"The 3-Sided Scenario" Topic

I recently posted a review of Fuzz, a cop movie from 1972 starring Burt Reynolds, and you might think it has no relevance to tabletop wargaming.

However, the big action scene at the end of the movie posits an interesting variation on the 3-sided scenario: a meeting engagement where side A and B are highly motivated to fight each other, and side C is caught in the middle.

How do you tweak the victory conditions (or the rules) so that side A and B don't just blast side C to get rid of them? Should side C start the game hidden?

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

Wolfhag

"Two kinds of men in the world, Tuco. Men with loaded guns and men who dig. You dig."

I ran a scenario that played out like a Mexican standoff years ago…

Side A is selling weapons or drugs and is very wary of being double crossed.

Side B is the buyer and has loads of cash and is very wary of being double crossed.

Side A and Side B have strict deployment zones. A couple of mid level leaders from each side are meeting in the middle of the table to conduct the deal while their escorting security looks on from table edge.

Side C is government agents or third party local criminal element. They want to stop the deal, recover the loot and eliminate as many hostiles as possible.

The game starts with all three sides on the table. Side C enters from one of the table sides. The deal is off everyone assumes they have been double crossed and the only thing left to do is blast your way out with as much loot as you can recover.

Victory points are awarded for recovering the most weapons, drugs and money. ( money could be represented by several brief cases of unmarked bills…)

I just reread your OP and watched the shootout for Fuzz 1972 on You Tube. Hidden sounds good but the motivation for C to fight needs to be established. I would also allow some wiggle room for side C, to use the movie as an example have a side door into the alley instead of pinned down in a closet on the very first turn. If side C gets to ambush A or B give A and B a few more miniatures so they are not wiped out or crippled when C makes their appearance.

I sometimes run games with 6 different sides. If I see two armies joining together to fight the others, the dragoon swoops down and begins to kill men in the two armies until they stop their conspiracy.

Make side C have something very valuable or dangerous that sides A and B both want (especially so the other can't have it), but can't risk harming if they attack side C.

Could be a person— Side C has the King. Side A and side B are political opponents who need the King as their puppet in order to give their political actions legitimacy.

Side C has the Super Duper (and Very Unstable) Armageddon Bomb. The other sides want it, but can't risk setting it off. Think The Mouse That Roared.

This thing comes up in movies all the time. Usually involving a McGuffin, which half the time side C doesn't realize they have or don't know the importance of, or are the only side unwilling to use. Sometimes all three.

+1 Parzival

If ignoring side C costs nothing, but shooting them potentially loses you the game….

I've run several Convention "Pig Wars" games with 3 sides each with 2 players. Each player's leader represents himself & in addition to looting & pig rustling, has 3 secret goals of 1st, 2nd & 3rd priority. These may not all be in sync with those of his partner, such as the death of another specific leader: that of his partner's! He may have to personally stab his ally in the back to meet this goal or may need only fail to give support when needed, thus letting a foe do the dirty deed.
I've also run 3 sided Border Reiver games with the March Warden's deputy interfering in a feud between 2 Reiver clans.

If ignoring player C costs them nothing then player C is going to have a very boring game.

This:

link

Been there done that. All the players have general goals known about and secret goals that are unknown to any of the others. These compromise the other players. Seemed to work in a lighthearted way. Fun occasionally but no really a decent serious game to me.

Fun occasionally but no really a decent serious game to me.

So you don't like gaming actual military scenarios?

Anyone here recall "Adventures in Colchis"?

B

Make C twice the size or twice the efficiency of A or B…then let them blast away all they want. C has to figure out how much he can afford to shift from one side to another and still maintain victory objectives.