3 vs 1! NEW GAME MODE!

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:30 am

SUGGESTION IDEA: Alright, I am proposing a new game mode. Basically, it is a 3vs1 game. The players decide who they want to be the ONE and who is on the 3 person team. This will add a new twist to team play as well as individual play and I think it could be very fun.

SPECIFICS:
There are two ways that this idea can go starting position. Here are the two different scenarios for starting position:
A) The ONE will start off with (fill in a # > 3) armies in every country, and the 3-team will start off with 3 armies in each country, but the number of countries between the three team and the ONE are not equal. Basically, each player gets the same amount of countries, making team 3 have more countries than the ONE

B) The ONE will start off with the same number of territories as the entire team of 3, but there will only be 3 armies on every country.

In order to win, The ONE must eliminate the three or the three must eliminate the ONE. The order of play would have to be the ONE, then one of the members of the three, then the ONE, and so on. This makes it fair card wise (The team of 3 could also start the game). The ONE gets his cards quicker, but the team of three will be able to deploy 3 sets in the same amount of time as the ONE deploys 3 sets. Like the current triples, the 3 team will be able to fort to each other. Points will be calculated as follows:

If the ONE wins: calculate his winnings like he just won a regular 4 player game

If the team of 3 wins: Give each of the team members the points as if they had just beat the ONE in a 1v1 duel

These points means that it is a high reward/high risk for the ONE.

WHY IT IS NEEDED: A new twist to team play and individual play.

PRIORITY: 2

-This idea is still very raw in terms of specifics, so tell me what you think of it and leave suggestions.

-Also, I have added a poll, so vote

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:31 am

the way of winnig the points is stupid. the 1 player is at a disadvantage and loses more points for losing?

it does however seem well thoughtout and could have a little potential if worked out.

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:34 am

gimil wrote:the way of winnig the points is stupid. the 1 player is at a disadvantage and loses more points for losing?

i dont think so

He really isnt at a disadvantage, if anything hes at an advantage because he can hold territories and get bonuses easier. But yes, he does lose lots of points if he loses, but he wins lots of points if he wins.

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:36 am

misterman10 wrote:
gimil wrote:the way of winnig the points is stupid. the 1 player is at a disadvantage and loses more points for losing?

i dont think so

He really isnt at a disadvantage, if anything hes at an advantage because he can hold territories and get bonuses easier. But yes, he does lose lots of points if he loses, but he wins lots of points if he wins.

his points should be processed the same as every other game.

(loser score/winner score)*20

that way he still gets more points

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:38 am

gimil wrote:
misterman10 wrote:
gimil wrote:the way of winnig the points is stupid. the 1 player is at a disadvantage and loses more points for losing?

i dont think so

He really isnt at a disadvantage, if anything hes at an advantage because he can hold territories and get bonuses easier. But yes, he does lose lots of points if he loses, but he wins lots of points if he wins.

his points should be processed the same as every other game.

(loser score/winner score)*20

that way he still gets more points

Thats what happens, he gets the (loser score/winner score)*20 but he loses it for each of the 3 players on the other team, and wins them from each player on the other team if he wins.

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:50 am

yeah your right i got a little confused there sorry lol.

by **zack101** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:59 am

That sounds like so much fun we have to make that a mode

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:02 am

it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:13 am

gimil wrote:it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

sorry what?

by **Nomessin** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:15 am

you could have a 3 v 2 match

by **jsmith72** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:15 am

i thinks its an awsome friggen idea and i would love to play one of theese games now!!

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am

gimil wrote:it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

it would still be hard for the 1 player.

Minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9.

sorry for the bad spelling

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:19 am

gimil wrote:
gimil wrote:it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

it would still be hard for the 1 player.

Minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9.

sorry for the bad spelling

i still dont quite understand what you mean by minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9

by **gimil** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:43 am

misterman10 wrote:
gimil wrote:
gimil wrote:it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

it would still be hard for the 1 player.

Minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9.

sorry for the bad spelling

i still dont quite understand what you mean by minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9

player i would get a delopement of 3(if they have 11 terrs or less) to fight 3 people with. Where as teh team of 3 will have a deployment of 3 each (9) on use against 1 player.

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:46 am

gimil wrote:
misterman10 wrote:
gimil wrote:
gimil wrote:it would stil eb to hard for the 1 palyer.

mimimin depol for eah team would be 3v9

it would still be hard for the 1 player.

Minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9.

sorry for the bad spelling

i still dont quite understand what you mean by minimum deployment for each end would be 3v9

player i would get a delopement of 3(if they have 11 terrs or less) to fight 3 people with. Where as teh team of 3 will have a deployment of 3 each (9) on use against 1 player.

Oh, I see what your saying, but this is not the case, because the way the turns are set up, one member of the 3 team takes a turn (3 armies), then the ONE takes their turn (3 armies), then another team of 3 member (3 armies, then the ONE (3 armies). So it stays even

by **chemp75** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:39 pm

I generally like the idea but would need some clarification. Does each person have the same number of countries? Does the ONE start out with nine on each country but the same number of countries?

If the same number of countries....but nine armies would mean the ONE would start with a stronger base to begin with. But the armies would be equal of the 3 vs 1. If I understand the concept.

by **misterman10** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:41 pm

chemp75 wrote:I generally like the idea but would need some clarification. Does each person have the same number of countries? Does the ONE start out with nine on each country but the same number of countries?

If the same number of countries....but nine armies would mean the ONE would start with a stronger base to begin with. But the armies would be equal of the 3 vs 1. If I understand the concept.

Each person starts out with the same number of countries just like in any game, but the ONE gets 9 armies on each country. This means that to start, there are an even amount of armies between the ONE and the team of three. Yes, the ONE will start out with a stronger base, but this just adds to the gameplay and strategy for the three (where do we fortify?, whats the best plan?)