Any Earth History of 3 v 1?

[HeadHoncho]

I don't have time for a long discourse on this topic, unfortunately, but if you take even a casual glance at the Italian Wars Wikipedia entry -- which isn't bad but definitely isn't very complete -- you'll see all kinds of machinations and alliances. This was modeled well from a game mechanics perspective, IMO, by the classic game Machiavelli, which was basically a (fantastic) variant of Diplomacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars

The pre-unification Germany situation was just as byzantine, if not more so.

Regardless, as Kevin kind of alludes to, you have a solution if you want it, which is to say a fantasy world of your own creation. If you want to create chivalry rules that societies adhere to in Alamaze, you can do it.

But searching for a historical justification for what is fundamentally a game mechanics issue is not going to work for you here, because history is literally rife with counter-examples. It is also impossible to simplify many of these historical situations into "aggressor" and "defender" especially the further back you go in history, as reliable records and evidence become more scarce. History is also written by the winners, as the old saying goes.

[DuPont]

Hasn't anybody heard of the War of the Triple Alliance? Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay vs Paraguay:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
The Egyptians called the Suez Crisis 'The Tripartite Aggression' - France, the UK and Israel vs Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
The War of the Triple Alliance is probably closest to what you see in Alamaze. Paraguay had no chance to fight off its three neighbors.

[Brogan]

Excellent examples!

[Acererak]

I'll chime in here and say the following:

1) Yes, 3 on 1 is not fair. It sucks being on the receiving end of it. It could drive away a beginner player if it happens to him in his very first game.

2) So what? It's a game. The rules are clear and if you really were going to stick around and play this game you know that it is possible to get ganged up on and defeated. The ability to prevent it next time is always there via diplomacy or stronger play. Creating more rules to prevent player created possibilities will only drive away experienced players like me.

This reminds me of the recently tabled college football debate over hurry up offense and 10 second substitution time. Rather than allowing other teams to innovate and respond within the rules of the game how it is currently designed, there is an attempt to change the rules to prevent a problem that isn't rampant. What ends up happening is the game is damaged irrevocably for all participants.

That's my .2. Now back to killing DuPont in game 124.

[Acererak]

One other thing I would note. The premise at the beginning of this thread is basically impossible in Alamaze. No kingdom can win this game by being completely neutral the entire game.

[DuPont]

That's my .2. Now back to killing DuPont in game 124.

Ah, but you will find I never, ever die. Even if reduced to running my kingdom out of a nomadic camp, I will always be there to harass those who attacked me! You can never move on to the next foe and think I won't start re-growling like moss.

[Acererak]

Lol. I know DuPont, and I admire that about you.

[Ry Vor]

In WWII, Germany was the aggressor and did fight against three nations beginning in 1943 with Russia and the USA and Britain in North Africa and Italy. But the USA and England were also fighting Japan, who likewise was the aggressor and also was fighting China.

HH, maybe you can give a medieval example or two. In terms or wars rather than battles its normally thought of as a series of wars between England and France. the Holy Roman Empire had various skirmishes, but again I would think they would generally be considered the aggressor.

I should have thought of the Napoleonic Wars earlier, at least once in maybe five wars the French fought against Britain, Russia, Prussia. Again it was the one, who was the aggressor against the three.

Likewise if we consider American Indians to be different nations.

I'm still not coming up with three aggressor nations attacking in coordination a defensive single nation.

"Wave after wave of Germanic barbarian tribes swept through the Roman Empire. Groups such as the Visigoths, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, Franks, Ostrogoths, and Lombards took turns ravaging the Empire, eventually carving out areas in which to settle down. The Angles and Saxons populated the British Isles, and the Franks ended up in France.

In 476 C.E. Romulus, the last of the Roman emperors in the west, was overthrown by the Germanic leader Odoacer, who became the first Barbarian to rule in Rome. The order that the Roman Empire had brought to western Europe for 1000 years was no more."

Arguably, the numerous barbarians attacked the once-mighty Roman empire in a coordinated effort. Nevertheless, I think the better argument is that there was only the shared goal of destroying the empire/living free from its rule, not necessarily a high degree of coordination.

Interesting. Somebody should make a game around that....