I played a lot of MAN a while (> 1 year) ago and recently came back to find MAN2. While I haven't played this newest version just yet (still waiting for beta to download, lol) I am quite disappointed that there appears to be no support for more than 2 players in a single game. Games with 3 or more players are much more interesting due to the variety of diplomacy options. I guess the biggest challenge would be the rules for who shoots first (as PL has always had a significant advantage in this arena). Was there discussion among the developers about how to solve this? What about a rotating turn order: 1,2,3,4 then 4,1,2,3 then 3,4,1,2, etc. Thus the person who goes last, gets to go twice in a row and is at the top of the order. This may offset the going last (hard to say without trying it out). Any other ideas? Were simultaneous turns ever explored?

I find this to be MAN's greatest weakness. If this feature were added I would purchase a lifetime subscription tomorrow. In the meantime I will continue to play my boxed MA as MAN2 doesn't seem to have significant strategic changes.

Clan wars are an insufficient "band-aid" solution to this deficiency.

It is surely a dream come true if this were possible. I don't see why it couldn't at least be tested out.

Regarding problems with turn order, they could be reduced by lowering the initial army so that an attck during the first turn is maybe not advisable.

Anyhow, with this turn order maybe it would be much of a problem:

Turn 0 Reveal
Player 1 Team A
Player 2 Team B
Player 3 Team B
Player 4 Team A

Turn 1
Player 1 Team A
Player 2 Team B
Player 3 Team B
Player 4 Team A

Turn 2
Player 3 Team B
Player 4 Team A
Player 1 Team A
Player 2 Team B

Turn 3
Player 4 Team A
Player 3 Team B
Player 2 Team B
Player 1 Team A

Turn 4
Player 2 Team B
Player 1 Team A
Player 4 Team A
Player 3 Team B

and from the beginning (turn 1) again...
Teams should be locked for this to be balanced, so no diplomacy possible.

T, I think you missed pickard-j point, he wishes to have 3 or 4 players all playing against each other. No teams. Personally, I think it would kind of pervert the game because 2 or 3 of the players could team up to take out the strongest player and each players actual game play would become less important. I know Pickard-j from MAN and he is a good player but i think he has not played MAN2 much if he thinks there is not much difference between the 2 games. Red no longer has any 1st turn advantage and game play has become much more complex.

Yes you are correct. I don't think it would be possible to balance things if there were no teams.

Exactly. I can imagine that in a game with 4 players the 4th player has a big disadvantage. I've played Risk several times with more then 3 players (the boardgame..) and the 4th player practicly always get smashed first..

Ah Risk, a game based on enlisting others into thinking "someone other than yourself" is the strongest and they should help you smash them (so you can stab them in the back after they get weak doing the smashing). One of my better games!!