on my to do list.

Steve

[Shinanygnz (OP)]

Cool.
As the colonials who follow that strange Scottish game that ruins a good walk like to say, "you da man"  
Many thanks old bean
Stephen