"Three's a crowd?" Topic

Do you prefer two-sided games over games with three sides or more?

Obvious question: What is a side? People with the same or very, very similar victory conditions. A group of people who have the same top-level victory outcome. If you win, I win, but not them.

I think th e originall concept of a wargame (or boardgame), was as a contest between two players. That is what I find always works best.

I mostly play the two sided variety, but some of the most enjoyable games I have played involved two sides, but the team members on each side have different objectives, which sometimes included not defeating the enemy.

Mostly two sides, but three or four can make for an enjoyable amount of chaos.

Two sides is easiest to design scenarios for, but many scenarios lend themselves well to having more than player to a side.

I prefer two sides, but like the idea of having corps commanders making decisions on the wings based upon conference with the main general before the game starts.

non symmetrical can be fun; US vs. Insurgent vs. Media.

In megagames you can have as many 'sides' as you have participants … and the results can be very interesting.

I enjoy games two sided games with 2-3 players per side.

I too prefer just two opposing sides but enjoy both one-on-one as well as more than one person per side.

There are exceptions, but mostly I regard anything with more than two sides as a short RPG rather than a proper wargame. There are a few three-sided wars, but not many three-sided battles.

I prefer wargames to have two sides, but I have often enjoyed playing and running games where the players on the same side are at odds with one another. There was an awful lot of that in real military history, and it's as fun to play as to read.

I've also enjoyed plenty of games where there is only one side: all the players against the game (or the GM).

Grand strategy games with multiple "sides" or even just each-player-stands-alone can be a lot of fun, but typically only if they are self-contained, clearly defined, well-tested board games. Miniatures campaigns tend to be too open-ended, and drag and end inconclusively.

- Ix

I like the traditional two sided game. However, when there is a third potential like what happened in many medieval battles it can be interesting. Or in fantasy when a new larger threat is introduced where the participants must now join to defeat it.

Not really a fan of 3 sided. OK for a humorous game occationaly but not as a mainstream game. Its not easy to set up a scenario that is sufficently credible and demanding for all three players. Games with 3 players and two sides is always OK and we do that somewhat more often for beginners or improvers. The aims their are again diffrent to a "Proper game".

In a three-sided game, sooner or later you end up with two sides joining forces against the third. No fun.

If you want to run multi-sided games, 4 or 5 is best. Or even more, but then we're often not talking wargames anymore, but diplomacy-style games.

Note I'm talking multi-sided, not multi-player. We regularly run two-sided games for multiple players per side. Often, players agree amongst themselves how to organize their side and who controls what forces. Much better than giving each player a predetermined command.

Zombies vs two competing gangs of survivors can be fun.

Multi- sided situations can be interesting, but only in particular environments. You can't really run committee games without multiple factions.

In a conventional battle game, two sides works best or even just one (players vs umpire). I'd rather have a proper command structure with multiple players one side than some sort of random brawl. A proper command structure obviates the need for complex C3 rules as players are quite capable of making their own mistakes.

The more the merrier.

The first historical game I played way back in the late 20th century was a massive affair with several players per side on a huge table.

But it takes the right rules which need to be designed specifically for multi-player gaming. Can't have too many choke points in the game processing.

A three sided game is possibly the most difficult number to do. Four, five or more is always much easier – see cowboy games, etc.

A truly three sided campaign almost as difficult and requires strict movement sequencing, with contacts being fought at the end of the moving player's turn, to prevent one player being ganged up on. This, in effect, prevents an alliance unless one side physically gives his troops to the other side to play with – obviously, once given you might not get them back, ever. It's a bit fake but it makes it work. Obviously, where its a two on one campaign (e.g. Peninsular campaign with Spanish and Anglo-Portuguese Vs French) it's not a problem providing it's agreed that the alliance is deemed solid (the British are there only to liberate Spain) from the start.

You can really tell how few scifi and fantasy gamers are on these boards from the responses :)

You can really tell how few scifi and fantasy gamers are on these boards from the responses

I straddle all three sides of that fence. :)

Gang wars and pseudo-military conflicts with "peacekeepers" or other "intervention" forces of the 20th and 21st century are my main real-world reference for the three-sider, followed by colonial intervention in tribal wars. But I mostly implement those scenarios in scifi milieux.

I just finished a great book on the Italian resistance in WWII. That certainly did end in a side vs loose coalition conflict. But it didn't start that way, and some branches of the resistance didn't ever buy into the combined struggle ideology.

Of course, while there are historical examples to two sides combining against a common enemy, there are also examples of a coalition breaking up before the common enemy is defeated.

In three or more side scenarios, the most interesting point is not "if" the coalition will break down, but "when". I have a really fun zombie survival scenario where survivors must cooperate to survive, but there are limited sets on the ride out of the threat area.

I have always wondered about how long the coalition of evil forces in a fantasy campaign would hold if they won…

I like however many guys show up on game night :) That said, board games such as kingmaker, Diplomacy or Russian Civil War work best with several players and shifting alliances.

Ooh, orcs vs dark elves vs demon-beasts after they conquer the world would be a fun campaign.

Potentially three or more "sides" is very realistic when "contingents" make up the army. Today's "the enemy of my enemy is still my friend" warfare in the Middle East is a perfect example of the complexity on any battlefield where coalitions of potential enemies are banded together to defeat the common foe.

And of course, Northumberland, Stanley, Dickon and Henry Tudor were the obvious "four sides" at Bosworth, even though they began the battle as parts of only two armies, three on one side, one on the other. Henry Tudor had to have some set of balls to deliberately walk into that one!……….