2 vs 2 variant

[Wakan Tanka]

Hello,

I would like to suggest implementing a variant of Djambi to play it in teams 2 vs 2. I know it's not an official variant of the game but I think it could be fun. Especially because Djambi is rather 'unfair' game. If 3 players decide to destroy the 4th player in the very beginning, there is nothing that could stop them. Of course, Djambi is designed to reflect political conflicts, so temporary alliances, treasons and backstabbing are the spirit of this game. However, I think it would be nice to have an alternative in the form of 2 vs 2 variant.

[Dice McFly]

agreed!

[faux]

I'm afraid that would break the game, due to diplomat parachuting. Unless you cannot use diplomat on ally, which makes it more or less useless.

[utharlepreux]

Reviving an old post due to lack of players. 2vs2 is perfectly playable I used to play it this way live eons ago. Beside it would make the game on BGA a bit more attractive….

[CosmickDebris]

That is typically against the spirit of the game.
I use to play the game when I was young, and I still have the original solid version (no, it is not for sale!).
We were a bunch of punks who like the bad games - none of us never played monopoly without steaching - and if one of you ever played "Junta" you know much better than micheal jackson what "I'm bad" means...
We really used to play together to all sort of "mind games" and so, every one of us know that the others were potentialy running the title of Evil Genius.
So, when the machiavel chessboard occurs, we burned a candle to his creator. Sure he was a son of the "Evil Prince" (The one in "The torture never stops" of Frank Zappa).
And of course, after a few attempts, the temptation to eliminate rapidly one of the opponents take place in our nasty deranged minds. But dispite the view of desolation's impersonation facing hilarious twits, we rapidly think that it was the low class version of the game.
Sure, it can happen that three players act together to eliminate the forth one but:
1) It means a previous connivence (players used to play together)
2) if they used to play so, it means a organised band
3) if it is an organised band , that means "a boss" (which is probably the usual winner) and two "Go for" to keep his shoes clean.
and...
The one of the three who take the risks (there's always one) is clearly the pigeon of the two others and will be the next to die and the interest for the two lasting guys is so small they 'd rather read some daniele steel's novel but...
Maybe they can't read...
Maybe the second like the idea that the boss is the boss and it's better to be the next than the last
Maybe the boss' sister is really pretty

in short, if you loose systematically against the same opponents, avoid to play them (there's a lot of books more enjoyable than daniele steel's ones).

The 2 against 2 is some kind of a "clean" version of a game which was created to be dirty and unfair. It is not made for nice people who don't care to win, because "it's more important to play than to win" If so, "Deliver the princess" is the kind of game that fits them much better... and this is the case where I usually decide to check if the boss' sister is that pretty...

[utharlepreux]

Implementing 2vs2 would'nt remove the "original spirit of the game" for what it may be. It just add an option for players with an experimentative and more cooperative mindset.

[CosmickDebris]

There can be only one....