3 player battle

This seems to be a lost cause when I've looked on line. But has anyone had any success in finding and playing rules for a reasonably balanced 3 way battle?

Ive had a few 3-way battles, all with the guys I works with.
We've normally run it like this -
Set up table as normal. Deployment is 2 corners on same table edge and 2 in center of opposite edge
All three of of us roll off - Winner picks his deployment
2 guys roll off again, winner picks his deployment zone
Order of play is same as deployment, and everyone gets to try and seize against guy goin before them
Everything else we play as normal, except for combat, in which everyone fights in each others combat phase. Some of the fights get pretty brutal.
Also, what normally happens is I ignore 1 guy and throw my whole force against my Sup(just to see his tears) and he has to focus against me and then the other guy just cleans up.
We never bother with objectives, but sometimes we do "Relic" missions or use tactical objective cards.

What works a bit better is two on one. So 1 army of 2500 vs a combined army of two 1250 lists.

But it does tend to get s bit messy, I don't think there is really a way around that.

There is no 1 vs 1 vs 1. There can only be 2 vs 1 or 1 vs 1 and one cleans up.

The ONLY way to balance a 3 way is to have a gentleman’s agreement and or a understanding that if you go all out for one of the other two then you'll lose as you'll be the focus of retaliation and then the other untouched play will simply out number both of you.

What does help is playing maelstrom missions with the objectives scattered from the centre of each 2foot "game board tile"

We generally have deployment zones in two corners along the long table edge with the other centrally on the opposite long table edge (a 12inch square of the corners and 12 inch diameter for the central one) (as Flakmonkey) That said the person in the centre generally has a tough time.  

The only other way we’ve found to help balance it out is to have two deployments each. Before the game starts you deploy 2 units and then at the start of your first turn the rest of your forces (excluding reserves) just pop up in your deployment zone. It stops the person going last getting alpha striked twice. Although doing this makes it a bit tougher for the person going first.

Also, it seems to be more balanced if the person in the centre goes last.

Interesting...

I would agree that Maelstrom lends itself very well to multiplayer games.
At the very least the scattering of numbered objectives forces players to move into both opponents rather than have two players gang up on one.

I've tinkered with a "race track" deployment. Pick a point in the center and models can only move clockwise around the point. It forces each player to focus on the person to their left and leave defenders behind them. Almost like a perpetual bridge battle. I haven't tested it, but I think it may fix a few problems. It would still require a gentleman's agreement and just for fun...

Gave some thought to maelstrom and had the following idea as well.

For any objectives that are for killing an opponent either in shooting or in assault, make it random which of your two opponents that needs to be. (i.e. even's the guy to your left, odd the guy to your right).

The racetrack idea my work too.