3 vs 1! NEW GAME MODE!

[misterman10]

yeah that sounds like a good and interesting idea. Maybe need to look into the scoring system but i would play it if it was introduced

Rocketry

yeah, scoring system can be changed

[Jehan]

i like it, sounds good, but i think having so many armies on the ONE player and giving them as many turns as the other team, might be a bit too much of an advantage, but your right, with some tweaking this could be really fun and balanced.

[Rybal]

Actually, if you are going to alternate turns like that, the solo player has a much greater advantage.

I would suggest fewer to start with. If you are going to alternate, even having the same number of armies could be considered equal (or even giving the single player an advantage) for several reasons, some of which are below:

1. He would gain new armies at triple the rate of each of the other individual players (even though they are on a team).

2. He can more easily acquire continents because he doesn't have to worry about helping teammates.

3. What happens when he eliminates one of the other players? Does he still get 3 turns to 2?


Sure, he gets the other players to all gang up on him, but if it alternates, this advantage is largely nullified.

If you are going to start with 9 armies in each, keep it so that the individual player gets the same number of turns as the others do (so 1 turn for every four total). Also, make it so that he gains armies at the normal rate, but make sure he gets first turn. This would help the single player in a short game, but help the team in a longer game.

Even so, starting the game with 9 armies against 3 in each of the others is a bit too much of an advantage for the single player.

I say start him with 5-6 in each and treat the rest of it like a triples game where two teammates are deadbeats/disabled.

[misterman10]

Actually, if you are going to alternate turns like that, the solo player has a much greater advantage.

I would suggest fewer to start with. If you are going to alternate, even having the same number of armies could be considered equal (or even giving the single player an advantage) for several reasons, some of which are below:

1. He would gain new armies at triple the rate of each of the other individual players (even though they are on a team).

2. He can more easily acquire continents because he doesn't have to worry about helping teammates.

3. What happens when he eliminates one of the other players? Does he still get 3 turns to 2?


Sure, he gets the other players to all gang up on him, but if it alternates, this advantage is largely nullified.

If you are going to start with 9 armies in each, keep it so that the individual player gets the same number of turns as the others do (so 1 turn for every four total). Also, make it so that he gains armies at the normal rate, but make sure he gets first turn. This would help the single player in a short game, but help the team in a longer game.

Even so, starting the game with 9 armies against 3 in each of the others is a bit too much of an advantage for the single player.

I say start him with 5-6 in each and treat the rest of it like a triples game where two teammates are deadbeats/disabled.

good suggestions, i see your point, and i agree with some of this and disagree with some of it. Thanks for the opinion.

[zarvinny]

Also, the armies can be divided like a triple game to start out. Except the solo player starts out with all of his "team's" armies. so half the board has his armies, the other half has team 2's armies, divided amongst 3 players. And everytime 2 players from team 2 take their turn, player 1 takes his turn.

Until, of course, it becomes a 1 on 1, at which point that is what the game is.


I think we'll need some beta games to see what kinds of advantage/disadvantage this would cause to see how the points are distributed. But honestly, if it is really phun, the points won't matter as much, I hope.,...

[oran0007]

I actually think this favors the one player. the only way it would not, is if the team maneuvered it so that one of them held most of the borders to the one's territory, and the other two mainly fed that player the armies.

Also, the first turn of the one would be a total killer. I think that either that player gets only one turn, instead of three, or does not get the extra armies. If he/she only gets one turn, there would be much less incentive to use those nine armies per territory to dominate the game in the first turn. Think of a good drop, where the player gets five or six adjacent territories. I have seen it. This would be insane with unlimited forts.

I like the scoring, just not the rules.

[misterman10]

I actually think this favors the one player. the only way it would not, is if the team maneuvered it so that one of them held most of the borders to the one's territory, and the other two mainly fed that player the armies.

Also, the first turn of the one would be a total killer. I think that either that player gets only one turn, instead of three, or does not get the extra armies. If he/she only gets one turn, there would be much less incentive to use those nine armies per territory to dominate the game in the first turn. Think of a good drop, where the player gets five or six adjacent territories. I have seen it. This would be insane with unlimited forts.

I like the scoring, just not the rules.

Yes, now that I have thought of the idea for a few days I think you are right, but I think that the turns must be organized the way that I stated in order for the cards to stay equal. But I think it would be better if either the ONE had less armies per territory and more territories, OR maybe like 6 armies per territory.

Also, I am going to edit my first post into the official form.

[oran0007]

Maybe more territories, still only three per, and the turns you described. I think giving the one player so many armies is dangerous. More territories means more armies to deploy, but not an exorbitant amount. Also, it would mean that there would still be a normal first turn for that player.

[Rocketry]

to be honest im up for being able to choose the number of players per team. IE 4 vs 5, 1 vs 3, or 1 v 5 of you really wanted. Points calculated accordingly

[alster]

In order to win, The ONE must eliminate the three or the three must eliminate the ONE. The order of play would have to be the ONE, then one of the members of the three, then the ONE, and so on. This makes it fair card wise (The team of 3 could also start the game). The ONE gets his cards quicker, but the team of three will be able to deploy 3 sets in the same amount of time as the ONE deploys 3 sets. Like the current triples, the 3 team will be able to fort to each other.

The idea is interesting.

However, playing as the single guy, the other three would be killed off by round 9. They wouldn't be able to cash any cards.

It's difficult to get a balanced set of rules here. But, if playing as the single guy, taking turns between three other people - all you need to do is to use your army advantage over the individual players (3 v. 1) in order to kill them off one by one. Piece of cake.

[misterman10]

In order to win, The ONE must eliminate the three or the three must eliminate the ONE. The order of play would have to be the ONE, then one of the members of the three, then the ONE, and so on. This makes it fair card wise (The team of 3 could also start the game). The ONE gets his cards quicker, but the team of three will be able to deploy 3 sets in the same amount of time as the ONE deploys 3 sets. Like the current triples, the 3 team will be able to fort to each other.

The idea is interesting.

However, playing as the single guy, the other three would be killed off by round 9. They wouldn't be able to cash any cards.

It's difficult to get a balanced set of rules here. But, if playing as the single guy, taking turns between three other people - all you need to do is to use your army advantage over the individual players (3 v. 1) in order to kill them off one by one. Piece of cake.

Technically, yes, the ONE would be able to get 3 sets before the team gets even one. But by the time the ONE can get 3 sets of cards, each person on the team of three can cash in one set. So after three sets are played by the ONE, three sets can be played by the team of three

[Rybal]

Not necessarily. The solo player is guaranteed a card before the team is finished with it's second round, with another at every round after that. On the other hand, if the team is having really bad luck, they may not be able to cash in until round 6. Now, this could be beneficial in an escalating game, provided that they last that long, but otherwise . . . not so much.

[alster]

In order to win, The ONE must eliminate the three or the three must eliminate the ONE. The order of play would have to be the ONE, then one of the members of the three, then the ONE, and so on. This makes it fair card wise (The team of 3 could also start the game). The ONE gets his cards quicker, but the team of three will be able to deploy 3 sets in the same amount of time as the ONE deploys 3 sets. Like the current triples, the 3 team will be able to fort to each other.

The idea is interesting.

However, playing as the single guy, the other three would be killed off by round 9. They wouldn't be able to cash any cards.

It's difficult to get a balanced set of rules here. But, if playing as the single guy, taking turns between three other people - all you need to do is to use your army advantage over the individual players (3 v. 1) in order to kill them off one by one. Piece of cake.

Technically, yes, the ONE would be able to get 3 sets before the team gets even one. But by the time the ONE can get 3 sets of cards, each person on the team of three can cash in one set. So after three sets are played by the ONE, three sets can be played by the team of three

You're missing my point. Simply put: I'll play single against you and your two closest friends (with the game idea as posted above) - I'll kill you all off before anyone of you are even close to cash in.

[misterman10]

In order to win, The ONE must eliminate the three or the three must eliminate the ONE. The order of play would have to be the ONE, then one of the members of the three, then the ONE, and so on. This makes it fair card wise (The team of 3 could also start the game). The ONE gets his cards quicker, but the team of three will be able to deploy 3 sets in the same amount of time as the ONE deploys 3 sets. Like the current triples, the 3 team will be able to fort to each other.

The idea is interesting.

However, playing as the single guy, the other three would be killed off by round 9. They wouldn't be able to cash any cards.

It's difficult to get a balanced set of rules here. But, if playing as the single guy, taking turns between three other people - all you need to do is to use your army advantage over the individual players (3 v. 1) in order to kill them off one by one. Piece of cake.

Technically, yes, the ONE would be able to get 3 sets before the team gets even one. But by the time the ONE can get 3 sets of cards, each person on the team of three can cash in one set. So after three sets are played by the ONE, three sets can be played by the team of three

You're missing my point. Simply put: I'll play single against you and your two closest friends (with the game idea as posted above) - I'll kill you all off before anyone of you are even close to cash in.

No, I see what you mean, by the time that the team of 3 gets a chance to cash in its already over, and a solution to this problem is a different way of ordering the turns, what do you suggest should be the turn order?

[spiesr]

There is a decent chance that one of the three would be dead before round 2, if the one uses his three turns to just kill him.

[dcowboys055]

Wouldn't the one win almost every time due to the armies per territory bonus and him/her going every other turn with that bonus?

[jako]

this is m suggestion;

1. the ONE and the THREE noth start out with the same number of territories or as close to it as possible

2. the turns will be alternating like in the original post, with it going THE ONE, then one of the THREE, then THE ONE, and so on

3. the ONE starts off with 5 troops per territory, and the THREE starts of with 3 troops per territory

4. the ONE gets 2 starting troops, and the THREE gets 3 starting troops

5. the ONE CANT CASH for 5 turns, while the THREE still follow normal cash rules, so that way, it ensures that the ONE cant cash his cards in early and kill everyone off

comment all u like on my suggestions, i know they arent the best

[Spritzking]

well cant you find some people in real life to test some options?

[alster]

Wouldn't the one win almost every time due to the armies per territory bonus and him/her going every other turn with that bonus?

Yes. (Or atleast if this one they call "the one" would play decently good.)

My point exactly. Come here and let me hug you!

[alster]

this is m suggestion;

1. the ONE and the THREE noth start out with the same number of territories or as close to it as possible

2. the turns will be alternating like in the original post, with it going THE ONE, then one of the THREE, then THE ONE, and so on

3. the ONE starts off with 5 troops per territory, and the THREE starts of with 3 troops per territory

4. the ONE gets 2 starting troops, and the THREE gets 3 starting troops

5. the ONE CANT CASH for 5 turns, while the THREE still follow normal cash rules, so that way, it ensures that the ONE cant cash his cards in early and kill everyone off

comment all u like on my suggestions, i know they arent the best

Mmm... just remember ya'll who are posting suggestions/modifications that the underlying code of the game engine presently only allows for certain map modifications.

With respect to your suggestions - Again, I like the idea. But I'm pretty sure that even with your modifications, this man they call "the one" would easily be able to kill off the three person team before round 9.

[oran0007]

Mmm... just remember ya'll who are posting suggestions/modifications that the underlying code of the game engine presently only allows for certain map modifications.

With respect to your suggestions - Again, I like the idea. But I'm pretty sure that even with your modifications, this man they call "the one" would easily be able to kill off the three person team before round 9.

I suggested a long time back, that the rules stay as they are, just that the one gets only three per territory. I think that it would be balanced this way.

[n8freeman]

one idea with the cards would be that the team shared the cards


just a thought, brainstorming here