Most fun playing 6-way

[John Meunier]

No one has posted on this thread in a long time, so I thought I'd break the silence.

I'm closing in on having enough figures to run a 6-way Punic War campaign (if I can stand the crappy shield designs on my Campanian Ax).

So, share some stories. Anyone play in a 6-way? What were some of the best moves and funniest events you've seen?

Hardest backstab?

Biggest come from behind victory?

Worst disaster at sea?

Dish people.

[Ivan]

Man, I wish I could get 6 players! I did have a couple 4 player campaigns in college. They were a lot of fun, but because our armies didn't match, they were quite fanciful, with Early Germans, Post-Mongol Samurai, Medieval Low Countries, and Scots-Irish all facing off...

The best event was a battle between the Early Germans and the Scots-Irish. The Teutons had been attacked by two other players, and had lost a city, and had a field army of only 6 elements.

In the fall turn, the (full strength) Scots-Irish advanced on the German capital. Now, the Germans would have been well advised to just stand a siege. The Scots would have needed a 6 if the German army defended the capital, any other result would send them home for the year empty handed, allowing the Germans to rebuild two elements, and hope that events elsewhere would improve their situation.

Instead, the German player determined to fight it out, despite being outnumbered 2-1.

The Germans chose to set up a river, and this, combined with some fine generalship, led to a debacle for the Scots-Irish, who impetuously attacked across the river piecemeal, and were defeated, something like 5-1 IIRC.

[Ivan]

In another campaign, we boosted our numbers by playing a couple additional nations using the 'Programmed' NPC rules that are here on Fanaticus somewhere. These actually worked pretty well.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Ivan:
Man, I wish I could get 6 players! I did have a couple 4 player campaigns in college. I hate to site, (okay no I don't) but its been a while since we were down to 6 players. I usually run ongoing campaigns playing one session a month through the year, and tieing it all up at the end.

My games are set on an outline map with the cities and movement lines overlayed. It departs from the "wheel shaped" map in the rulebook. The map is designed to start with four players and build up. Each time we have to add a player then we break out the new map with the extra country.

In 2002 we ran an England 1066 themed game that started with six players but ended with 10.

In 2003 we ran a Sung Dynasty China campaign that finished started 8 players and ended with 12.
- that one had the amazing victory where 8 elements of Hsi Hsia defeated a combined force of 19 elements (Nan Chao, Burma, Sung China and Annam) by judiciously attacking allied contingents as they arrived.

This year just gone we ran an Eastern Mediterranean game (1400AD). It started with 8 players and built it up to 13 countries but were plagued by no-shows that meant at least one player was filled in for by a proxy or by random leaders. This led to suicidal attacks by the Rash commanders of Venice and Serbia in the final session.

I'll dig up the campaign write ups for some cool incidents.

Cheers

[hammurabi70]

Originally posted by Ivan:
In another campaign, we boosted our numbers by playing a couple additional nations using the 'Programmed' NPC rules that are here on Fanaticus somewhere. These actually worked pretty well. As umpire I like to use these sort of features for 'barbarian nations' living off the map edge.

[Darren Buxbaum]

John,
this is a good thread. I would greatly encourage the 6 player game. Although, I do prefer an odd number of players (5 or 7) so the game is less likely to become polarized, 6 player campaigns have left me with many fond memories. Here are a few of my favorites:

The first, deals with two players that will always attack each other regardless what game they play. Usually this is a friend that is introduced to the group and feels comfortable attacking someone he knows or it is a father and son pair. The father and son pair is usually hilarious. Dad wants to protect the young player from the other players by giving him lots of advice and sometimes an allied contigent. The son almost always later in the game rebels and attacks his dad. This was beautifully exibited in one of the first campaigns (with the 1st ed rules) that I played in run by Paul Potter. It was a 1066 game and I was Harold of the Anglo-Danes. The father player was William of the Normans and his son was Hadrada of Norway. William crosses the channel and suffers huge losses in a sea movement in spring. King Harold of the Anglo-Danes invites him to discuss succession. It turns into a battle and William is soundly defeated. William turns to Hadrada for help (who Harold had been paying Danes Geld to keep the Vikings away). Hadrada shows up as a much needed allied contigent for Williams army against the Anglo-Danes. When the Normans crashed into the "Saxon" shieldwall, the Vikings decided to plunder William's camp. The other example was between two friends. One player was opposite of the other on the map. He then decided to go deep into various enemy territories only to attack his friend. He ultimately gained no strategic advantage (since he left his homeland/capital open to invaders and separated his controlled territories), but the rampage was enjoyed by the group.

Our group will play a 5 year campaign. We will play one year at each meeting once a month. So it generally takes 5 months to run a campaign. Due to the long gaps between game sessions, I encourage email chatter between players. This can be to form alliances or just a time to talk smack. One of my favorites, is employing the "Nuts!" type message. Some players will email right after the session is over to set up a plan for the next game. So the stall is very frustrating. One was so beautifully executed against a player, that I managed to get all of his neighbors occupied in various wars with the other players. This way he couldn't count on any allied help. Then I attacked him. To be fair, I usually field the weakest army in games, since I have the most experience in the group. I mostly did this to redirect his attention and I thought he would kill me off. It backfired and he became my vassal by the end of the year.

Lastly, I'm usually the over-aggressive player in the group ("it's nothing personal, it's just business"). I just want to get things started when I get the guys together. I don't want to be over-cautious and not do anything or get drug into complicated alliances. Conquer your neighbor and no more need to negotiate an alliance, beautiful! The first time I went to Nashcon, here was a fun campaign being run with late medieval armies. I drew Later Swiss which was one of my favorites in 1.1. It also was the favorite of the GM's. This was when 2.0 just came out and I didn't recieve the new rules too well. Putting aside my bias at the time, I began my reckless campaigns against my foes. I added up one loss after another. It got so bad that I was forbidden to ever field that army ever again (or at least the GM's).

So those were some of my memorable experiences playing 6 player campaigns.

[ December 14, 2004, 00:15: Message edited by: Darren Buxbaum ]

[Macbeth]

This is one of the early incidents from our first major club campaign (referred to as Landwaster) In game time it ran from 1066 to 1074, in sessions run from April to October 2002.

This battle at York took place in Summer 1066 after the English had lost an element of blades while helping the Scots against the Isles at Carham.
_________________________________________________
With England now marginally weaker the vultures (and ravens) began to swoop. Harald Hadradi of Norway unfurled his banner Landwaster and struck out from Borre to York. He was backed up by the Welsh and the Scots who came by way of St Asaph. The English deployed in a block between a forest and a steep hill, desperate to push past the difficult terrain to form a line where their numbers could come into play. There was a fortified village on the Viking right flank which they garrisoned with an element of spears. Meanwhile the Norse army came forward with its blades on the right and a block of warband making up the centre. They ignored the village. The English came forward but were forced to pull a small force back to deal with the Welsh and Scots who arrived in good time. English strategy was for an oblique advance to strike the Norse blades where they could be surrounded while keeping away from the warbands. At the same time they tried to hold back the Welsh and Scots with only two elements. The village garrison was called out to join the main battle. Initially things went well for the English, the plan was executed well, in part due to poor communications on the Norwegian side, but when contact was made the English showed little stomach for fighting Norsemen and soon the line was a series of individual melees. It was then that the Warbands crashed into the fight and rapidly wiped out three elements of English spear. In a desperate attempt to save the situation the English forces isolated and attacked the Norwegian commander. He held for a short time but was overrun, and then a second element of the Norwegian blades fell in a similar fashion. But it was too late to save the day. Emboldened, the Welsh foot fell upon an isolated element of English spears and with their death came victory to the Norwegians and a foothold in England. The remnants of the English army fell back to Winchester.
Prestige : England 2, Norway 1, Wales 1
________________________________________________