a 3-way

[ochoin]

Keep your mind on wargaming, please. I'm raising the issue of having 3 players in direct competition.

I've got a game on, tomorrow. Late Antiquity using our modified 'War & Conquest' rules. There'll be 4 of us - 2 taking command of the Late Romans, 2 in charge of the barbarians (Hun/Goth/Samartians). Two sides, one winner. Everything's organised & ready to go. Not very "cutting edge" - we're still learning the rules.

However, as I look at the collection, I see I have about 20 barbarian units & nearly 40 Roman. Of course, over 20 units of Romans will remain their storage containers for sake of a fair game. Not for this game, but in future, how do you (can you?)run a game with 3 sides? I have, on occasions had 3 players on the same side with different objectives (our recent Zulu Wars Show game for example) but I mean discreet & separate commands in DIRECT competition with each other.

I have tried this twice &, inevitably, 2 ganged up on one. Short game, not much fun or challenging for any of the participants.

Is there anyway to manage a 3 way....wargame.

donald

[goat major]

Embrace the 2 ganging up so have the force's in the ratio 2:1:1 where both the small forces are the enemy of the larger force. They must gang up. However have victory conditions where only one of them can be the ultimate victor.

Or have the bigger force attacked on 2 opposite sides. The smaller ones are both fighting the big guy but they cant actively collaborate because of the distance.

Or have a very specific objective grab type affair. All 3 in direct competition but only the force that holds the (temple/bridge/beer store) etc at the end can win. You'll get temporary ganging up but it won't make sense to be too cosy.

[ochoin]

There's a wealth of ideas. Thanks, GM.
I hadn't thought of making unequal forces.....years of bike riding sans helmet.

'War & Conquest' really asks you to use character traits & tailored scenarios so, once we feel comfortable with the rules, I can see how I can put it all together.


donald

[Spanner]

All 3 in direct competition but only the force that holds the (temple/bridge/beer store) etc at the end can win. You'll get temporary ganging up but it won't make sense to be too cosy.

GM's idea works, Ochoin. We had quite a few three, and sometimes four, sided games in our club, mainly with Saga. A single, well defined objective for victory (including a turn limit or people can be too cautious and the game drags on) worked best. The "threesomes" saw some really enjoyable games, with plenty of temporary alliances, back-stabbing and even three armies sitting and waiting for someone else to move first (and no winners, as the all-in brawl saw us forget the objective). The winners generally were the players who could take best advantage of the terrain and hold off the enemy while they drove for the objective.

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

I've seen, but not played in, three-way ECW games, where the third side was composed of (well-armed) Clubmen, who had the local area to protect, whilst the two "mainstream" armies had mutually incompatible objectives, none of which boded well for the local civilians. The Clubmen can, if they wish, join whichever side they think might be inferior, and create a likely chance of that side winning, but the Clubmen then have to deal with their erstwhile ally afterwards - hence picking the weaker side. Or they can hold back and see which one survives the military tussle and then get stuck into the survivors (you can make this more problematic by making the objectives of the two warring parties highly detrimental to the Clubmen, so they have decide whether or not to pick a side to avoid their community being left destitute).