Issues with Multiple Players

[Plynkes]

How do you fellows normally handle this? So far I have only played a 2-player game.

What do you do if you have teams of players, normally? Each put down their own cards, so there are several piles of cards to compare, or have two "team" decks (and the players must argue and bicker between themselves as to the order?)

It would make sense to me to have separate decks. But the problem I have here is that I want to play a game with two players on one side, and one player on the other. The two-player force will have more troops because they are natives, the one-player force fewer, more potent troops as they are Europeans (not really enough men for more than one player to command).

If I give the native players their own separate decks then effectively they will have two actions for the European player's one each turn. Do you think this will mess up the game?

Alternatively, I could make one player the native "general" (or headman, chief or elder, whatever...), and give him command of the deck (perhaps I could give the other player slightly more units to compensate him for not being in charge).

Which do you think is the best way to go, and what do you do if you have uneven teams of players?

Cheers.

[Driscoles]

Hello,

to me it sounds like an ordinary game with one side having much more troops. The difference is that two players face one.

It will be a hard game but that would be a conflict like this in reality as well.

We tried to catch real time so I dont see that the game will be messed up. But you will have to find the balance between the two forces. Maybe you like to give me some more details of them.

Because all three turn the cards at the same time the single player can draw a little advantage in case he has some better troops.

What you could use as well is a kind of delayed action. You can allow the single player to use one or two blank unit cards that are fake. Use them only once in a game. So you can spare them for critical situations when you really want to act last.

We are testing rules with hold actions, delayed actions at the moment. But I must say. Speed is a big advantage in T+T. And its better to move before your oponent.

Hope that helped a little 

Cheers
Björn

[Plynkes]

It is a game inspired by Karl Peters vs. the Masai. The Masai have little or nothing in the way of ranged weapons (perhaps a handful of elders/youths with bows). The explorer has himself (Hero, though I hesitate to use that term in regard to Peters) plus three units of askari possibly with European unit leaders (and some useless porters he needs to protect).

Two of the askari units are kind of ordinary, perhaps with muzzle-loading rifles (they represent armed porters); the third is good (probably Veteran or better in T&T terms). They represent Peters' dependable Somalis, and have modern firearms for the time.

Once I had figured out the points for this force, I was going to work out how many Masai to use (and how to rate them) to make it something like a "fair" fight.

The uneven teams are just because I will probably have three players, and I was planning to be GM. There is really not enough on the explorer's side to stretch it to four players and allow me to join in, I think.

I'm still at the planning stage really. All of the troops on the German side are painted, but today I made the decision to get cracking on more Masai (as well as FFFFF, so I have been mulling over the scenario in my head, and decided to T&T it.

Thanks for your ideas, Björn. I'll give it some more thought while I'm painting more Masai Moran.

[Driscoles]

Thanks for the scenario details.

If you dont mind I `ll make a little suggestions. You dont have to make Peters a Hero. He can be a Leader.

For a Hero you pick someone else. You can start a campaign on this if you like. Maybe the Hero is a gun bearer, a porter or one of his servants, maybe a european scout an ordinary soldier. And you tell his tale.

Peters could be the leader of a command unit that is an objective to capture for the Massai.

Björn

[postal]

what game are you talking about?I play battleground we never have a problem mulitple players the units are assign cards.

[Plynkes]

Triumph and Tragedy, Postal. I didn't say so because this is the Triumph and Tragedy board! 

It's relatively new rules set written by a couple of LAF members, Björn and Chris. I think possibly you arrived at the LAF after the launch and so missed it.

Here's the T&T website:

http://www.triumph-tragedy.de/index.html

I don't have a problem as such with the cards, as I haven't tried it with multiple players yet. I was just concerned it might upset the game balance a little to have one side acting twice in a turn while the other only acted once. But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the native players being able to move swarms of their warriors about the table simultaneously. Very "Zulu Dawn."

And I don't mind making Peters the "Hero", because in T&T rules terms that can equally be taken to mean "villain."

[Driscoles]

Postal,

as Plynkes said no problems at all. We are only thinking aloud 

T+T is perfect with multy players. We have several multy player game reports here in the Forum.

Carl Peters a "villain" your kidding Plynkes 

Cheers
Björn

[postal]

sometime am a little slow.thank for the heads up.well how does it play over all?

[Driscoles]

Postal !

They play very well.

Heres a link to a review :
http://www.ospreyblog.com/blog/2008/04/triumph-tragedy.html

Game Reports
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=4924.0
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=3990.0

There are a few great reports here, just check yourself or ask me and I try to find them 

Cheers
Björn