For those that have not tried the 3 player rules and scenarios in the Zverograd book yet, I highly recommend them. Here is a battrep for a 3 player game using the "At all costs" scenario.
3 player battle report on youtube Axis vs Allies vs SSU
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 06 August 2012 - 08:14 AM
Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:27 PM
Nice work! For the next video, I recommend less shaky close-ups. For a viewer who wasn't there in person, a detailed look on every counter and miniature isn't as important as a total overview, and that as often as possible.
Nevertheless, I'd like to see more of that!
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:27 AM
Ya, the camera is a handheld cell phone size/shape cam so holding it steady is tough… I can usually keep it steady if I hold it in a spot for longer but then the videos are longer and it takes longer to show stuff and my opponent or opponent is only willing to wait in between every turn for me to shoot video for soo long, lol. But I wish they were less shaky as well… I just try to show soo much and because I'm rushing to show it all in a short amount of time, I tend to bounce and shake around a lot. I tried a tripod once and the video was clear and steady but only from that one angle and you could never get in for those close shots or table level views unless you toook it off the tripod at which poiont it would just get shaky again…
…Response noted… I'm trying to get better with the camera to provide better videos… it can be hard when you are rushing because your opponents don't give a damn about you shooting video of the game and are just making faces at you to hurry it up so they can get back to playing lol. Sometimes I think the best approach is just to have still pics but that takes too much of my time to edit all the crap together and make a commentary track over top of it.
Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:29 AM
I admire everyone who is willing to go the extra mile and record his matches on tape. I wish more people would share their hobby this way. That's why I'm happy that my criticism doesn't discourage you (especially as this was the only thing there was that wasn't great).
I don't mind shaky close-ups. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste that I would've preferred the "boring" static tripod total view most of the time. If you want to show off the miniatures (which I understand as well) up close, photos are the way to go.
When watching a vid, I'm just more interested in the way you play and strategize, and you easily loose track of who is when there ain't many total shots :-)
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:42 AM
Good points… I see where you are coming from. Since the game was at my place and I have lots of minis for all the factions that are all painetd up, I just tell people to come over and I supply the rest. I have enough stuff where making the list they want is not an issue and I jusdt think painted minis look better on camera and are more fun to play with than the basic, out of the box, primed uni-colour armies that make up most of their armies.
So part of why I am coming in close on the minis a lot is because they are all mine and I am trying to show them off as well which is really pointless anyway because you can never really get the camera to show the detail anyway and never can really see the eyes or other little details no matter how up close I try to bring the camera in. So I think I will try to do a more bird's eye, full table approach on my next one. I am playing a couple games at least this week. One I won't shoot video for as I will be doing a battrep for it with pics that you will hopefully see somewhere else down the road and I will try to shoot a battrep video of one of the other games with the suggestions in mind. Thanks for watching… I was afraid the video was too long as it was a lot longer than my first warfare battrep I did right after the game came out.
So, you are looking for something more along the lines of a view like this?
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:04 AM
Here are some stills from the battle as well
Posted 09 August 2012 - 05:36 AM
My first 3 player game didn't seem that fair… we did the scenario with defender in the middle +100 points for defences and 2 attackers, one each table short edge… 3 terrain objectives, one in each area…
Basically defending player (axis) took on SSU attacker head on and they just basicaly wiped each other out letting the Allies come in full force and mop up what was left… seems the deployment lets you put models very close to each other and as the axis player deployed last (as defender) he put all his army in one spot to gang up on the SSU players weaker area of deployment. I don't think the 100 points of defences makes up for being attacked from both sides…
will have to try again and see how it goes.
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:43 AM
I haven't played that scenario yet, I have only played At all costs which you see in these pics and I played Standoff… both played very well and were fantastic games. Standoff was especially tense as all three players had chances at different points of the game where they came close to assassinating their assigned VIP unit. Even on what ended up as the last turn of the game one side just came up short of taking out their target before another side ultimately won it.
In regards to your game, it sounds a lot like the defender just decided to be the attacker. There is no reason why the defender should not have an advantage in that game. Since we randomized which mission we would play with a D20 roll, I had no say in the games we played but I badly wanted to be chosen as the defender in the "fortress Impossible" scenario. Are you sandwiched in the middle… sure. But you get to see both opponents deploy before you after which you get to deploy your troops and 100 AP worth of fortifications after knowing where your enemies are and more importantly where the 3 objectives will be because you are the one choosing the objectives. You choose where the objectives in your enemies deployment zone will be and so can dictate their movements to a large degree. You can force them both to one side of the table and leave a hole for them to get at each other while your objective is dug into the other side covered in tank traps, electrified barbed wire and bubble wrapped in minefields with a big fat bow on it. Oh, what I could do with 100 points worth of fortifications to defend an objective. The defenders should not ever lose the point for their objective and they should make assaulting that objective soo terrifying that it is not worth attempting. They should choose objectives in their opponent's deployment area that make them want to go for those ones instead and give the players the room to cross their territory in the middle of the table to get at each other. Plus all factions have ways for getting around the middle of the table if it is booby-trapped to hell with minefields and electric fences, etc. Allies have air drop and jumpers…. Axis have outflanking Hans walkers and long range tank support… SSU has choppers that will just fly over the dangerous areas. You may think choppers can just get around having to deal with the minefields and barb wire, etc, but their base still has to be able to fit in an area so that's where your dug in defenders will be so that the choppers will not be able to just fly in and drop off a bunch of assaulters to cap your objective because they still can't land on top of your soldiers and those soldiers will still trigger your defenses, still set off your minefields and since the choppers have to go low altitude to drop them off in the first place, kiss the choppers goodbye. A low flying chopper flying into a heavily defended area is toast in every way possible.
Realistically, in any multi-player game there is a strong chance that two players will gang up on the other or that one will sit back while the others pound each other and then just stroll in for the easy win… hell, that is why in Star Wars, the Sith only have a Master and an Apprentice… before that, a bunch of weaker apprentices would gang up on a stronger Master and kill him and then each new Master would be inherently weaker than the last. With only two, only the one strongest would be the Master until such a time as the apprentice proved stronger at which point they deserved to be the Master anyway and the system promoted that the line would always remain strong…. Thank you very much Darth Bane!
Its up to the players playing not to let one player sit back and stay strong while they beat each other up. They should be smart enough to see that neither one of them will win that way… if the other guy doesn't see that, you have a mouth… tell him. That still will not completely remove the inevitability of two people ganging up on another player and, in fact, one of the scenarios actually forces two players to gang up on the third halfway through the game!
It's very hard to win a war on two fronts… but they give you all the tools and all the advantages and just because you are in the middle doesn't mean you have to be the only person getting attacked. If you have a gang on your front lawn and another gang in the backyard and although they hate you, they hate each other just as much, you can just open up the front door wide, leave the back sliding door wide open and lock yourself in your bedroom with a shotgun… with marbles on the stairs, super glue on the doorhandles and a live grenade with the pin popped off wedged in the doorframe.
Make your car the hardest one in the lot to steal… he will leave yours alone and go for the one that is running with the windows open every time… You choose the objectives, you see their deployment, you have all the fortifications… you really are calling all the shots… at least that is how I see it playing out. I can't wait to play as the defender in "Fortress Impossible"….
… that's my 2 cents anyway.
Guest_Not In Sample_*
Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:18 AM
I had a 3 player game todasy against 2 totally different players from the last couple 3 player games I played and it went right down to the very end. The axis player won with 15 points right on the final move getting Lara into the scoring zone as the axis had the final turn of the game. The final score was 15, 13, 11 (I had 13 ) It was a really fun game…. and it was only 150 points each as the other two players were more or less playing out of a single core set box with the allied player having the Boss squad added on to the core set stuff… so it was really cool to see how much fun could be had where 2 players share a core set box and play a 3 player game right away and can win.