New 3-nation 3-allegiance FA game -- interested?

#1

FA game 47 has just ended! I was in that for some time before being defeated, but it was the most fun game of FA I’ve ever played – except for the one before it with the same variant, which was even more fun because my side won that one :slight_smile: )

It is a gunboat variant with 3 allegiances, every player having three nations, each nations in a different super-regions (south, northwest, northeast). The neutrals must stay neutral of course, and there are only two neutral teams – each made of a kingdom plus two other nations, vs. 3 FP and 3 DS teams, for 24 nations in all. It is a blast!

WOW, what a game it was! And yes, it isn’t fun to be among those who get clobbered first so not for the faint of heart. Just remember, creating a good setup is EVERYTHING!

So now, some of us are up for another! There are some details to be worked out, but what we need are players who are up for the challenge! (Experienced FA players only is suggested.)

Let us know if you are interested!

Jeremy

1 Like
#2

Rob and I have been discussing it. Right up until the end (which had a very unsatisfactory conclusion I might add) it was one of the best games of ME I’ve played in.

I believe that we want to amend the rules slightly for the next 3-way to remove the problematic end that befall G47 and I’d also want a new rule that specifies GB being GB (i.e. a single player cannot take on more nations than are allowed under that GB variant). So if its a 3 nation GB they cannot control any more than 3 nations during any point in the game. Having one player play an entire faction is not something I approve of in GB when the opposition are still under the 5 turn diplo only rule.

#3

Hey Gavken,

I’ve been thinking about the rule that caused he end of the game. The thing is, the neutrals start with only 6 nations. If the Kingdom’s didn’t receive a +1 to each toward the count, the current rule about game ending when one team has more nations than the other two put together would disadvantage the neutrals too much.

Normally in two-allegiance GB, the game is over once one team has a ratio of 3:1 in nation numbers, as I understand it.

Without penalizing the neutrals for starting with fewer nations, what other game-end conditions would you propose? Personally I’d like something other than requiring a strategic victory.

Regarding the second issue of having one player be given the dropped nations, again I would ask what would you propose in the event of something similar happening, i.e. one of the neutrals playing 3 nations dropped. I don’t know if Clint made an effort to find a replacement but FA players are fewer. Let’s assume he did but didn’t find anyone. So what would you propose in that situaiton; should those nations be dropped, in which case the other neutral may as well drop too? Or the game put on hold until a new player is found? It is a bad situation with no desirable way to handle it. I hated it that the same player got to pick up the positions and therefore be able to wipe out my northern nation. But I can’t think of any other way for it to be handled.

I do think that in such situations, I would like to see a special email going out explaining what happened, to all players, as it is easy to overlook the way the grouping are expressed in the front sheet. And though I appreciate Clint’s point that some GB players are playing GB because they don’t want the communication and coordination of a regular game, but the players should be each given the choice in that case whether they want to be put in touch with their allies.

All that said, I think we have either 3 or 4 players interested in taking on a 3-nation game, and we need 8 in total. Know anyone else? :slight_smile:

Jeremy

Jeremy

#4

Count me in, Jeremy. 4th age is my new favorite scenario. And the 3-allegiance format sounds interesting.

#5

Awesome! I’ve lost track but I think that makes it 4, which is half of what we need. Anyone else interested?

BTW one rule I would change is in the setup. Still go with 3 super-regions and each player gets on region in each super-region, BUT I would disallow the same player getting East Mordor and Khand. In both games it turned out to be far too powerful.

Jeremy

#6

Jermy - there’s two things I would suggest to avoid the farcial end of Game 47.

  1. I understand that the Neutrals start at a disadvantage at game start, but the early help of the super nations really helps keep the other neutral nations in. Later those super nations become effectively the same as a normal nation as things equalise out, so if you’re going to count them as double, I would have the rule as something like if there are three more nations of one allegiance than the combination of the other two then they can claim a win. That way there is a bit more certainty that the allegiance with the most nations will win.

  2. I don’t mind take overs to help the game out, but I’d want a rule stating that one player couldn’t play more than 3 nations to keep this as this is gunboat (the Gunboat is Gunboat rule). I’d not want any more super blocks in an essentially a gunboat game. If an allegiance is getting hammered then the team winning shouldn’t be penalised for effectively creating a win. If Clint cant find a replacement from within this rule then the nations will die as in any game.

  3. I’d agree that the super regions need looking at. They were definitely NOT balanced in Game 47 and I’d say that the FP were really disadvantaged there. I don’t think East Mordor and Khand were the only examples of issues here.

Gavin

#7

Gavin, I get the level of disappointment you experienced, and I’ve had my share of those.

The only thing I DON’T understand is, are you proposing that in our game, the three neutral nations, assuming there was no other player to pick them up, should have been dropped? In that case, the game would have immediately ended per the rules and the DS would have won. I’m not saying that would have been wrong. What I’m asking is, is that really what you would have preferred, if those were the only two options?

Jeremy

#8

Err no Jeremy. The game is a three way 9 vrs 9 vrs 8(6nations two of which are kingdoms). If a neutral drops then it is still 9 vrs 9 vrs 4(1 kingdom) which means neither nation would win here.

Hypothetically in our game if it was 6 DS vrs 2 FP vrs 4(1 kingdom) then its would still not be a win. as its 6 DS vrs 6 (2FP and 4 Neutral). If the other neutrals all drop then its 6 DS vrs 2 FP and the DS win this.

I hope that explains the way I see it. It needs to be a clear victory and this stops 5 neutral nations (2 Kingdoms) giving effective 7 Neutrals from beathing 6 DS nations which would otherwise be the case. Having a minority of nations ‘winning’ the game just seems wrong to me.

Gavin

#9

You are absolutely right. What I meant was, that if the three neutrals had dropped,the DS would have had such an advantage that the rest of us on both allegiances would have pretty much had to drop, and I was asking if you really would have preferred that? My question was about handling players that drop, as you seemed to be proposing that their nations be allowed to drop rather than be combined with an existing player.

– Jeremy

#10

As I said previously I enjoyed the game and was having a really good time with it. I don’t like nations dropping but sometimes when they have such a pounding and are so weak its the best option so that players are not playing on wasting money on a game that’s already won.

However as I stated before, I don’t object to these kind of takeovers provided the other sides are then given the same benefit. I wouldn’t be complaining if the other teams had been allowed full co-ordination once the neutrals had that.

Gavin