No player can reliably protect against ANY strategy, though.
Thanks for your response.
Generally, you are correct. But you guys can't possibly tell me that a skilled player can reliably protect against it because in some cases doing so would mean forgoing indispensable cards necessary to compete and because there is a complete lack of means to defend against the "sudden, abrubt, premature three pile" that I loath. Furthermore, the third player can completely ruin my defensive measures.
Case in point:
I was playing a game tonight where all three of us stock up on quarrys and everyone just starts going to town on the border villages and wharfs, then they move on to the conspirators..
So what do I do to defend against this? Do I not buy the wharfs or border villages and opt for harvest instead? Even this is a weak defense because the greedy bastards will drain those piles whether I do it or not.
Now in this game the border village pile and wharf pile were emptied by turn 5 or 6.., by turn 7 or 8 the conspirators were down to (2) remaining...
So what do I do? Buy a province and hope for the best? They'd just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators.
And don't say "well its your fault you didn't get the first megaturn" because
A) I wasn't the first player.
B)Everyone had equal decks, everyone acquired their decks at the same rate and the same way.
So it truly is more skewed in the direction of luck. Please, someone admit to me that this rule is problematic in some cases, and some players are content to let luck determine the game just so they "win"
First, three player games are always going to feel "unfair" - with three equal skilled players you only win 1/3 of the time and so on. Yes, this is mostly going to feel like "luck" and "turn order" in a game based on buying a very finite number of cards.
I don't understand your definition of problematic. You've said before that you essentially thinks it's better to let engines "duke it out" in the long run over VP cards piling because this is somehow a better measure of player skill than three pile endings. But in the situation you just described, everyone has the same strategy - you're all just scrambling for villages, wharfs and conspirators.
Where would the skill difference come in if the game continued? You'll end up with the same first player advantage problem when buying out the last few provinces
Making the game last longer (by not letting the game end with three piles) only kicks the can down the road in terms of player advantage.
Your example of why you are helpless if you buy a province ("he'll just buy a province and an estate and the last two conspirators") ignores the fact that YOU could have started buying VP earlier (say, a province and two estates) so that HE only has enough for a province and one estate and YOU can end the game by buying the last conspirator. So what if the game kept going when the piles are empty? one of you will just win because of shuffle luck or better splits. Same difference.
Sure, you may lose if one of your opponents doesn't stop buying cards and ends the game when he has no chance of winning - but the fact that the three pile rule makes "kingmaking" easier in 3+ player games doesn't make the rule problematic, it makes those players problematic.
. My rating drops when I watch TV while I play but... w/e.