I've got the multi player blues.

The Problem:

lately my venue has been doing 2-3 hour "grand-melee" style multi player games (5-7 players) for the unrestricteds, and frankly I hate it. its nearly impossible to make such an event a game of skill.

if you determine the winner based on kills, then sombody ends up picking off a bunch of half dead units and in effect "cheats" the players who did the bulk of the work cracking those units.

if you determine the winner based on points surviving then there is a reduced incentive to engage (no engagement=boring).

And on top of this, either way, one player typically gets set up in a way (usually on the end of the table) that even though they spend the whole time honestly trying to get into the action they are late getting to the hot zone and derive an advantage because of it (fresh units against weakened ones). while sombody else, on the other hand, is getting slaughtered because of too many opponents in too close a proximity too early on.

if you determine the winner based on some other condition ie most points/units in base with the tower in the middle when time is called, then you have a situation where 2 hours play means nothing, because all you have to do is stay alive (avoid engagement) and rush the objective in the last turn or two. or if you make it an on going condition like a quazi VC3, then you have a situation where one player takes an early and overwhelming lead and the other players lose interest (note this can also happen for other reasons including when a majority of sombody's units get prematurely eliminated).

So... here is my idea for a fix, a balanced multi player format, that remains a game of skill. Here goes...

The Solution:

Multi player HtH matches. In other words a multi player match that you try to keep as close to a HtH play as possible only deviating where absolutely needed, or to maintain balance. play with 2 teams (the team mates are free to give each other strategy suggestions as long as nobody leaves earshot of the group), one team sits on each long side of a rectangular gaming table. DZ's are marked out down each side the length of the table (except the last 8 inches on the ends). the depth of the DZ doesnt matter really as long as they are atleast 3 inches deep and there are aprox 30 inches between the DZ's (on a wider table I personally, would go with deeper DZ's kept 30 inches apart but your group may want to take advantage of an oversized table to increase the distance between DZ's).

-Even Number of Players

If the teams have an equal number of players then things are pretty simple, everybody gets the same build total, 1 order per 150 pts. Build total should be determined by the amount of time the game is meant to last (yes its a timed game), roughly 450pts, per player, per hour of game play desired, give or take. the teams roll for init (only really used in setup) and play as a 2 player hth. one player on team 2 places a terrain item then another player on team 2, then another till each player on team 2 has placed 1 terrain item. then do this for team 1. then team 2 again, then team 1 again. Alernatively have the BM place all the terrain to avoid imbalance (this is recomended when the number of players is odd - see below). next each team starting with team 1 places units on the board, since its unrestricted, you can infiltrate in whichever order you think is more balanced (1,2,2,1 or 1,2,1,2).

for game play start with an end player on team 1's side of the table and zig zag back and forth till every body has had a turn and then repeat. each player keeps track of their VC's as if they were in a HTH. At the end of the time-limit total VC's for the team to see which team won, this is for bragging rights mostly since you can't give the champion LE to more than 1 player (but you could always pass a hat at the beginning to buy a booster for each member of the winning team). Then each player compares their indivdual VC's to each other player's VC's to determine an "individual winner". if players are tied for VC's (very likely I'm afraid) then VC2 is the tie breaker.

There is one special rule in the scoring that should be mentioned here. I'll start with the fluff then get in to the mechanics of it.

Fluff- the team mates are on the same side, but as battle field commanders they are still trying to outshine each other in the eyes of their superiors. so even though they are allies in one sense they are still competitors in another sense. however there is honor on the battle field. When a player's attack reduces an active unit to salvage, no team mate may target that unit, the salvaging player is to be accorded the "honor" of delivering the killing blow (or not if they want VC2 points instead of VC1 points ;) ). there is however an exception, if the player whose right it is to finish off that unit happens to "botch" his chance by allowing the salvaged unit to "escape" to its DZ or become a passenger in a transport, then honor is no longer a concern and any team mate may now attack the salvaged unit, after all better that than let the foe escape to fight another day. besides, what better way to show the kahn that the free-birth in command of the left flank really is not worth his salt.

Mechanics- this is a little more work for the BM but its needed in order to maintain balance. when a unit is salvaged there needs to be a record kept of which player salvaged it for totalling VC's at the end of the game. Other than that its no big deal, if the salvaged unit is later killed score it for VC1 as normal.

-Odd Number of Players

thats pretty much it but there are some small tweaks needed if the total number of players is not even. Basically you keep in line with the above except that the players build totals will differ slightly and their "individual score" will be determined by dividing the number of points in each VC category by the number of orders alloted to each players force (retain fractions they should only be halves or thirds anyway). this, hopefully, creates parity in the scoring. *crosses fingers*

It might sound complicated at first but really its not.

I'll give an example, lets say you have 5 players, 2 on team-a and 3 on team-b. each player on team-A will get a 450pt battleforce and 3 orders giving a 900pt total for the team (at the end of the game their scores for each VC will be divided by 3). Each player on team-B will get a 300pt battle force and 2 orders, also giving a 900pt total for the team (at the end of the game their scores for each VC will be divided by 2).

Or here's another example with 7 players, Team-A has 4 players and Team-B has 3. each player on team-A has a 300 pt battle force and 2 orders, giving a team total of 1200pts (at the end of the game their scores for each VC will be divided by 2) . while on team-B the 2 end players get 450 and the guy in the middle gets 300pts, also giving a team total of 1200pts (at the end of the game the players with 3 orders divide their score by 3, but the player with 2 orders only divides their score by 2).

the extreme scenario is 3 players where you play a 2 on one with the lone player having twice the points and orders of the team players. notice that in each example, both teams have the same build total even though the players build totals differ.

Also in the odd player scenario, turn order gets a little more complicated (ok so its wonky). the team with the greater number of players _must_ be team 1 (ie goes first) which means the players roll for init individually before being assigned to a team or getting their build totals. so the player on the end takes the first turn, then zig-zag back and forth across the table, and repeat. of course this means that 2 players on the larger team get their turns together, but they are on opposite ends of the table (and have smaller build totals than the players on the team with fewer players) which will hopefully keep things relatively balanced.

-F.A.Q.

Q. Can orders that one player gains from successful command rolls be given to a team mate?

A. No. each player's force is a "stand alone" battlefield unit, sharing of orders is not allowed.


Q. How does the faction ability AWE work under this scenario?

A. the entire team need not meet the AWE requirements for one player to use AWE. If a player's Battle Force qualifies for the AWE faction ability then that player may use the ability against one of the opposing players as per the standard AWE rules (with the number of AWE dice rolled based on the build total of the targeted player's battle force).


Q. Can a team mate's units work with my units in a ranged/CC/movement formation?

A. No, each player's force is a "stand alone" battlefield unit, joint formations are not allowed, even though the units may be of the same faction. allowing this would over complicate the placement/clearing of order tokens and complicate the "political" interaction between team mates. (P1:"you said if my transport dropped your tank, that your infantry would help with my capture attempt." P2:"yeah I said that... but I changed my mind... thanks
for dropping my tank though...SUCKER!!!")


Q. Can I start the game with a team mate's units in my transports?

A. Yes, BUT... there is no sharing of points between team mates for a "co-operative kill". So if your maxim drops a team mate's Schmitt and the Schmitt scores a salvage or a kill against an enemy unit, then you as the player with the transport will get NO points for that. so while its allowed there is a dis-incentive to do this.


Q. In a game of this sort with an odd number of players doesn't the team with fewer/more players have a significant advantage/disadvantage?

A. Not really, the minor advantage the larger team gains when 2 players get their turns back to back is offset by the smaller teams slight advantage in using more formations.


Q. Do you really expect me to believe that playing a 300 pt battle force with 2 orders will be any fun?

A. Compared to the alternatives, Yes! After all, it remains (I hope) a game of skill! Smaller forces keep the turns short which means the action is "faster" and you can possibly fit more than 1 match of this kind in durring a 2-3 hour gaming session (and for the anti-cheese crowd the 300/2 format keeps tank drop down) Besides you can always scale up the points per player if you want a longer/bigger battle, my examples are really just illusterating the basic concept.


So thats it... Thanks for investing your time in reading that monster of a post.

Anybody think of any way to tweak this for the better? Any fatal flaws in my premise that appear to you?

Please leave your comments...

PS. sorry about the random punctuation and capitalization in this post I hope every thing is sufficiently clear. :)

OK, I know its weak to reply to your own post but I'm really itchin' for some kind of response to this idea.

For those of you that have read this far, thanks! Now let me ask you a couple questions that will hopefully create some kind of "payoff" for having waded through my earlier ramblings. here goes...

If you showed up at your regular venue for an unrestricted, and no format had been pre-determined, and somebody threw out this idea what would your reaction be?

would you be excited to try it out?

Or would you say some thing like "Naw bruh! That sounds lame. lets just do a 900 point, all-mech, everybody-against-everybody. Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!!!"?

By the way what are your feelings toward 2-3 hour grand melee events where there is a single winner declared at the end?

Does you venue do 'em? If so, how do you feel about 'em?

Am I just a whining, over-competitive, weenie?

Well I have played huge 10,000 pt. games in a 200 sqfoot room and it takes forever to get something donw when you only have 5 orders to move or hardly attack and it will take over 5 hours for one player to die and then another 4 hours to have a winner. and it feels like it takes all day to kill off one player then all night to have a winner.

Played a 4-way game this weekend with an interesting twist. Each player had a designated target opponent. They could attack and kill other players, but they ONLY score points for killing their target opponent. The key to designating target opponents is:

1. Players should be 'opposite' each other on the table, if possible. At least not in easy reach with each other (any more than the other pairs).

2. Players should not be mutual targets to each other. Your target should be someone other than the player hunting you.

When one player is eliminated, you can tally up the points to figure out who the current lead is, and if anyone can beat him based on what's left on the field.

I like the big board games.

Yes, for all the reasons you listed someone "snipes" victory by gunning down a newb, cherry picking targets, or someone loses by poor placement of getting sandwiched between two other forces. For the most part the battles degrade to fighting with neighbors, or impromtu allies stomping those who get in the way.

The positive is that with a group of friends its awesome to get a few thousand points of units on the board and go at it.

Some ideas:

Non VC based victory conditions: for example an assault on a Mech Base Scenario where un-piloted mechs are lined up, any infantry can bypass and move mechs back to their deployment zone.

Team based victory: Total team points determine winning side. Losers vote for best player on winning side for prize.

Alternate turn structures: What we did to keep the action going was every third player started turns simultaneously, then play continued until the turn got to next starting player. We then waited for everyone to finish before starting the next turn.

Speed Game: Remove pushing penalties for all units, i.e. infantry and vehicles can move turn to turn w/o damage or pause, Mechs don't take pushing heat. (Disclaimer: never tried this outside the home, makes for a quick game, but I'm sure it can be abused)

Ummm...talk with your group about changing the game scale for that large of a room.

Of the top of my head, I would increase weapon ranges x2 short, x4 medium (+1 defense), x 6 long (+2 defense), give vehicles flank (move x2) and keep mech speed the same. I like gun battles.:cheeky:

Also increase the number of orders...five for 10,000 is tough. Base is one per 150 points, wizkids is/was something like a maximum of 12 orders no matter the build total.

@eMouse
A thought similar to that one had passed through my mind briefly but I never tried to develop it. Glad to hear that it works out as a viable option.

@ Link_76
I like your ideas. Espicially the one about the Assault Mechs, and team battle where losers vote for who gets the prize on the winning team. About Loverboy07's mega games, I've heard of something like this before where they split the turn up so you take 5 orders at a time instead of like 20 (think how much damage you could do with 20 orders ina row, 10 Schmitt drops?) and it gets kind of complicated with 4-5 different colors of tokens and units only "clearing" every 4-5 turns. Sounds like more 'work' than 'play' to me ... but its been done.

@ All
Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm not real fond of multiplayer either, at least in a competitive enviroment. I like to have a clear cut winner. Or maybe its just cause every one usually gangs up on me.

(note to self- next multi don't attack three opponents at once.)

Looks pretty good to me, El_Heffe, throw in a clause for me to shoot my teammates in the back and I'll go with it.

I'll go with anyway, since no one every lets me shoot my own guys.

I havent yet spent the time to read through all of this, however yeah I agree that multiplayer games arent quite "fair" to all parties involved. They are however alot of fun at times.

For example though one of the main things that is wrong with say a 3 way game.

The person in the middle will generally never win. However they usually have the ultimate choice about who they want to make lose.

If they attack one of the other players all out then they will make that player the big loser.

If they attack both players equally then they make themselves the big loser.

hey EL i ran a few solaris games at my venue and i would match up pilots and they could not attack anyone else unless they killed the target mech (the person i matched up with them ) and as for the grand melees i just had another rule where if the pilot just laid back he would lose fame/ points and would also get click(s) of damage that would double each turn if the player did not engage...... it usually kept the pace of the game

@ All
Thanks for chiming in...

@MerryVulture
Maybe thats my problem... to competitive. But I do like to have a clear cut winner.

@John26
I hear what you say about the "king maker" effect. That imbalance (and my frustration with it) is part of what motivates me to think of other options.

@Isorla
I for got till you mentioned it about that penalty for non-engagement that is built into the solaris rules. Ive never had a chance to play with them but I bet it works.

Reaching way back to ressurrect the topic.

Multi-player events are our standard off-day combat as well. We tend to work ongoing storyline type events.

Here's what works well so far:

In addition to the standard 3 VC's, additional VC's/points are added in Primary and Secondary objectives.

Primary objectives are generally something all players have as a goal. This is what drives the role-play of the story:
--Capture the central broadcast antennae to signal incoming Jumpships (or prevent the signalling thereof).
--Rescue your captured scouts/hostages/diplomatic team.
--Kidnap enemy scouts/ hostages/ diplomatic team.
--Jumpstart & repair up to 150 pts of shutdown/salvaged mechs. These count as Captures with regard to VC totals.

(For this scenario Bypass SE's may alternately be used to allow repair past a repair marker. Restrictions are as both Repair and Bypass SE's: Bypasser must be in base contact with the figure to be repaired and free of an order token; they may not be in contact with opposing figure. The Bypass figure does not actually repair the target, but base contact by the Bypasser is required at the time of repair in order to jump the markers. A side benefit, this makes single use Bypass actually cost something).

--'Escape from NY'. Prison break from uderground bunker; factions have seized Industrial Mechs to bust out. Only one mech may use the lift to reach the surface before the structure collapses (earthquake or bombardment, whatever). The single lift access door opens only on a roll of 6 on d6 & requires a move order. Continued/consecutive contact with the lift gate gives +1 to the roll.

--Snatch (limited number of) fuel rods from downed Cargo Ship. Or from the smoking wreck of other players.

Etc. Ultimately the guidelines for the Primary objectives are pretty simple and, upon reflection, mirror rules for games everyone probably already knows: King of the Mountain; Capture the Flag, Kill the Man with the Ball... It didn't occur to me until just now that this is what we were doing, but it doesn't surprise me. There are probably other muti-player/multi-team games we played in grade school that would work just as well.
Basically anything that forces all players into conflict works well. Generally this acts as a VC in itself, and is the tie-breaker VC.

--

Secondary objectives are (often) randomly generated (roll a die or pick from a pool) side gambits that a player can do to cull extra VC points on the cheap. These include objectives such as:

"Kill the first person/figure to use artillery".
"Kill the person with the most points of VTOL on the board at game start".
"Track down and destroy the Player who uses a First Strike tactic".
"Kill first the nearest Rainbow Coalition army".

Etc. The above are fun because they add extra risk to players who choose the most common Flavor-of-the-month armies.

Though secondary objectives can be as simple as: "Kill the person on the opposite side of the board. " Or even: "Kill the first person to attack the newbie."

They ask you to choose an opponent instead of lurking and sniping. And depending on the award (either 50-100 points added to a VC, or acting as a VC in and of themselves) are fairly effective at provoking & instigating nasty little dust-ups.

Since a player won't always have to fight everybody in order to win, you see alot of diplomatic jockeying and negotiating on the side to allow a player to pass through some territory and attack their chosen enemy unmolested.

And since 2ndary objectives needn't be revealed until after the game, you see a great many sneak attacks & sucker punches, and general diplomatic malfeasance. It invokes the best sort of paranoia.
--

A few notes:

--These scenarios work best if you institute a strict time limit on turns. Any action unfinished within your 3-5 minute turn plain doesn't happen. Otherwise it is far too easy to stall at the endgame. Though we do resolve pogs after final turn, so the last round of action is most often an all-out shellacking and shelling.

--It may not work for most venues, but they way we play it, the winner of the previous game writes the scenario and determines the ruleset for the next one. Up to and including what FAQ we'll follow. For instance, we've found in a multi-player, large board set-up it doesn't unbalance the game to allow double infiltration.

--Since we keep a running storyline of our own, we also allow the winner of the gambit to the "Victor's Writes" [sic]. He has to write the battle re-cap and/or Faction perspective/Fiction after the battle (posted on our Blog). others may post after, but the general course of history is determined by the victor. as it generally is.

--Lastly, and this most certainly does not work for most venues, we've been able to play the game with a running total. Each player started with 1800 points worth of 'resources' which carry over from game to game; capturing points from another player adds to your total, figures killed (not salvaged) are subtracted from your total. Occasional Primary Objectives add to the Victor's resource total. These points are able to be spent on your build total (the last victor sets the maximum total); but also may be spent to buy another player's alliegance mid-game, etc. Bribes, ransom (--unique figures are unique within the course of the campaign; if killed they may not be re-used, if captured you pay top dollar to re-use 'em), blood money... It adds another level of strategic diplomacy and another game within the metagame.

-- And since the above has been successful enough, we're looking to add Geography to the game, so that some battles' primary objective may be about conquering territory on a game map. A la Risk, et al.

---

Anyway, just offering some ideas that you can cherry-pick when dealing with multi-player formats. Our thrust has always been about adding interest to the game. Strategically and persopnally We're all fairly competetive, but often the flavor is more Beer & Skittles than Nationals Qualifiers. But hey, IMO that's what the unrestricted format should be about anyway. House Rules & Just for Fun.

Let me know whatch'all think...

.doc.

We usually play this format often. Couple of suggestions:

1. Keep the length of the board from each DZ short. No longer than tournament size, inorder to have engagements within turn 2.

2. Keep the points even for sides. For example, yesterday we played 1800 pts per side with five players. Our team had 2 armies of 900 points and theirs 3 600 point armies.

3. We are all very civil and enjoy them game, so usually we determine the winning side and then either decide who deserves the first and second(dice or players choice). We chip in and pay to get 3 boosters also so everyone goes away happy.

BTW, we play what we have of the AoD rules.