"3-Way Conflicts" Topic

At the moment a small group of us (3 altogether) have a weekly wargame. We tend towards the skirmish side and a ruleset which can be used in a campaign setting. My question being then; are there any 3-way conflicts that can be skirmished?

All Things Zombie- survivor gangs vs gangs and of course zombies. A three way game of Frostgrave is quite possible and has an excellent campaign system- although it does slow the turn rate down somewhat.

Frostgrave, played many games with 3+ players no probs.
Also AVBCW games can cope with that (Went the Day Well ?).

I'm sorry Konfederatekief. Evidently no one picked up on the "Historical Wargaming Message Board" bit. (Unless you cross-posted?)

Practically, you get a few three-way wars and LOTS of three-way diplomatic struggles, but actual three-way battles are fairly rare. A few ideas:
In ultramoderns, something can be done with Iraq or Syria--Americans, Shia, Sunni, al Qaeda, ISIS…There were certainly cases during the surge of local Sunni opposed to both the US and the Shia government and to al Qaeda, for instance. Certain parts of the Spanish Civil War might have potential, or Yugoslavia during German occupation with Royalist and Communist resistance and Italian occupiers who switched sides.

In colonial times, the British, the Boers and the Zulu have an interesting relationship.

In horse and musket, I'd go colonial--the colonial power, an independence movement, and indigenous people who don't care for either one.

In ancients and medievals, look for the times of sheer chaos--Viking raids and quarreling local nobles. Or Peasants. Ever seen Charlton Heston in The Warlord. Or you can go back to the last years of Rome in the West--incoming Germanic bands, local landowners with household troops, Imperial troops who perhaps disagree on who should be Emperor.

It would help if I knew what armies you had.

The Russian Civil War might have some potential with Whites, Reds and Anarchists as well as other European countries and the USA involved on the ground.

Vietnam? Particularly during the French period.

Pig Wars is ideal for Dark Ages battles with multiple factions.

How about the year of four Emperors for the Romans?

A three player game is easy enough to do. Besieged force, besieger and relief column, for example. Historical 3 way campaigns are harder. BUT if you;re willing to do a "fictional" scenario gets easier.

Britain and France squabbling over Wakanda in 1899. Or French and English in America with Native Americans caught in the middle.

Vietnam could be interesting. VC, NVA and Allied players (NVA have work with the VC to win *and* eliminate the VC at the same time).

The present day Kurds are caught between the war in Syria and the new threat in Turkey.

Basically, any situation with two bigger powers fighting over some place with the natives opposing both…

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. You've all thrown up some good ideas. @robert I have collections for Wild West, which we are currently using in a campaign; I've started an ACW project; I have some WW2 and some ultramodern. Though I wouldn't be adverse to starting a new period I'm going to go with your idea of ultramodern, that way I can expand my existing forces.

Hmmm. KonfederateKief, if your ACW is to scale with your Wild West, you might pick up a few of Maximillian's troops--or Juaristas, or both. Then have a movie marathon--Vera Cruz, Major Dundee and The Undefeated.

The persistent problem is not having three sides in a war, but having three sides on a tabletop. Battlefields can be complicated, but generally not that way. EC has some excellent ideas, but I'd say as a rule what you want are two sides on a tabletop but three factions in a war, so one week it's Tom and Dick--with separate victory conditions--against Harry, and next week Tom and Harry are more or less on the same side against Dick.

And I hadn't even mentioned the Wars of the Roses!

War of the Roses has some good ones; I bet Richard III had a bit of a 'What the aitch ee double hockey sticks' moment at the Battle of Bosworth Field when Stanley joined the other side (before he went looking for that horse). Heck, for a campaign system, the old Kingmaker game gives a great starting point.

As mentioned above, lots of room for this in other civil wars, too. Afghanistan after the Soviets left and the mujaheddin started fighting over what was left. The bizarre and diverse parties fighting in the Russian Civil War. Roman Civil Wars such as the year of the four emperors. Baron's wars in medieval England. Britain after the Romans left with Romano-British, Welsh (or Cymru), Irish, Saxons/Angles/etc, Scots, Picts, and what have you – Cornwell's Winter King (I know, more fantasy than historic) has lots of factions.

Mexican Revolution could have revolutionaries, Federales, and U.S. Interventionists.

Mexican Rev don't need the US to have three sides. Most civil wars of any duration will have two alliances aiming at central power and one or more at local power. SCW has Basques as a local group, RCW has Nationalists and Greens fighting both Reds and Whites.

But they don't have three way battles.

At best one side will sit out waiting to see who wins from the other two.

which will be what happens on the table top as well. 3 cornered games always have one player turtle up to fight the weakened victor of the other side of the fray.

Campaigns will be better, but I would just play team games most of the time on the battlefield. It cuts down on the stab you in the back diplomacy situations that can even the best of friends off.

Gangs or Militias could also provide some scenarios: Chicago in the 20s, Any number of 3rd World conflicts over the past 20 year or so. ISIS vs. Syrian regime vs. Kurds is ripped from today's headlines.

We have used both Saga and Donnybrook for three player games.

Chinese Civil War or French Indo-China war both during WWII. The first one you have the Communist, the Nationals and the Japanese. Second one you have the Viet-Mien, the Colonial French and the Japanese.

For early (pre-1850) colonial Australia you could have British army and/or settlers and/or police of various types; bushrangers; Aborigines.