It looks like it's been over a decade since this was last discussed. To the best of my knowledge, there's still a need for multiplayer rules. Three player games are also a particular fascination for me, so I've done lots of thinking on this problem. To that end, I've come up with a proposal for how three player games might work.

First, the problems that need solving:

1) If players take their turns in the order ABC, A can attack C and exhaust his reserves, making C easy pickings for B.

2) If we move to simultaneous turns (as Chuck suggested in 2007), the player(s) with SE advantages have an even greater advantage than they do in standard F&E games. In particular, in standard F&E the Kzinti and the Hydrans occasionally are able to make significant counter-attacks - but using simultaneous turns it should be trivial to prevent them from being effective.

3) With more turns between economic phases, repairs will be a greater burden on the economy and on available repair space.

----------

With those in mind, here is what I propose.

- Player A takes a turn. This turn is standard in all regards.

- Player C takes a mini-turn, consisting of three phases.

- Player B takes a turn, again completely standard.

- Player A takes a mini-turn.

- Player C takes a turn.

- Player B takes a mini-turn.

This then repeats.

The phases of a mini-turn:

mT-1: Repair. The phasing player may repair any number of ships, but each repair facility can only provide half of the standard repair points. Half of the EPs spent on repairs in the phasing player's last full turn are available to spend on repairs, but they are lost if not spent.

mT-2: Operational. The phasing player may move any number of crippled ships 3 hexes each (4 for fast ships and x-ships). If such movement would allow reaction movement, it is not allowed. Essentially, crippled ships can be moved around but only where it's safe.

mT-3: Reserves. Reserve fleets which moved on the previous player's turn lose their reserve status, and the phasing player may undesignate any number of reserve fleets. Then, the phasing player may designate reserve fleets using half (rounded down) of his unused reserve fleet markers. Ships newly assigned to reserves cannot have participated in battle in the previous player's turn.

----------

With this, EPs spent on repairs are 50% more effective than in standard F&E. If there is roughly the same amount of fighting on each player turn, there would be about 50% more casualties (less in reality because fewer ships are available to each side), so it should even out. Importantly, though, it's probably going to be impossible to spend EPs on repairs perfectly (because that would require both spacing out your cripples so that they can all be repaired and estimating exactly how many ships you will need to repair on your mini-turn), so the real efficiency is going to be less as well.

The movement on a mini-turn allows players to take cripples in defense when not at a base and not be guaranteed to be harassed by the other player. Similarly, allowing resetting some reserves (and potentially using better ships because ships that were operationally moved on the player's last full turn are no longer ineligible) means that C can use some reserves on A's turn and have some available on B's turn as well.

With 4 or more players, this becomes a little trickier - we don't want to give everyone a whole bunch of mini-turns to make this system work. So instead, you have the option to take your mini-turn after any opposing player's turn that isn't immediately before yours. In addition, if you ever have no reserves at the end of any player's turn you can immediately designate a new reserve with the proviso that no ship in the reserve was in combat in the most recent player turn. It's not perfect, and I'm still thinking on ways to make 4+ players work smoothly.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 01:21 am: Edit

Admittedly, I've not played in twenty some years, but what my group did was assign one or more empires to the available players and then the players acted in concert with their allies. I don't recall anyone ever wanting to make a 'third turn' for themselves. In its own way it reminds me of the simplicity of the way Cosmic Encounter (pre Hasbro edition) ran. Attacker, Defender, one or more allies. Past that, their system was more round-robin and not particular useful for a game with much more of a diplomatic and strategic bent than random chance, so that's where my parallel breaks down.

The Axis&Allies "Multinational Force rules" are a one example to study. The rules worked like this, If on Turn 1, America pushed its Atlantic fleet into British waters, they could not fight offensively with the Brits on Turn 2 (and the Brits couldn't do anything on Turn 2 either, waiting on the Yanks), but both powers could work in concert on either the British or American phases on turn 3 if both powers committed to joining forces on turn 2. Even though they could not attack together, they could defend together.

F&E's turn structure is far more complicated than Axis&Allies, but the same sort of arrangement could be constructed, say, something like this:

The Alliance and Coalition are the two 'main' players. Third player could take a normally unaligned faction, perhaps including some of the historically Alliance or Coalition empires. The two "sides" each get their standard turns as published, but any secondary players have an abbreviated peacetime rules turn before the two main "sides" start their next turn. Until they get on a war footing, they would have their economies restricted anyway, so they could not perform overt offensive actions. Until they joined one of the main player's factions, at which time they would act with that player's turn.

Without a Casus Belli, these secondary powers have to declare one full turn (both Alliance and Coalition powers) before they can act (attack someone, join one of the main factions, etc al). And they cannot begin operating on 'Wartime' rules until that one full turn is elapsed.

With a Casus Belli (example their territory is invaded or their sovereign forces attacked, or similar provocation) they can instantly join the main player faction opposed to the one that attacked them, and start a normal wartime turn (note: they would not have started any part of their normal turn yet, so there is no balancing to be done). Since they would then be part of one of the main factions they then take their turn with their faction. This could possibly result in the secondary power getting to take their triggered turn, and then take another turn at once.

The two (or more) players in a faction can act with coordinated planning or not. Each secondary power's pact with the main player's empire lasts at least one full turn before it could be dissolved. This adds a diplomatic issue of pact breaking, but that can't be helped. Also, if the Secondary player refuses to join either side, but operate independently, things get a little complicated. Again, its one of the aspects that new rules would have to be crafted to cover.

In any case these secondary players would track their economies and war weariness and such separately. Thus could run them out of capitol before the allied power(s) do, thus forcing them to retire, seek terms, or get bailed out.

This method has the benefit of not blowing up the standard sequence of play between the main players. If a Secondary player gets into a shooting war without aligning themselves to either major faction, they would continue to operate at the end of the sequence, but would get a full turn before any unaligned powers still under peacetime rules. This should serve to encourage secondary players to align with one of the two main powers rather than play Switzerland (though an argument for putting these independent Secondaries before the main players could be made), but the sequence of play is still the same, even with a third iteration for the recalcitrant power.

The only other way I see to make things work for multiple players is to switch to a more SFB mode where all the players decide in secret and then make a simultaneous reveal, but otherwise following the same sequence of play. Perhaps with a number of generic strategic phases (say one for every player) in the turn so that you can attack first, or wait to react to the enemy. This has a lot of issues to overcome however.

Whatever the solution, it should not require a lot of translation, if any. The simpler the answer, the better.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 03:00 am: Edit

I'm glad you mentioned Cosmic Encounter - it's actually a textbook example of how that kind of multiplayer works in a low-stakes game but not in a high-stakes game (and yes, F&E is high-stakes because of how invested you have to be to play such a long game). Cosmic Encounter is extremely casual and as such playing your opponents is equally (or more) important than playing the game.

This would be a very bad outcome for F&E - the game is a strategic game, not a social one (any 3 player game is at least a little bit social, but it should not be a dominant aspect).

More relevantly, most of what you describe only nominally has more than two players. What's I want is rules that cover three (or more) mutually antagonistic sides. We don't have those, and even a minor power can cause issues 1 and 3 above with your implied rules (and is extremely disadvantaged by issue 2). That's why I've laid out my proposal as I have, because it should avoid the pitfalls associated with other solutions.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 10:21 am: Edit

I'll ask our PBeM GM exactly he does it for our EY game. There's 9 players, and initiative goes in order of smallest econ to highest.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 11:51 am: Edit

Sam, without putting to sharp a point on my pencil... The game engine itself is based on two major factions, even the name itself demonstrates this FEDERATION --AND-- EMPIRE. The fact that the engine can be abused to do other things is a testament to the engineering that went into its creation. But you are quite correct, my thumbnail proposal retains the framework of two major factions and encouraging the minor powers to align with one or the other.

To unravel the skullsweat that went into tuning F&E for two major factions fighting a galactic war of conquest/survival (depending on motivation), I think there are a number of questions you need to answer first. Any rebalancing of the system for more than two main factions will need to address those answers. Here are just a few:

For these questions, lets presume an Admiral's Game style start with each power having a wedge shaped piece of the map and borders with two neighbors only. This gives every one two direct borders, and an offmap area to explore. The center 7 hexes of the map is an impassible McGuffin Singularity. Each power starts roughly equal in fleet strength, economic power, sectors, border outposts, starbases, etc al. Wagon Wheel Equality in other words.

What is the value in acting first in a turn?

What is the value in acting last in a turn?

This is a big one with a subtle effect that is rather deep... What effect does the primary weapon tech of a player have on how well or poor their neighbors do? (What if the Kzinti had to share a border with the Gorn or Romulan? What if the Hydran was between the Feds and the ISC? What if the Lyran/LDR power were on the other side of the galaxy blocked in between the Gorn and Romulan players?) Should this be considered? It comes up because look at Player Choices in Tournaments, Players will tend to want to pick their favorites.

What is the social/attention span cost to one player of having many players phase before they can act again? (How much boredom will that player have to sit through?)

How bad could Player A get mauled by players C, D, E, and F after they overextend themselves smashing Player B? (risk/reward analysis here)

Do the even numbered players just flat loose after the odd number players clobber them before they can act?

Should play pass symmetrically (i.e. clockwise/counterclockwise based on position around the gaming table), across the board (Say: A then D, B then E, C, then F, rinse/repeat), or by random sequencing (either permanent pattern established in the beginning or changing every turn)?

What actions are/should be permitted to a non-phasing power? (If Player A sent a task force through Player B's space on the way to smack Player C's border outpost, what could Player B do about the invasion of their space?)

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Hi Sam

I think I am with Jeff on some points.... the main one being though it probably is just not workable.

But crucially the turn order would need to be fairer.

"With those in mind, here is what I propose.

- Player A takes a turn. This turn is standard in all regards.

- Player C takes a mini-turn, consisting of three phases.

- Player B takes a turn, again completely standard.

- Player A takes a mini-turn.

- Player C takes a turn.

- Player B takes a mini-turn."

Player A for example get a a full turn and a mini turn before player C gets a full turn.

How you keep balance probably means you would need to give a 50/50 each Off turn of starting on a Full or Mini and doing the other type on the Even turn.

So Player A and B might get a full turn and Player C a Mini turn - and then Player A and B get Mini-Turns and Player C a Full turn - and you then roll for each player on turn 3 etc.

But the ganging up effect I think will mean it just can't work.

Only way for F&E to work as multiplayer is to allow a Side and an Individual Empire to win.

If the Lyrans were playing for the Lyrans to win - it would alter the game dynamics enough I think?

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Tuesday, January 03, 2023 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Jeff, those are good points!

First off, the game needs to be asymmetric - it's much costlier to attack than to defend in F&E, so there needs to be additional value from attacking. In F&E this is the huge shipcount and economy advantage that the Coalition starts with - the Alliance needs to go on the offensive later to regain lost ground. In a multiplayer game, this can be addressed the same way, but there's an additional cost: the enemies you don't attack are able to more easily attack you, so there needs to be additional incentive to be aggressive.

I've been toying with a scenario involving the Klingons, Lyrans, Kzinti, and Hydrans. In Y168, the Klingons offend the Lyrans and the Lyrans choose to launch a surprise attack on the Klingons - there's a whole bunch of Klingon space that would only be defended by a single reserve from the Klingon Home fleet, and the Lyrans can reach it with 70 ships. Victory conditions would be something like [captured territory] - [half of lost original territory], so it's more important to capture enemy territory than to hold on to your own, which would provide the needed incentive.

As long as it's reasonably close to balanced, it'll be fine, because many-sided games balance themselves out even without player collusion (if you want to win, you have to attack players who are beating you).

As to attention span - I didn't consider that, as I've mostly played by email. I could see that being an issue.

> How bad could Player A get mauled by players C, D, E, and F after they overextend themselves smashing Player B?

Well, this happens in regular F&E too - barely fail to take a capital and you'll have a repair backlog as long as your arm and your opponent will have proportionately less. The problem comes when player A attacks player B and player B becomes the target of the rest of the players, because then Player B is destined to lose through no fault of their own. Which is what my proposal is meant to solve.

> What actions are/should be permitted to a non-phasing power?

All that are currently permitted. Ships can react to other ships moving nearby, reserve fleets may move to any battle hex in range (potentially a large fleet could punish a skirmish and get to kill ships from both other players). Ordering would have to be resolved, but it would probably be in turn order from the phasing player, and extended reactions are made after regular reactions. You couldn't react to a reaction, but two extended reactions could be to the same hex. Pinning would only consider the larger of your opponents' fleets in the hex (one Kzinti and two Lyrans would pin two Klingons, not three).

> However, I think it rather potently outlines just why this issue has been idle for so long. That list of questions I theorized above have too many answers that break the current system, and the available R&D budget is being spent elsewhere.

Yeah, I know this isn't a priority.

Paul, I think you're missing something. The mini-turn only affects crippled ships (which A wouldn't have on C's front before C's first turn) and reserves (allowing A to have at most one more reserve set up against C than otherwise). The schedule is symmetric, so unless the single extra reserve is overly impactful turn 1 it's not an issue.

Player C is incentivized to attack player B (the player who was most recently aggressive and has not yet had a chance to repair any ships crippled while on offense) because that makes it more difficult to gang up. Similarly, player A (on his second turn) is incentivized to attack player C because B will just have had a chance to repair and reassign reserves and C likely just took more cripples due to being on offense.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 04, 2023 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Sam

Sorry - but that doesn't help.

Player A can attack player C - and before player C can attack back - Player A can repair or move those crippled ships freely another 3 hexes away from player C!

So either Player A has MORE uncrippled ships to defend with or they further from the front line.


Player C has a massive and terminal disadvantage IMHO.

By Sam Benner (Nucaranlaeg) on Wednesday, January 04, 2023 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Oh, I see your point. It's not limited to player C, but rather it makes it particularly difficult for C to attack A (and A to attack B and B to attack C), more than intended.

Maybe it would be feasible to simply restrict it to ships in combat on the preceding player's turn? So A could only repair/retrograde cripples which had been in combat with B? That seems nice, though it might be difficult to keep track of.

Hm. I'll keep thinking.