There is a fatal flaw in mutliplayer campaign games with many strategic targets making it almost mathematically impossible for a player to win.
Imagine a 3 player game with 12 strategic targets (quite possible if the other riefits tables keep turning up "additional strategic targets"). Assume, for simplicity, that no race has an initative bonus an that player 1 has captured 11 tatgets and Player 2 holds the lasttarget.
On the initiative roll player 1 will go last becausre of the -11 initiative modifer for hold 11 systems. (Yes I know he could technically draw with player 2 but they would just have ro reroll until he lost).
During the turn player 3 attacks the target held by player 2 depriving player 1 of the opportunity.
Ownership of this world could swing between player 2 and 3 forever without player 1 winning.
I understand that this case is mearly of acedemic interst to all but the most devout rules lawyer.
Imagine a 3 player game with 12 strategic targets (quite possible if the other riefits tables keep turning up "additional strategic targets"). Assume, for simplicity, that no race has an initative bonus an that player 1 has captured 11 tatgets and Player 2 holds the lasttarget.
On the initiative roll player 1 will go last becausre of the -11 initiative modifer for hold 11 systems. (Yes I know he could technically draw with player 2 but they would just have ro reroll until he lost).
During the turn player 3 attacks the target held by player 2 depriving player 1 of the opportunity.
Ownership of this world could swing between player 2 and 3 forever without player 1 winning.
I understand that this case is mearly of acedemic interst to all but the most devout rules lawyer.