I just would like to know, what ratio of land area vs players to expect. Btw, for three players maybe ring would be interesting? Hub for 4 players?
|
PBEM58 Tech Thread
|
|
No. 3 Player games are generally to be avoided because they create a prisoner dilemma about war, which functionally means that any 2 players warring is a mistake because the third player can advance in peace or create 2v1.
Up to you of course.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
(January 12th, 2014, 21:23)Qgqqqqq Wrote: No. 3 Player games are generally to be avoided because they create a prisoner dilemma about war, which functionally means that any 2 players warring is a mistake because the third player can advance in peace or create 2v1. Logical. Next I was going to ask if there was not a good reason for that. Perhaps one more player would be best then.
I think that would be rather interesting, personally. And I'd argue that the same dilemma exists with 4 players, as warfare often becomes a negative sum game. No matter how many opponents you have, you run a large risk of trailing behind whoever isn't spilling blood. Two benefits of 3p is that it will run much faster and it will be much easier to keep tabs on your opponents (nice thing in a green game where it's easy to be overwhelmed). I'm all for a 3p game if that's how many we have. If a 4th joins, that's fine too.
|
