Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Davio]

A lot us play 2-player Dominion almost exclusively, because that's the fastest way to play, especially on the internet. In real life, I prefer 3-player, because it has a bit more interaction. Switching from 2 to 3 player takes some adjustments though and I'll talk a bit about them here.

Accelerated Junking
The problem with Cursers, Looters and other junkers in 3-player is not in the amount of crap you take in. A 3-player game has 20 Curses, while a 2-player game has 10. So on average you will get 6.7 Curses in 3-player to 5 in 2-player. That's not a big difference. The main difference is in the number of turns it takes for you to acquire a critical pile of crap. A 2-player game may take a good chunk of the middle-game to run out the Curses and you receive on average about 1 Curse per shuffle. This is why even a slow trasher can work in 2-player if there isn't a way to run out fast after the Curses are gone. With 3-player you get on average 2 Curses per shuffle and this will ruin your deck so quickly that you need to have quite strong trashing to outrace it. A single Salvager only for Curses isn't going to do much. On the other hand, because everyone's deck is so crappy, you might just have time for slow trashing. You just have to have a plan for a deck that will turn pretty bad, pretty quickly.

Piles, piles, piles
This is an obvious one, 3-pile endings will be a lot more common, but what you really have to take into consideration is that you can't get as many cards from a single pile as you would in 2-player. The average for action cards is 3.3 to 5 in a 2-player game. That's a significant difference. A Hunting Party stack doesn't work quite as well with 3 Hunting Parties. What does this mean? Mono-card strategies like Minion, Hunting Party, etc, are all going to do much worse. Of course it doesn't hurt to add such cards, but you shouldn't build your strategy around them. I wouldn't say BM is the obvious way to go, but money is much more important in 3-player.

Attaaaaack!
There are some attack cards that become significantly stronger with 3-player, the ones that attack other players' decks: Pirate Ship, Noble Brigand, even Thief and of course Jester. Your odds of hitting something good are just that much greater. Hand attacks like Militia are less of a big deal. Often one of the players already has 3 cards from a previous Militia and then you're really only attacking one player. Torturer is a special case here as it's even more brutal.

Deeeeefense
Well, we talked about attacks, so it's logical to talk about defense. As the chances of you being attacked are now doubled, defense is often a solid option. If a Moat can stop 2 Curses coming in on a single turn, that's as good as Gold! Most reaction cards are decent if there are attacks around.

Victory Piles
There are 12 cards in every victory card pile, so the average is still 4 per player. Why does it matter then? Well, because you can go for an alternative VP strategy and be able to get more cards from the pile than you would in 2-player. Duchy/Duke, Gardens, Silk Roads all become more interesting if you can get 6 of them instead of 4 or 5. You can also create more time for these strategies by forcing your opponents to get 6 Provinces each instead of 4. Keep watching for piles, of course.

Do Engines Still Work?
Well, that depends on the type of engine. A single- or two-card engine becomes much harder to pull off, simply because you can't get enough cards and the game will likely be over pretty fast if you do. You need a lot of variety and a couple different piles to incorporate into your engine. These kinds of engines are also the most fun, so when you can go with a 3-player engine that works, it can be really rewarding.

Scramble and Control
One thing I've noticed is that 3-player games are mostly a scramble for points. This is partly because you have less control. Sometimes you can control a 2-player game almost perfectly, but this is often simply not possible in 3-player. Another player may end the game while he and you are both still behind. So grabbing a lead is pretty important. With an early $8 I might just go ahead and get that Province over a Gold, taking these opportunities is just so important. Switching to Duchies can be done a lot earlier, all just to put yourself in a position to win when piles are drained.

Parting Thoughts
Switching from 2 to 3-player takes some adjustments. You have to keep in mind that the amount of interaction is doubled, there are now 2 players interacting with you and you are interacting with 2 yourself. This causes some attacks to have a much bigger impact. On the other hand, the average number of cards per pile influences your engine possibilities and the length of the game. Be aware that there are now 12 VP cards to get and adjust accordingly.

[Warfreak2]

Duchy/Duke, Gardens, Silk Roads all become more interesting if you can get 6 of them instead of 4 or 5. You can also create more less time for these strategies by forcing your opponents to get 6 Provinces each instead of 4 8.

[werothegreat]

Also be aware that Possession and Masquerade change in 3-player.

[A Drowned Kernel]

I've always thought that it was a shame that there wasn't the same "scene" for 3-player games online as there is for 2-player. I have no idea how one would go about facilitating it, especially with the way goko handles, well, everything, but I think that there's a lot of unexplored strategic ground there.

[2.71828.....]

I've always thought that it was a shame that there wasn't the same "scene" for 3-player games online as there is for 2-player. I have no idea how one would go about facilitating it, especially with the way goko handles, well, everything, but I think that there's a lot of unexplored strategic ground there.

I have played several 3-player games on goko.  The biggest hindrance is the lobbies.  It is quick and easy to find a 2-player match, but you usually have to wait a little while for a 3-player.  [insert discussion about how much we all miss isotropic]

[PSGarak]

You mentioned several aspects of there being more contention for cards, but I think it's worth explicitly addressing the fact that there's no "split." In 2-player match-ups, many times there's a battle over gaining one particular card--I'll use Fool's Gold as an example, because it's a pile you want to win and because you have different options to play it (converting to Gold or not), but the same applies to things like Duchies in a Duke or Rebuild game, Ill-Gotten Gains, and sometimes even just power cards like Hunting Party or Minion or King's Court. If you manage to split the 10 cards in the key pile 6-4 with your opponent instead of 5-5 you're at an advantage. The idea of a split is more fundamental in 2-player because every copy that you don't get is one that your opponent gets, and vice-versa.

3-player lacks that symmetry between your deck and your opponents'. First, there's no way to have a completely symmetric split because 3 does not divide 10. The closest you can get is 4-3-3. You can't try to tie, because there is always a winner.

Second, it's no longer the case that the number of copies you snag is directly related to the number of copies your opponent snagged. In 2 players, if you got 4 Fool's Golds and the pile is empty, then you have fewer FG than your opponent because he got 6. There is a direct connection between you have and what your opponent does not, and vice-versa. This means in general the same deck will be facing similar opposing decks. In 3-player, this statement is not true. If you get 4 of the FG's, the split could be 4-3-3, or it could be 4-6-0, so it's possible for the same deck to be facing different competitive landscapes. In fact, in that last case you could end up with only 4 FG's and still be going up against a non-FG deck, a situation that doesn't occur in 2-player.

And on that note: Third, denying a card is less important if both your opponents are fighting over it. In 2-player, even if you don't want Fool's Golds for yourself, you still want to gain a few to deny your opponent from getting all of them because fighting against a 10-FG deck is difficult. In 3-player, if you ignore FG your opponents will probably have 5 each, which is more manageable to beat.

[ehunt]

I've always thought that it was a shame that there wasn't the same "scene" for 3-player games online as there is for 2-player. I have no idea how one would go about facilitating it, especially with the way goko handles, well, everything, but I think that there's a lot of unexplored strategic ground there.

In the waning days of isotropic there was a surge of interest in 3p. It's a fine game in and of itself. But it's too slow on the Goko interface.

[Polk5440]

I would like to emphasize/clarify a few things:

Grab Duchies earlier. In three or more players it's even more critical to think about how many turns/buys there are left. In two player games you can usually get away with, "oh, there are 4 Provinces left; time to start buying Provinces Duchies." In Big Money + X games with three players, usually you should be buying Duchies with 6 Provinces left.

It pays to pick a different strategy. Competition for cards really matters. Even if one strategy is "better," if two players go for it, you may be better off choosing an alternate, slightly "worse" strategy (e.g. Gardens versus a Province-based strategy) where there is less competition for key cards. Even better if that strategy gives you a whole pile of cards to yourself. Force the other players to divert from their preferred strategy to deny you key cards.

Building off of that point: Be prepared to react to the strategies your opponents choose even more so than in two player. Maybe you all started down the same path. Is it worth changing things up a little bit rather than fighting over the same cards?

Variance Matters. Going last is worse the more players there are. From the last seat you should consider higher variance strategies more seriously.

You will win less often. Equally skilled players win half the time in two player and a third of the time in three player. This does not make the game less fun!

It can't hurt to further emphasize: Watch the piles!

[Awaclus]

Grab Duchies earlier. In three or more players it's even more critical to think about how many turns/buys there are left. In two player games you can usually get away with, "oh, there are 4 Provinces left; time to start buying Provinces." In Big Money + X games with three players, usually you should be buying Duchies with 6 Provinces left.

That's one way of looking at it, but on the other hand, you should grab Duchies later. In two player games, you can usually get away with "oh, 4 Provinces have been bought alredy; time to start buying Provinces". In 3p games, usually you should wait until 6 Provinces have been bought.

[dondon151]

3-player tip of the day: beware the player in 3rd place who ends the game when you're not ahead just to spite you.

[Kirian]

3-player tip of the day: beware the player in 3rd place who ends the game when you're not ahead just to spite you.

And this, in particular, is why competitive Dominion will always be--for me at least--2-player only.

[flies]

Knights are more chaotic in multiplayer.  In 2 player, an even knights split will often result in all the knights trashing each other.  In multiplayer, it will be much more common for one player to end up with the only knight(s).  Contrariwise, knights are flushed out of your deck much faster because they're twice as likely to hit an opponents' knight.  So investing heavily in knights might pay off if the game goes long enough, making it a sort of good-on-average high-variance plan (depending on the kingdom, naturally).

[Davio]

3-player tip of the day: beware the player in 3rd place who ends the game when you're not ahead just to spite you.

And this, in particular, is why competitive Dominion will always be--for me at least--2-player only.

I think I like Dominion best when it's a little competitive, but not too competitive to be restrictive.

[KingZog3]

3-player tip of the day: beware the player in 3rd place who ends the game when you're not ahead just to spite you.

And this, in particular, is why competitive Dominion will always be--for me at least--2-player only.

I think I like Dominion best when it's a little competitive, but not too competitive to be restrictive.

I totally agree. I enjoy competing to win, but I'm always happy when my opponent and I discuss why we won/lost after the game.

[jomini]

A few other things:
1. Cards with opponent bonuses get proportionally weaker. Take Council room when Smithy is also out. In 2er, you each draw a card; you can roughly expect your opponent's bonus card to be about as good as your fourth card (not exactly as he always draws his live while you may draw yours dead, on the other hand you might end the game before he can play the bonus card). In 3er odds are that at least one opponent will have better bonus card than the card you drew. Similarly with Bishop, odds that you let your opponent trash something better than you trash at a key moment aren't that great, but two opponents doubles the chances for the opponents to score big. Vault, Margrave (particularly after repetitive play), Embassy, etc. all are slightly weaker in 3er. You also have to worry about stacking bonuses, with two players running council room engines, the third really doesn't need draw. Even some odd cases like Soothesayer can get in here - a strategy might not be viable with just one player giving you bonuses, but with 2 you can now do something like a quick Madman/Coppersmith/+buy explosion.

In converse manner, cards that key off other players get stronger. Even if the only trashing is Swindler - this can tip the balance towards Cultist, Fortress, Hunting Grounds, etc. over other options. The odds that things will line up are much, much stronger that you will trigger some on-trash clause. Similarly, Countinghouse does get better if you have more people sending you coppers from Mountebanks, Jesters, or Noble Brigands (and possibly just discards in general). You will just have more times where there are coppers to be snapped up.

2. Colonies are riskier. In 2er, taking 5 colonies is nearly always an assured win. Taking 7 colonies in 3er is nowhere near enough - it loses to a simple province piling. Couple this with the greater risk of 3 piling and the easier shot that you can quickly split the provinces 6-6 or 7-5 and the colony setup just has a lot of risk to get it going.

3. End game is much easier to threaten. I have an engine that can gain two cheap cards (say via Tr->Armory) and buy maybe 2 decent value cards. Normally this is a fairly easy thing work out for 3 pile threats - with no piles more than 4 gone, at best I need to gain 18 cards. On the first turn I gain 4, the next turn I can gain 8 (net 12) and on turn 3 I can gain 16. With 3er, this exponential explosion is much stronger. Same setup gets us to 16 cards in just 2 turns, but there is also less hassle than say trying to line up a bunch of Armory draws on the third turn and you can explode a lot quicker. Again, the 3 pile threat is also typically a lot closer to start with. Similarly, 3er is a lot more likely to quickly run down the piles from stuff like Swindler, Sab, or Jester - even without obvious engines.

4. You can get hit with different kinds of attacks without having an engine in play. In 2er a player my face a choice between something like going for Young Witch (easy I counter with a decent bane) or going for Militia (easy I counter with Library), but in 3er you can face both types of attacks at once, repetitively. This can push you back toward the attack game yourself or towards a slog and away from an expensive engine (e.g. both draw & village are 5's) or a combo (e.g. Chancellor/Stash can laugh off a reliable curser, and let you curse better if the opponent goes for reliable Militia, but against both either Chancellor option gets pretty weak).

[Asper]

Fun fact: I almost exclusively play Dominion with 3 players. Many of them real-life, too. For us, Thief can be worth buying sometimes, and KC-Goons-Masquerade is nothing but a rumour (well, you could do that, but probably you'll lose). It was funny to see how most of you only play 2 player games.

[eHalcyon]

Grab Duchies earlier. In three or more players it's even more critical to think about how many turns/buys there are left. In two player games you can usually get away with, "oh, there are 4 Provinces left; time to start buying Provinces." In Big Money + X games with three players, usually you should be buying Duchies with 6 Provinces left.

That's one way of looking at it, but on the other hand, you should grab Duchies later. In two player games, you can usually get away with "oh, 4 Provinces have been bought alredy; time to start buying Provinces". In 3p games, usually you should wait until 6 Provinces have been bought.

How do you figure?  Or is this a cheeky respond to Polks' typo "time to start buying Provinces" when he certainly meant Duchies?  You'll want to buy Duchies earlier than you would in 2p because the Provinces can disappear more quickly.  There's PPR in 2p, but in 3p you have to account for the fact that, even without +Buy, 2 Provinces could be purchased before your next turn.







I remember that Stef(?) once wrote an article about some 3p strategy.  A specific example was with purchasing Witch vs. Moat.  I'm afraid I'm too lazy to go find it atm...

[Awaclus]

Grab Duchies earlier. In three or more players it's even more critical to think about how many turns/buys there are left. In two player games you can usually get away with, "oh, there are 4 Provinces left; time to start buying Provinces." In Big Money + X games with three players, usually you should be buying Duchies with 6 Provinces left.

That's one way of looking at it, but on the other hand, you should grab Duchies later. In two player games, you can usually get away with "oh, 4 Provinces have been bought alredy; time to start buying Provinces". In 3p games, usually you should wait until 6 Provinces have been bought.

How do you figure?  Or is this a cheeky respond to Polks' typo "time to start buying Provinces" when he certainly meant Duchies?  You'll want to buy Duchies earlier than you would in 2p because the Provinces can disappear more quickly.  There's PPR in 2p, but in 3p you have to account for the fact that, even without +Buy, 2 Provinces could be purchased before your next turn.

No, it's a cheeky respond to Polks' way of thinking that buying Duchies when there are 6 Provinces left and 6 have been bought is "earlier" than buying them when there are 4 Provinces left and 4 have been bought, because in both situations, you're doing it when 50% of them have been bought and 50% are still in the supply - in other words, at the exact same time.

[Polk5440]

How do you figure?  Or is this a cheeky respond to Polks' typo "time to start buying Provinces" when he certainly meant Duchies? 

Oops. Thanks for catching that.

[Polk5440]

Grab Duchies earlier. In three or more players it's even more critical to think about how many turns/buys there are left. In two player games you can usually get away with, "oh, there are 4 Provinces left; time to start buying Provinces." In Big Money + X games with three players, usually you should be buying Duchies with 6 Provinces left.

That's one way of looking at it, but on the other hand, you should grab Duchies later. In two player games, you can usually get away with "oh, 4 Provinces have been bought alredy; time to start buying Provinces". In 3p games, usually you should wait until 6 Provinces have been bought.

How do you figure?  Or is this a cheeky respond to Polks' typo "time to start buying Provinces" when he certainly meant Duchies?  You'll want to buy Duchies earlier than you would in 2p because the Provinces can disappear more quickly.  There's PPR in 2p, but in 3p you have to account for the fact that, even without +Buy, 2 Provinces could be purchased before your next turn.

No, it's a cheeky respond to Polks' way of thinking that buying Duchies when there are 6 Provinces left and 6 have been bought is "earlier" than buying them when there are 4 Provinces left and 4 have been bought, because in both situations, you're doing it when 50% of them have been bought and 50% are still in the supply - in other words, at the exact same time.

What about 4 player? "Later" makes less sense.

I was really trying to convey two things:
1) the importance of thinking about how many buys/gains there are left (and how many buys/gains you and your opponents are capable of) and
2) pointing out that sometimes the way people think about optimal buy/gain rules implicitly depends on the number of players.

As Awaclus points out, sometimes 2) doesn't fail for a particular buy rule when the number of players changes (and rules can re-framed to be more general). But often, it does.

[Davio]

The main reason why you start with Duchies earlier in 3p than in 2p is because the game could end much sooner. This is mostly caused by the Action supply piles not scaling like the VP piles and the lack of control. In 2p, your opponent might never end the game if he's behind. In 3p, a player just might do that if it moves him from 3rd to 2nd.

This means that you can win by ending the game on your own turn or by 3rd guy ending the game while you're ahead. Of course, 2nd guy knows and fears this, so he tries to grab the lead himself. And you know that as well, so you try to keep the lead. This is what leads to crazy Duchy races sometimes. It's almost as much of a paradox as an arms race.