I've played a few games of this now and while I like the game components. I'm not sure I understand why the game is rated so high. Is it because I have only played two player games? I'm not really getting the strategy here. For example, the roles are random so what good does it do me to build one color or another? About the only strategy I am discerning so far are two things. One, because of the randomness, one must use logic to determine who might be whom and this would be better with more players. And, two, whether or not to build large districts with good purple cards. I have played a lot of San Juan, so I do not know, yet, if I like the random roles.

I think it plays BEST with 2. The roles are certainly not random; you choose them from those remaining.

Player A shuffles roles and draws 1 at random, face down on the table.
Player A looks at cards and draws 1.
Player B looks at cards and draws 1 and places 1 face down on the table.
Player A looks at cards and draws 1 and places 1 face down on the table.
Player B looks at cards and draws 1 and places 1 face down on the table.

Now each player knows something about what was chosen and not chosen. They also have some clues as to what roles would benefit their opponent most (money, cards in hand, cards in play). Also, in the 2p and 3p games, since you have 2 roles, you can change your plans during the turn based on what has happened (eg wait to build with 2nd role, etc).

It is a much different game with 2 than with 8, but I find it scales very well and is fun with any number.

We've had quite a few two player games and only a couple of games with more so perhaps I can't make much of a comparative statement, but it's a fine game for two. (We often play with Witch and Tax Collector.)

I read into it. Thanks. That does change things. I'm glad I asked.

Yeah, my wife and I like it two player, but we always do witch instead of assassin when we play two player.

Citadels, I think, really requires quite a number of plays to really grasp the strategies and the subtleties of the game. Once you really learn the buildings and the way the roles can interact with each other and with the buildings, you'll probably start to enjoy the game a lot more. It'll take awhile, though, as some things aren't intuitive.

I think that its incredibly boring with 2, for what its worth. Great game with even 3, though -- and the more, the merrier.

It's somewhat well-known that the issue of optimal number of players tends to be polarizing for this particular game.

I'm in the camp that likes it best with two players.

Yo say use logic. Is logic random?? The character picking is the crucial part of the game and it certainlyu isn't random!

Purple districts don't create gold (except magic school) and aren't the best cards to build first. If you only build expensive cards, you won't qualify for bonus points. A mix of colours and of small & large cards is best imo.
Depending on your cards and number of players, tactics change drastically.



Is it? First time I'm hearing this. It's well know that it plays best with 4-6. It's fine with two but then it's a citadels-light game.

I'm glad you asked too! I had pretty much written off Citadels as I game I thought I would like... but actually didn't. I only played one game with 6 or 7 people and it was pretty dreadful. I had no idea it could be interesting with 2 players.

It's becoming clear in this thread that optimal number for Citadels is a point of difference of opinion. I didn't enjoy the 4/5 player games as much as our 2 player games. (But I've only played a couple of games with more than 2.)

I like it best with (2)3-4 players, 2 characters per player.

Most of my experience (over many years) has been with larger numbers of players each with one role, or with three players and two roles each. These are very different games. When you have two roles, they support each other - allowing you to build up money with the first to use with the second for example. It is difficult to steal from a high numbered role because the player will have gotten rid of his money with his lower numbered role. If you do get a role killed off, you only lose half your turn. With one role, the game can be much meaner - a good late-game guess on who to steal from can seal a victory or ensure a defeat, and if you pick too transparently you might get killed several turns in a row.

A few months ago, I tried this for the first time with only two players and was surprised at how well it worked. You get the benefits of the two roles per player, but because of the head-to-head nature it seems a bit more direct and nasty than with three. Maybe that is the best of both worlds - depending on your gaming preferences. I haven't explored the two-player enough to use anything but the basic set of characters. I have seen a lot of references to swapping out the lower roles when playing with two (and not just in this thread) so you might want to try that out as well. Superficially, it looks like this is mostly a matter of how "mean" you want the game to feel - but there might be roles which are genuinely more suitable in the two-player environment regardless of how nasty you like your interactions.

Um. No. A game is made lighter by the introduction of more random and/or chaos elements. In Citadels, the more players, the more randomness and chaos. The 2p game is the most strategic and deep by all quantitative measurements.

I've never thought about randomness bringing lightness. Is this always the case in games? Thanks.

Have you played with three people? I find it broken with three. (I can't deal with the fact that people have a perfect knowledge of a role that has been picked.)