Whats best for team building games?

[racm32]

Hello All!

I run a historical wargaming club at the USAF base I am stationed at. I want to start organizing team building games for the different offices on base to sign up for. I'm trying to figure out what would be the best period, ancients-modern, to focus on and the style of game (team vs team, players vs GM). That is were I'd like your all's input. But here are some things to consider:
-Players will be generally unfamiliar with tabletop wargaming. Most will only have played games like Risk at best.

-Game length should be no more than 3 hours at most. We have days each quarter dedicated to team building so could run 1 game before lunch and 1 after. more if games are about 2 hours.

-Games were participants are split into two teams should not consist of factions that would be generally considered the "bad guys" in western culture. So no Civil War, WW2, ect... it could give a mental moral high ground to one side that detracts from the team building focus.
-Games were the participants are all on one team and GM/s run the opposition is not restricted to the above. So the players could be controlling modern US infantry vs Taliban run by a pair of GMs.

-I would prefer that the teams not have a command structure (ie one player controls the "general" and everyone else controls Divisions). The focus needs to be for the participants to work together. An overall general could be run by a GM to assist the players were needed.

-I'd like to be able to support 6-8 participants per game.

-Current Scale/Collection Limitations. Our current collection consist of mainly 28mm miniatures from the ice age, dark ages, black powder, ww1, and ww2. Also 20mm miniatures for Modern Middle East. However we are considering investing in a pair of armies from WoFun Games specifically for this purpose. https://wofun-games.com/index.php?route=common/home

[has.been]

Fist Full of Lead Rules are quick to pick up & don't have to have lots of figures.
You could use them for Baronial Wars (Middle Ages) Each Baron (player) is
out for himself, but must team play with either those for the king or the rebels.

Rebels & Patriots, the Jacobite rebellions. With possibly the 'Mr Babbage system from The Men Who Would Be Kings being used to control one side. Players are minor officers or Clan Chiefs (depends which side you want Mr Babbage to play)

Pony Wars, what with a kickstarter (here on LAF) for re-releasing the rules, and
a range of 6mm figures to boot. Each player gets 3 bases;-
B troop in col. of twos,  B troop dismounted (firing) & B troop wiped out.
The system runs the natives.

[Polkovnik]

I can think of two boardgames (so not tabletop miniatures games, although one is close) that are ideal for this sort of thing, but both are WW2:
Memoir '44 overlord - this is a team version of Memoir '44 with three of four players per team on a double width map. We've played a few games of this with three players per side and it works really well. It's light, easy to learn and get playing quickly.
Quartermaster General - this is a 3 vs 3 team game covering the whole of WW2 and takes about an hour to play. Again it's easy to learn how to play, although you need to play a few times to get familiar with the cards and start to get an understanding of strategy. It's very quick, card driven with no dice. It's also very good for learning about WW2.

[Arrigo]

Sorry to chime later... and I hope my input is still useful.

Now any kind of competitive game will be us vs them, and being war you can easy find fault on every side. I know people, including myself,  who had run games for the military who had no issue on teams playing the Germans or other 'bad guys'  (disclaimer... I heard a senior lecturer at RMAS singing peanas to the Waffen SS in Normandy...  ).  But I know there are right now issues and also some institutionalized approaches to consider. Anyway it is the USAF so neither Fort Hood nor Fort Bragg...

I would suggest to go for the team approach with all players on one side, basically using an adapted solo system.  This has several advantages. First you run the opposition as the referee/organizer (GM s so RPGs...  and sometime generates the idea the game is not serious) and you have the burden of the rules on yourself rather on the new players. Second you avoid the team vs team competition aspect. As much we like it, i have realized this is not good for team building (you are basically pitting people from the same office against each other...). Basically a solo system tends to be impersonal and so a little scary. Even better because with solo system you can have decent limited intelligence built in the system with minimum overhead of rules no need for honesty it also become more challenging. Years ago I tried solo cooperative wargaming with students, and all in all it was a better experience than competitive gaming from the social perspective, and also better on the learning side (military history). Once you have the players more confident with basic principles, and rules, competitive experience could be approached.

As for games in particular... probably some XX-XXI century experience could be better, it should capitalize on what the players are, supposedly, more familiar with. I think DVG games from the Leader series are perfect. Especially Hornet Leader, Phantom Leader, IAF Leader, Corsair Leader or Fortress leader. Sherman Leader is also a good choice.  They are map and counter games but easily adapted to miniatures (actually DVG also produces some set with GHQ or TD miniatures) . In the majority of air games you can simply assign a player per aircraft and have them running the planning and execution phases together. You just ran bandits and sites following the solitaire rules.  Single missions are quite quick to resolve so you can run several together.

my two cents.

[racm32]

Great feedback thank you!

[Thargor]

I know it's not in the list of genres that you have...but Zombicide is a great game where you have to co-operate to achieve the mission.  Zombies are game controlled, so all players are part of the same team of survivors.  As they learn the rules and progress you can take them to some of the scenarios from online that require 2 teams on separate tables, each required  to achieve an objective before joining up.

[warrenpeace]

"Science vs Pluck" sprang to mind for me. The game is set in Britain's struggle to control the Sudan, with the players being British officers, and the umpire controlling the enemy. I don't have a copy, but I should probably get one given that it's only $4.99 for a PDF download on Wargames Vault:

https://www.wargamevault.com/product/142718/Science-Vs-Pluck-3rd-ed

I've heard of the game being translated into other wars, and I notice you don't have figures for colonial Sudan. You could probably use the framework and concepts in the rules to make a game for the figures that you have. For that low price, you should buy a copy.

[Patrice]

"Argad!" works for Dark Ages, Medieval, and black powder skirmish adventures. The GM needs to be familiar with the rules but that's not required from players, and in fact the newbies often accept the simultaneous system more easily than well-seasoned wargamers.

Players can co-operate "against" the GM and you can also give each of them secret and slightly different objectives and/or informations if you wish. You need a very long table however, with lots of terrain elements if possible, it gives more impression of movement and it helps you to control the flow and duration of the game.