Fair 3 player games?

In 1971, 3 man chess became a feasible game. Before that date, 3 way chess existed, but was very unbalanced and unpleasant (similar to 1v1v1 in afterwind). Robert Zubrin came up with the idea that whoever is first to checkmate one of the other two players wins the game (or alternatively takes control over the units of the eliminated).

The result of this idea ends up making an actually balanced gametype. Whenever the strongest player is about to Checkmate the weakest player, the second strongest and weakest player will ally up against them (or face loss).

The implementation of a system/victory option where the capturing someones capitol wins the game would make 3 ways feasible, and even enjoyable

Turning alliances off in AW should make a collection of strangers act in their short-term best interests. For people who are concerned about the 3 player game "traps" where there are two players waiting, with ally off, this setting should allay and/or mitigate their concerns, assuming the "trap layers" are rational.

When alliances are turned off, even if two of the players are colluding (taking turns as to who wins) in a 3 player/no alliances game, these cretins could get the same satisfaction by having private 1v1 wars instead of ambushing, with each player taking turns losing, without the risk of both being losers should the trappers become trapped -- and obviate the need for an additional system/victory option, as the same game mechanism (alliances are fluid, where the two weakest join against whomever is judged momentarily strongest) should be engaged by any rational actors.

In other words, if you want "fair" 3 player games, just turn off alliances.

ZubWin
If such a system/victory option were available (a "ZubWin"), it would be very difficult, I would imagine, to initiate: Currently, when players cooperate, they usually do so formally, under the game mechanism of "peace" or "alliance". Without having these mechanisms in place, imagine the difficulty, for example, when two players attack a capital, or hold a capital.

If the victory for a "ZubWin" is that the same player must hold another player's capital for a period of time (let's say two turns), not only would it be counter-productive for two players to attack a third's capital at the same time (because without ally/peace they might be attacking each other), but even the very presence of a nearby third player might make the first player hesitant to attack the second -- in fact, if player A and B are cooperating against Player C, once A and B are in range of the capital (or before), they have most likely shifted the balance of power to the point where the natural enemy of each is no longer C, but the other.

The same form of thinking for win maximization goes for the other victory types too (annihilation, entire home country, xth country, SP etc.). Before, and indeed way before the two knock out a third With chess, the units are non-renewing (once pawns are exhausted) and therefore putting a natural limit on the game. In AW, with no set limitation of unit production, coupled with proportional reward (even losers gain SP, where in chess, one either wins, loses or draws) almost seems to obviate the need for such a victory condition.

3 player games will never be fair. Theres always one person who gets wedged in between 2 people and dies early.

נכתב על ידי Deray YG, 28.05.2012 at 01:19

3 player games will never be fair. Theres always one person who gets wedged in between 2 people and dies early.

I think the OP was pretty clear: "Fair" means that there is a reduced incentive for two players to "gang" up on one -- because in the game case he describes only one player can win. In fact, with informed rational players with perfect information and with all other things being equal in this zero sum game, with three players that are strangers, and with only one winner, the smartest move is to do nothing, until one player attacks another.

The wisest move, all other things being equal, after one of your opponents attacks the other, is to attack the stronger of the two opponents next week.

The best move, which would require telepathy and/or time-travel would be to attack the strong of the two opponents the same week one gets attacked by the other.