There comes a point where it doesn't matter how weak your pieces are, as long as you have lots of them. Numbers will prevail. Red can knock out one of the players on his sides by force, after which is light work to win. You've gotta nerf Red some more, especially the back rank, and make Red's royal piece a normal king.
3v1chess which is better
Sort:
Well, I am not sure how the rules for multi-player chess are. But if each of the 4 players get equally many turns, life is very hard for a single player who takes on 3. You might have 3 times the number of pieces, but you have 3 times fewer turns to move them. If you would concentrate on fighting one, this might already cost you 1/3 of your initial army, and in the mean time the other two opponents will have been annihilating the remainder of your army without incurring any losses.
"red empire" or "first empire" or "3v1 chess" whatever.
The big one wins. Then, it wins.
The small one wins. Then, they need to have a fight to decide.
With Takeover, may easier for red or the first player because they infighting and mutual suspicion. I think a rational person will not fight the teammate.
With King of the Hill, may have more willing the fight to the middle. Of course, red may enter. It is a problem. Detach the edge and the middle? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It may also have a better looking if the Red Rook becomes Elephant.
If the "3v1 chess" the biggest are not red. Putting a Camel in the middle is a choice because it can kill a player in the first round. That is a good trap for the new player.
Sure, the things in the middle are actually can be anything, fill with kings or something else. The main idea of this game is psychology. It is unbalanced and overpowered. What a nice game for your family and friends. LOL
I think someone may make it before. Who doesn't like fighting with bosses?