two against one rule changes?

[zerombr]

I was playing a modified scenario with two friends out of the castle set, where two allied armies try to take a castle from the third player, who naturally started out with many more points, we easily defeated him, afterwards he claimed that since we effectively got twice as many moves against him that simple turn order was killing him overwhelming him with 6 moves against his 3. Does anyone have a thought about that?

[toddrew]

Well, I don't know the particulars of the scenario, but having the castle should be an equalizer (side note, I played my son and a friend of his with 400 pts against their two 300 point armies and it wasn't close, but that's me beating up on an aggregate age half my own :lol: ).

EDIT: spelling

[DarkSpade]

to fairly do a 2 vs 1 game, you need to set it up as a 2 vs 2 with one player controlling 2 seperate armies.

[AmishBurrito]

to fairly do a 2 vs 1 game, you need to set it up as a 2 vs 2 with one player controlling 2 seperate armies.

I think this is still unfair. If one player is controlling two armies, that player can more easily coordinate between the two armies than the two players on their own. When playing this way at my place, the one person almost always wins, because he/she knows exactly what his/her other army is going to do.

[Bixby]

There was another thread on here that discussed the 2 vs 1 mechanic. The basic problem is not the army size but the number of activations that occur from the order markers as your friend discovered.

All other factors aside for a moment, the number of activations is a huge advantage. Army size is not nearly as crucial as number of activations.

Case in point, I would happily play a 400point army with two sets of order markers vs a 700 point army that had one set of order markers. It is a similar situation in three player games.

[DarkSpade]

to fairly do a 2 vs 1 game, you need to set it up as a 2 vs 2 with one player controlling 2 seperate armies.

I think this is still unfair. If one player is controlling two armies, that player can more easily coordinate between the two armies than the two players on their own.

The two players on the same team are allowed to talk to each other.

[toddrew]

Case in point, I would happily play a 400point army with two sets of order markers vs a 700 point army that had one set of order markers. It is a similar situation in three player games.

Even if the 700 point army held a castle? :lol:

Normally what you're talking about is clearly the case, but depending on the layout of the castle, I think it should be a fair fight for a straight 2 vs. 1 without monkeying with the turn mechanics.

[HPuppet]

We tried the same thing. 2 300 pint armies versus 1 500 point army defending the castle. The 500 point lost - by about a 100 point unit I think. I would make the two teams even next time.

The assaulting team has 2 players and thus twice the number of turns. But the defending player has the advantage of the castle - which is a basically to the advantage of having high ground. Those two things are pretty equal.

So a fair fight would be if player A and B assault the castle andeach of them get 300 points. Player C gets 600 points. And, if player C is smart he spends that on high powered units with ranged attacks.