by Fwing
Tiddleydwarf wrote:
I own Runewars and banners of war. After 4 3 player games of which 2 with the expansion and 2 without, I am finding that the player who stays out of hostilities the longest goes on to win the game. This has been the case with all 4 games. I enjoy this game and it has some great elements to its gameplay.
However it seems to me that it has a major fault in the fact that its a wargame that rewards the most timid player. As two players go head to head all as the third player has to do is watch and step in at the right moment and mop up.
We intend to play this as a 3 player at our next session and see if the same thing happens again or if there are viable strategies to prevent this. I just wondered what other peoples experience with 3 player were.
However it seems to me that it has a major fault in the fact that its a wargame that rewards the most timid player. As two players go head to head all as the third player has to do is watch and step in at the right moment and mop up.
We intend to play this as a 3 player at our next session and see if the same thing happens again or if there are viable strategies to prevent this. I just wondered what other peoples experience with 3 player were.
That's the common problem of ALL 3-player conquest/war games.
Knowing this it makes it more important to avoid getting sucked into a serious war with one other player. You both have to recognise the risk and do something about it. Attack the third player. Call a truce. Something.
Our games (3 player, not just RuneWars) tend to use heavy negotiation followed by someone trying to get the timing right for a quick attack on another player that then leads to immediate(ish) victory. If the lunge for victory fails then the other two players race to pick over the carcase of the crippled player. If there has already been serious conflict between 2 sides then the least-damaged faction tends to win this race.