$10.00
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Neuroshima Hex!» Forums » General

Subject: Multiplayer Suitability rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
What are your opinions on this as a 3 player and 4 player game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Diplomacy/whining (i.e. "Don't attack me, Blue is winning") becomes too dominant for my taste.

Edited to add: and of course there's far more chaos and less ability to plan.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Danish
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've only played 2-player face-to-face but have played the iOS version multiplayer (3). In those instances, I thought it felt like a different game in a really fun way. In the three player, figuring out where to position units, and how to balance defense and offense against multiple opponents is much more complex so its quite exciting.

It definitely depends on the other players to not be whiny or to king-make, however. If there is any teaming up, it would stop being fun really quickly. Fortunately for me, the 2 people I played with (and because it was iOS) don't play like that, so we all pursued our own strategy and naturally shifted our opposition against whoever was either in the lead or threatening us. It worked out great and was a lot of fun.

I haven't tried the team rules provided with the base set, but that's another way to avoid king-maker issues and I think it would add a fun layer to the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
killy9999
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
3-player game is completely unbalanced.

4-player game can be fun. I used to like it. Now I think there's just to much going on on the board - no chance to plan anything, you get to place just a couple of tiles and the board becomes full.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
killy9999 wrote:
3-player game is completely unbalanced.


How so?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Danish
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
killy9999 wrote:
4-player game can be fun. I used to like it. Now I think there's just to much going on on the board - no chance to plan anything, you get to place just a couple of tiles and the board becomes full.


I'm curious if you used the extended board in those conditions or limited yourself to the basic starting position? I haven't tried 4-player, but imagine that if I did I'd stretch out to cover the whole board to avoid that issue. Not sure how it will play, though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
If you thought the extended board was too big for 4 player, you could use part of it, perhaps just the hexes adjacent to the regular board (1 ring out)?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Walkingshaw
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never found the standard three player game very satisfying because of the diplomacy/kingmaker issues Russ describes. However, there is a variant where you score by damaging your opponents' HQs instead of for protecting your own HQ, and that works a little better. It eliminates the whining at least, but the game still plays quite differently.

Although I've only played a few times this way, I found the 2-vs-2 four player game very fun. We used an extra ring of hexes around the outside of the usual playing area to provide a bit more space, and that seemed to work well. This is really easy to do with the Z-man edition since those hexes are right on the board.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laurence Parsons
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Old enough to know what's right
badge
Young enough not to choose it
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played 2- 3- and 4-p games. Whilst it's true that 2p gives you more control than in multiplayer, I still enjoy the game with any number of players. We always play on the center board only (unless it's with an expansion scenario).
The argument that multiplayer is more chaotic applies to almost any game. It shouldn't put you off; it's a great game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bern Harkins
United States
Salamanca
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Our games have been mostly three player, with a few fours. We are very happy with our outcomes; with each player facing two opponents, it is difficult for anyone to run away with the game (and very impressive when they do so).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrey
Russia
St. Petersburg
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
charlest wrote:
What are your opinions on this as a 3 player and 4 player game?


I wouldn't play regular multiplayer game.
Even without kingmaking, it is far more efficient to play defensively than to attack in multiplayer.

Variants and homerules are better.
In "Vampire", HQs can't be destroyed, each player starts with zero score and scores one point for each damage he inflicts to enemy HQ.

While Vampire is better than vanilla, if you have multiple opponents, it is still most rational to attack ones with fewer defense, so NY and Moloch get upper hand and so on.

The most interesting probably is the modification of Vampire, when you only get points for beating one certain opponent (and only one other player scores for hurting you).
2v2 can be nice too, but there's risk that more experienced player will just order his less experienced teammate around.

You should also note that some armies benefit from larger play field, which screws balance further.

Anyways, while multiplayer in Neuroshima is kind of playable, 2p is the way it meant to be played.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This discussion made me wonder if a "sinister" variant (inspired by Homeworlds) would work, i.e. where your goal is to eliminate (or maximize damage to) the HQ of your opponent on your left. I.e. A attacks B, B attacks C, C attacks A. If your target dies, game over, you win. If the game continues to the end and all HQs survive, then the player whose target has taken the most damage wins.

This eliminates (or at least should minimize) the whining/diplomacy aspect.

Perhaps I will try it if I get a chance.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
demonhanz demonhanz
msg tools
mb
If you're kingmaking/whining in a 3 or 4p game, you're playing this wrong. Since the goal is to either eliminate the other players' HQs or suffer the least damage, you should be strictly playing to win.

That being said, I do agree that this game works best with 2 players, as you can adopt and plan strategies without sacrificing space.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charlie Theel
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm most likely not going to have many chances to play this 2 player which is why I started the thread. I think if I get a chance to play 4 player we will use the outside ring of extra hexes, and for 3 player we will use the attack the player on your left's base for points idea. Thanks guys for the suggestions!

Further discussion is still welcome of course.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
demonhanz wrote:
If you're kingmaking/whining in a 3 or 4p game, you're playing this wrong. Since the goal is to either eliminate the other players' HQs or suffer the least damage, you should be strictly playing to win.

Hmm? Whining is a useful negotiation technique for winning. Whiners ARE playing to win.

And "kingmaking" is a term which only applies when someone mathematically can't win, right before the game is over. E.g. a situation where you're making the last turn, you're going to lose, and all your opponents have units about to hit your HQ, and all you've got is a net unit which can stop one of them from hitting your HQ, and which attacker you stop determines who will win. Something like that.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
demonhanz demonhanz
msg tools
mb
russ wrote:
demonhanz wrote:
If you're kingmaking/whining in a 3 or 4p game, you're playing this wrong. Since the goal is to either eliminate the other players' HQs or suffer the least damage, you should be strictly playing to win.

Hmm? Whining is a useful negotiation technique for winning. Whiners ARE playing to win.

And "kingmaking" is a term which only applies when someone mathematically can't win, right before the game is over. E.g. a situation where you're making the last turn, you're going to lose, and all your opponents have units about to hit your HQ, and all you've got is a net unit which can stop one of them from hitting your HQ, and which attacker you stop determines who will win. Something like that.


OK, I definitely can agree with you that whining can be used as a means to winning, but kingmaking doesn't just apply to the final turn. Trust me, I've seen kingmaking happen well before the end in many a game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
demonhanz wrote:
OK, I definitely can agree with you that whining can be used as a means to winning, but kingmaking doesn't just apply to the final turn. Trust me, I've seen kingmaking happen well before the end in many a game.

OK, so it's a definitional difference. I usually see & use the stricter notion of "kingmaking" that Alf can't win and no matter what he does, Bob or Charles will win, logically guaranteed, no matter what Alf or anyone else does.

Earlier in the game, if Alf does something which helps Bob or Charles, there is normally time for other players to react - Bob or Charles is not truly guaranteed victory earlier in the game. (And likewise earlier in the game, Alf probably is not guaranteed to have no chance of winning no matter what happens.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Danish
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

russ wrote:
OK, so it's a definitional difference. I usually see & use the stricter notion of "kingmaking" that Alf can't win and no matter what he does, Bob or Charles will win, logically guaranteed, no matter what Alf or anyone else does.


I wasn't actually aware of that definition, so thanks! I think it would be accurate to say, instead, that with 3 players it is possible (if you don't use a variant to avoid it) for 2 players to gang up on the 3rd for much of the game, which would be quite frustrating. In my gaming group, we tend to all just shift our focus to whoever is in the lead, and so it balances out in the end and is quite fun. But, that's a definitely possibility if you don't introduce some of the variants mentioned here, or simply play with cool people.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.