Ever draft too well?

[DoesntCompute]

Have you ever drafted so well in a multiplayer game that everyone looked at you, looked at each other, and then proceeded to pummel you as a group until you were dead?

Both my opponents last night drafted swarm/squad armies and I drafted both Braxas and Q9. My opponents worked in great harmony until I was reduced to rubble and then went for each other.

It was a great reminder to me that multiplayer games are often more about the psycology than they are about the strategy. Be strong but not too strong. Defend yourself but don't appear to be a threat. Make it always look like attacking someone else is a better option than attacking you.

[shakey_snake]

Any 3 FfA player game is like that. You need an objective.

[daevablacc]

I like to put juicy glyphs and elevation in the center of multiplayer games. That way everyone tries to kill the one who claims the center, but they have a chance of losing b/c the one in the middle has such an advantage.

[K/H_Addict]

i dont draft very often, so my vote went to the third option.


sucks for you...i can never get me and 2+ peoples schedules to work to do a 3+ player game....

[toddrew]

It was a great reminder to me that multiplayer games are often more about the psycology than they are about the strategy. Be strong but not too strong. Defend yourself but don't appear to be a threat. Make it always look like attacking someone else is a better option than attacking you.

These components are exactly why I enjoy multi-player games. Usually go for good counter attacking armies that maximize the order markers when playing multi-player games - they usually don't appear too threatening, but still pack some punch.

But yeah, figures like Jotun, usually don't fare well :)

[Aranas]

Any 3 FfA player game is like that. You need an objective.

I agree. The first alternative that comes to my mind is "kill the player on your left". Works well but not that fun. Last 3 ffa game we had we tried this: There was a hex right in the middle of the map with a glyph of Brandar on it (with no effect). You get one point when you land on that hex or one point for each turn one of your fig stayed on it. It was fun. We had a time limit and it ended 0-5-5. With an objective like this one, the player with an advance in points will be ganged on but thats fair and fun.

[DoesntCompute]

Any 3 FfA player game is like that. You need an objective.

I disagree. Many of our games are 3 person ffa and we rarely have the problem of 2 ganging up on one for an extended period of time. We will often have two people attacking one when the one if overly powerful and will shift our attacks when someone else appears to be more powerful.

To avoid the gang up syndrome, you need to start with the map. A properly built 3 person map won't put one person in the position of being attacked exclusively because of positioning. In our group we attack those who are the biggest threat to us, the biggest threat to win the game, and those that we have an opportunity to attack. In this particular game, I was the biggest threat after the draft because if left alone I would have been able to decimate their armies. They both recognized it and correctly attacked me with a vengeance.

[Drumline3469]

Anything we play it's kill me first cuz I'm the biggest threat. I cannot play anything anymore with more than one person due to the fact that even if I drafted an army of dunds (I know this is impossible) I would be still be seen as the biggest threat and thus ganged up on and it pisses me off.

[shakey_snake]

Any 3 FfA player game is like that. You need an objective.

I disagree. Many of our games are 3 person ffa and we rarely have the problem of 2 ganging up on one for an extended period of time. then it sounds like you play with people not interested in winning. Regardless of the map, the 2 weaker people will always gang up on the other.

[toddrew]

I don't think this will veer too far off-topic, but I really like the mechanic of holding 'victory points' (played this way at Carravagio's and a few times since.) In a nutshell: designated hexes on the map must be held at the end of a determined number of rounds to garner points - highest total wins.

[Pilgrim]

I've played a lot of 3 player games, both with objectives and with a last-man standing format, and both work fine. In last man standing, we find the balance of power shifts a lot, alliance are made and broken repeatedly.

A great objective game is OPrime's "control the base" scenario.

Must gloat - the other day played a 3 player, 450 pt game with my son and his friend. All I drafted were Braxas and Jotun. My son and his friend eliminated about 130 points of each other, and I took out the 770 pts of their armies. Granted, I was playing against 7 year olds, but still . . . .

Jotun tossed Sudema, X17 and a microcorp agent into lava.

"It burns! It burns!"

[Marsman]

We usually play that for every figure you kill, you get it's point value. If you kill a squad, you divide the points by the number of figures in the squad. This encourages agression on all fromnst.

[Snotwalker 8000]

This whole topic thread is the reason why 3-player games are so much fun!! It's not so much about the strategy and tactics as it is about the psychology impact, political maneuvering, and hard-nosed negotiating. That's why we love 3-player games. half the fun is convincing another player that they are MUCH better off if they attack your other opponent's figs than if they attack yours... ;)

temporary cease-fires...
goal-oriented alliances...
persuasive arguments & bribes...
bald-faced threats and offensive posturing...

You gotta love it!! :)

SW8K

[jcb231]

In multiplayer games, which I don't play that often, I try to build maps such that everyone's starting zone is pretty easy to defend. That way folks are encouraged to march out and fight, which tends to lead to more royal rumbles and less ganging up.

I also tend to draft troops that allow me to pick off units from the sidelines while my opponents go at it. Deadeye Dan, Snipers, Syvaris, Saylind, etc. Shoot from afar or zip in and out, taking pot shots at weakened troops or loners.

[Aranas]

This whole topic thread is the reason why 3-player games are so much fun!! It's not so much about the strategy and tactics as it is about the psychology impact, political maneuvering, and hard-nosed negotiating. That's why we love 3-player games. half the fun is convincing another player that they are MUCH better off if they attack your other opponent's figs than if they attack yours... ;)

temporary cease-fires...
goal-oriented alliances...
persuasive arguments & bribes...
bald-faced threats and offensive posturing...

You gotta love it!! :)

SW8K

Yes, it is a little of that too with my friends! :lol:

[shakey_snake]

This whole topic thread is the reason why 3-player games are so much fun!! It's not so much about the strategy and tactics as it is about the psychology impact, political maneuvering, and hard-nosed negotiating. That's why we love 3-player games. half the fun is convincing another player that they are MUCH better off if they attack your other opponent's figs than if they attack yours... ;)

temporary cease-fires...
goal-oriented alliances...
persuasive arguments & bribes...
bald-faced threats and offensive posturing...

You gotta love it!! :)

SW8K<- not a fan of Diplomascape.

[LilNewbie]

Have you ever tried playing a game where you are only allowed to attack the player to your immediate left (or right)? That might be one way of balancing out a 3-player. Also it might be best to have a 1 on 2 fight where you decide point value for each team and the 2 player team splits the points to purchase their armies.

Newb.

[feekonea]

Whenever we do FFA's we make a truths not to gang up on each other. No alliances. But we also make 2 ways to win. the survivor, the person with his army standing @ the end off the game. and the destuctor, the person who destroyed the most points.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Have you ever tried playing a game where you are only allowed to attack the player to your immediate left (or right)? That might be one way of balancing out a 3-player.....
Newb.

Problem is then that you can't defend yourself against the person trying to kill you!

[DoesntCompute]

Have you ever tried playing a game where you are only allowed to attack the player to your immediate left (or right)? That might be one way of balancing out a 3-player.....
Newb.

Problem is then that you can't defend yourself against the person trying to kill you!

You make the winning condition the elimination of the person to your left. That way you can defend yourself but doing so too aggresively might give the game to someone else.

Another fun variation when you have 5 players is to make the winning condition the elimination of the 2 players not sitting next to you.

[Agent Minivann]

One time I drafted so well on my bike that I nearly rear-ended the bus when it got to the next stop. Man I was flying. Oh you mean THAT kind of drafting. Nevermind.

It was a true story though.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Have you ever tried playing a game where you are only allowed to attack the player to your immediate left (or right)? That might be one way of balancing out a 3-player.....
Newb.

Problem is then that you can't defend yourself against the person trying to kill you!

You make the winning condition the elimination of the person to your left. That way you can defend yourself but doing so too aggresively might give the game to someone else.


Oh, I have nothing against "kill the player to your left" games. Those create the challenging situation you described regarding defending yourself, but not too vigorously so that you don't inadvertently help the guy you're trying to kill to finish off HIS opponent.

However, the way it was described that I was responding too was the part about only being ALLOWED to attack the guy to the left... meaning you can't attack the guy to the right who's trying to kill you...

For my vote though, I still love the games where each player has a secret victory condition they roll for before the game starts.... not knowing what that condition is really increases the political intrigue in the game while you're trying to guess what condition your opponents are playing for, and trying to deny them possible conditions as you strive for your own. (ie: control 5 glyphs, control 2 bridges, finish off an opponent, finish off so many points worth of cards, etc...)