3 Players versus each other... Is it possible?

[Yuki Sanada]

I thought about a game where 3 players versus each other: USA vs Germany vs Russia, but don't know if it'll work with the gameplay. Iniative rolls ect...

Anybody have any luck playing a 3 player versus game.

[Wittmann]

It's possible to have a free-for-all match but someone is bound to get ganged up on.

[Yuki Sanada]

Thanks for the quick reply.

Despite the double teaming, I was worried about moving and assaulting with three players on the same battlefield at the same time.

Who would get the inative & would the guy going last get totally wiped out?

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Treat initiative the same as you would normaly. Player with the highest decides if he wants to go first, second or third. The next highest player then picks from whats left and the remaining slot goes to lowest initiative. It could be possible to lose initiative and go first who knows...but regardless just pick slot 1,2 or 3 if you win initiative. Does that make sense to you?? If rerolls are necessary because of a tie if you were not first on the first roll you cant get first on your reroll, just higher than the guy your rolling against...unless all 3 get the same result that is. If the two highest are tied then roll to see whos first the last being the last to pick..got it?? I think this is a viable option for this type of game and I see no reason why more can't play also.

[Yuki Sanada]

True.

It could work then with 3 players. The more I think about it...everyone is going to have a chance to move before assault phase.

[Remember-OWS-]

Don't the first on the principal objective and you'll have a chance to win... I always to for it, it's in my gene and I get Wack many times by my opponent...

[Taisho_Alex]

We usually do it this way with regards to initiative:

Winner choses whether to go first or not.
Runner up then chooses to go first or not (second if winner went first)
If winner did not go first and runner up did, winner then decides whether to go second or last.

PLayer A wins initiative, player B is runner up and Player C loses init.

A Doesn't want to start.
B Does want to start - does moves
A Decides whether to go second or third
C goes whenever A or B doesnt' want to go


A declines starting
B declines starting
C starts
B goes second
A goes last (A declined to go before B)

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Any miniatures game I have ever played I have found a way to play multi-player. Its a sign of good game mechanics if you can scale it up. I hope I was some help and if you need any further instruction let me know and I'll get right back to you.

[Yuki Sanada]

Thanks General Blitz :)

What I'm thinking about for this game is having the U.S. player attack with a 400 point army.

Player 2: Germany also attacking with a 400 point army and I"ll control armies at seven objective points each army consists of 93 points.

Player 1 is essentially against player 2, but the objectives are defended by player 3.

Either player will win if they take 4 of the seven objectives or take 2 obj. and defeat each other.

Will this work? :confused: I'm still not sure, but considering it's a long wait to get my boyz together to play...I don't want to waste their time either.

[General_Blitzkrieg]

I would suggest one or two objectives with a "base objective" for each player. That way there are two objectives to fight over and the defense of your own base. I would award slightly more victory points for the main objective. For instance 25 pts for the base 50 for the objectives. This could make things very interesting with paratroppers or fast vehicles getting to your base. As a matter of fact may have to try this myself LOL.

[Yuki Sanada]

True.
Seven objectives might be too much. :eek:

What I had in mind is sort of what you described.

1) Germany has an 2 objectives held by the British.

2) USA has 2 obj. to take from the Japanese.

3) Russian holds 2 obj. that are blockades to your reinforements from entering the battlefield.
(if you take both Russian obj. ??? prize conditions! :cool:

4) China holds a 1 small obj. in the center of the board.

A. Any player can take any objectives, or should Germany only be allowed to take England, and U.S. only be allowed to take Japan. Russia and China are free for alls.

B. Reduce the number of objectives?

[General_Blitzkrieg]

I think my original suggestion would make play easier. Given 2 central objectives and each players "base" their is more than enough to fight over. If your looking to seperate your fight by theater then I suggest a seperate board and a seperate game. If you just want a free for all well then you got my suggestion. You could use more but I think it would make an easy game overcomplicated. I have always thought it would be nice to have 2 objectives in a game anyway to sort of break up the clusterf**ck that always seems to happen in the middle, especially in a multi-player game.

[shadowhooch]

All I got to say in this thread is GREAT name "Yuki Sanada" from Kessen.

My favorite PSII game of all time. It's like you are playing a movie. I couldn't stop.

Fukushima and the "Red Devil" were my 2 favorites in the game.

[Surfer_Sam]

I usually play 3v3 Clan Matches.
The format for playing clan matches in Scenario section

[Yuki Sanada]

I also agree.

2 central objectives. :cool:

I was confused by having each players "base" being an objective. That makes sense.

What is going to stop two players from "ganging up" on another then? :confused:

[Yuki Sanada]

Kessen is also my favorite game of all time too.

Fukishima rules!

[Yuki Sanada]

Thanks Surfer.
I read your scenario before I started this thread, but I wanted some input to see if this style of battle would work.

I am going to reread the Clan Matches though.

Thanx

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Well, ganing up is what makes the multi player game interesting...of course you can always have people on teams, 2 vs 2, 3vs3, 1 vs 2. It depends on how ugly you want things to get. Ganging up happens, but if its ruining someones fun than show a little sportsmanship.

[Surfer_Sam]

Any type of three on three game is fun. But I never play big games with one objectuive.

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Any type of three on three game is fun. But I never play big games with one objectuive.

This is why I suggest two objectives and possibly the use of "bases".

[Yuki Sanada]

True.

Its going to happen! :D

I do feel better about playing a 3 player game though.

Thanx for the input. :)

[Surfer_Sam]

This is why I suggest two objectives and possibly the use of "bases".

That's how I usually play

[General_Blitzkrieg]

Well, its good we here in the A&A community can finally agree on something LOL

[Surfer_Sam]

Well, its good we here in the A&A community can finally agree on something LOL

No we can't

[General_Blitzkrieg]

good point...we can't...but at least were tryin and not complainin LOL

[Remember-OWS-]

The group of friends I play with as come up with a interesting way to level up the game...

Multiple objectives:

3 to 4 players: 6 maps.

1 objective per map.
Choice of single country is done, then
You roll 1 die to see who will go first
1st player deploy on the map of his choice, normally a corner with some cover.
2nd, 3rd and 4th then deploy.

Then it's the run for objectives...
At the end of the casualty phase, the more objective you got the more points you get. We go for 5 pts/objectives.
You spawn you new unit on the road of you initial map.
You can save your pts for a future turn.

Paratrooper are a must, but Motorcycle too and even some Partisans are able to let you have a drive to the middle objectives.

End of turn 7... the player with the most objectives wins... A tie, you go for another turn up to turn 10.

We usually play with a 100 pts starting pool of units. 1 hero on the map maximum. If he dies, you can buy a new one to put next turn.

[General_Blitzkrieg]

I would have to agree with OWS on the 6 maps portion...always a good idea to add maps when you have lots of players...sorry I missed that one...used to playing on big 3d terrain maps.

[Athanasius]

How about two players play w/50 pt.s each and their opponent plays with 100?

[dredlox]

The best way I have found to play 3, and it always pops up in our games is to play scenarios that lend themselves to three players. Like the North Africa one I mentioned where the brits have taken the hill, the germans are attacking, and the British armor pops up on a die roll.

You just have each guy take one of those. So basically ones with reserves are the best

3 players in any kind of normal play is problematic. Somehow, I always get stuck playing 3 player games too in several games. I would say it's better to not even play than play 3, or really most multiplayers. Just makes people mad. I have played a lot of them and I dont like them

[Cruizin2000]

We play the Assault Scenario using three people. The defender gets the general 80 points and the attackers get 60 points apiece rather than one attacker getting 120 points - this has worked out just fine for us. I'm sure that you could double the points for both sides and use 2 more map panels. We use the same Assault Scenario map set up as well.

C2000