Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
I have just noticed that I am the player with most recorded plays, but also the only one not recommending this game with 4 players. I do not claim to hold the truth however. I would like to know why you prefer this game with 4 players.
My main criticism about the 4p game is that the 4th player may have only two actions in a round, and there’s nothing he can do against it. It kills my pleasure.
-
Ben
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
-
I don't understand why the fourth player would only have two actions. Can you explain that a little more?
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Lack of money in certain conditions (that absolutely always happen when I'm the fourth player).
-
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Pasadena
California
-
Sounds like you are a victim of groupthink. We haven't seen this issue because the people going early don't usually go for money. There should be several attractive alternatives, particularly the guy with the white colored crew, and sometimes there is a really good mix of crew on the crew spots or really good contracts. Getting the merchant ship is also very powerful.
Four players is far better than three in my experience. More people, more competition, harder decisions.
-
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
-
I only play this game with four and will barely consider playing with three. No way with two. The game really needs the pressure of how few free actions there are in a turn and the rules don’t adjust for this. You say that the 4th player may only have two actions in the round without mentioning the other players. I believe what you’re really saying is that the 4th player may have one action fewer than the other players. I don’t see how any other interpretation would make any sense. I still don’t agree though.
 There are other factors involved besides where that first free action is. I don’t see how you’ve concluded that the 4th player is always losing out here. I think you may need to give an example so I can follow where you’re coming from.
Another reason four players is best has to do with the navigation/exploration. You need traffic at the ports. That traffic creates more decisions and interest. In fact, these are some of the most interesting decisions to me. This also makes the Merchant a valuable and interesting patron. Just getting the bonus in the box isn’t nearly enough.
Like yourself, I don’t think I can declare "truth" here. What’s happening may just be a result of the different play styles of our gaming groups. But for us, Vasco Da Gama is a great four-player game, an average three-player game, and unthinkable as a two-player game.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
I believe that you did not understand me Jennifer. Group think has nothing to do with the situation. Each time I’m the fourth player, the free actions start at 14 or 15 (absolutely never 4 or 5) so I get only one action for free and one (12 or 13) for 1 ou 2 guilders and I must pass two actions because of lack of money. You're right Michael, in this situation, the other players often have 3 actions (2 are free), one more than me. And I almost must lose one action to become first player, otherwise I'll be doomed again.
-
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Pasadena
California
-
Pyjam wrote: I believe that you did not understand me Jennifer. Group think has nothing to do with the situation. Each time I’m the fourth player, the free actions start at 14 or 15 (absolutely never 4 or 5) so I get only one action for free and one (12 or 13) for 1 ou 2 guilders and I must pass two actions because of lack of money. You're right Michael, in this situation, the other players often have 3 actions (2 are free), one more than me. And I almost must lose one action to become first player, otherwise I'll be doomed again.
I don't understand this. This shouldn't happen every time. Are you moving the disc each turn? Many many times the fourth player still has actions for free in our games.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
I played in 3 different groups, two of which already knew the rules. I played 4 or 5 4-player games. Each time, this situation happened to me. Frankly, I found this situation unpleasant. But even if it had happened to another player, I don't think It would have been fair.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
I was probably unlucky each time. Anyway, I see a real problem in this situation. Each time the free actions start at 14 or 15, the fourth player is screwed.
In every case, this extreme situation put apart, being fourth is always bad and becoming first player seems to be a necessity. At least, it's a 6 VP-switch.
-
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
-
I am not sure I understand this either. Take a look at this picture:
There are 20 spaces to pick numbers from. 16 would be taken each round in a 4 player game and 4 would remain. The starting numbers on the VdG tiles range from 4-12. Maybe if you had a higher batch of VdG tiles (i.e. 8-12) during a game it would result in one or two player's having to pass on one of their action, but for it to happen repeatedly or for more than one action per turn would seem unusual. In addition, the starting player is often changing each round, so going 4th (which does not necessarily impact which numbers are selected) multiple times in a row also does not seem common.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Add me to the "I don't get it" crowd.
The highest starting number is 12. So, before everyone starts to place tokens, there are 8 spots above that you would call the high demand free spots, so that's exactly 2 each if everyone plays safe and takes them first (which rarely happens in my experience, someone always thinks the modifier will be negative).
Worst case, the +3 modifier comes up, and 2 of those 8 become actions that have to be paid for with a buck or two. If that does happen, there's no reason why it will cost player 4 more than anyone else. It's very likely that one of the first players to place took the 12 or 13, leaving the higher numbers for the 4th player.
Basically, all four players should have 2 cheap actions, and 2 expensive ones.
Plus, the game always follows every + modifier with a guaranteed low starting number as compensation the next turn (the +3 starts with a base level of 4 next turn).
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Example 1:
Free actions start at 12. Selection is:
Player 1 : #12 — Player 2 : #13 — Player 3 : #14 — Player 4 : #15
Player 1 : #16 — Player 2 : #17 — Player 3 : #18 — Player 4 : #19
Player 1 : #20 — Player 2 : #11 — Player 3 : #10 — Player 4 : #9
Player 1 : #8 — Player 2 : #7 — Player 3 : #6 — Player 4 : #5
Adjustment : +2. Free actions start at 14. Resolution is:
Player 4 : #5 : Pass, +1 guilder
Player 3 : #6 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 2 : #7 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 1 : #8 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 4 : #9 : Pass, +2 guilders (or action costs 5 guilders, net = -4 (-5 +1 for the forfeited 1st action)
Player 3 : #10 : Action costs 4 guilders (net = -2; -4 +2 for the forfeited 1st action)
Player 2 : #11 : Action costs 3 guilders (net = -1)
Player 1 : #12 : Action costs 2 guilders (net = 0)
Player 2 : #13 : Action costs 1 guilder (net = +1)
Player 3 : #14 : Action is free
…
Player 1 had 3 actions and lost 0 guilder, or had 2 actions and won 5 guilders.
Player 2 had 3 actions and lost 1 guilder, or had 2 actions and won 5 guilders.
Player 3 had 3 actions and lost 2 guilders, or had 2 actions and won 4 guilders.
Player 4 had 3 actions and lost 4 guilders, or had 2 actions and won 3 guilders.
It’s not rare that player 4 can’t pay 4 guilders, so he forfeits two actions and gain 3 guilders.
Example 2: Let's say players 1-3 are a little gamblers.
Free actions start at 12. Selection is:
Player 1 : #10 — Player 2 : #11 — Player 3 : #12 — Player 4 : #13
Player 1 : #14 — Player 2 : #15 — Player 3 : #16 — Player 4 : #17
Player 1 : #18 — Player 2 : #19 — Player 3 : #20 — Player 4 : #9
Player 1 : #8 — Player 2 : #7 — Player 3 : #6 — Player 4 : #5
Adjustment : +2. Free actions start at 14. Resolution is:
Player 4 : #5 : Pass, +1 guilder
Player 3 : #6 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 2 : #7 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 1 : #8 : Pass, +2 guilders
Player 4 : #9 : Pass, +2 guilders (or action costs 5 guilders, net = -4 (-5 +1 for the forfeited 1st action)
Player 1 : #10 : Action costs 4 guilders (net = -2; -4 +2 for the forfeited 1st action)
Player 2 : #11 : Action costs 3 guilders (net = -1)
Player 3 : #12 : Action costs 2 guilders (net = 0)
Player 4 : #13 : Action costs 1 guilder (net = +1)
Player 1 : #14 : Action is free
…
Player 1 had 3 actions and lost 2 guilders, or had 2 actions and won 4 guilders.
Player 2 had 3 actions and lost 1 guilder, or had 2 actions and won 5 guilders.
Player 3 had 3 actions and lost 0 guilder, or had 2 actions and won 5 guilders.
Player 4 had 3 actions and lost 4 guilders, or had 2 actions and won 3 guilders.
As you see, no change for player 4 because he's forced to take #5 and #9.
Example 3: Let's say player 1 is aggressive.
Player 1 : #9 #13 #17 #8
Player 2 : #10 #14 #18 #7
Player 3 : #11 #15 #19 #6
Player 4 : #12 #16 #20 #5
Now player 4 will play #12, #16, #20, and forfeit #5
But in our game, when free actions start at 12 before adjustment, player 1 absolutely never chooses #9 in first action because he will let player 4 taking #12, #16, and #20. Obviously, he choose #11 or #12, in order to screw player 4.
-
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
-
In all of your examples why are players picking numbers stating at the start position and going sequentially higher? I don't think I have actually seen that in many of our games.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
It doesn’t change anything. If players 1-3 don’t choose #9 or below, player 4 is forced to take 2 actions below #10 (#9 and #5) and will forfeit 2 actions or pay 4.
And, for this reason, in our games, players 1-3 never choose an action below #10 when the free actions start that high.
-
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
-
These examples are showing me that the later you go in the turn order, the more money you need to have. How is this surprising? It’s fairly common in games that turn order is important. If you’re not pursuing a strategy that makes you more money, then you need to move in the turn order. Choosing the patron who makes you first is an obvious fix, but you really only need to make sure the player to your left doesn’t get him as being last is your only grief. How about going for the extra action? Losing that fifth action next turn actually puts you ahead of everyone else for that turn despite you being 4th player.
In your comments so far, it is clear that this is happening mostly to you and you can’t get around it. Well, in each of those games, three other players managed to avoid the same situation, didn’t they? 
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Yes turn order is important. Good thing. But there’s only 5 turns in this game as you know. It’s very few. The player on your left choose to become first player and you lose one action next turn. If the next turn is the last, you’re lost. There isn’t a lot of things you can do to prevent it, apart from becoming first player before him (which costs also one action to do). Whatever happen, there’s always a fourth player, and when the free actions start at 13-15, he’s screwed. If it doesn’t happen to me, it happen to another player. It's a harsh situation you can’t really prevent. It doesn’t seem to bother anyone here.
-
Dave Eisen
United States
Silicon Valley
California
-
Bothers me. Dislike strongly worker placement games where one of the actions is to choose to be start player but then turn order goes clockwise from that player.
Yes you. I'm talking to you Agricola.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
I would add that sometimes losing an action means losing a complete turn if it’s the last turn: you need to buy a project and some sailors, and launch the project, that is 3 actions. If you haven’t 4 guilders in excess, you can’t pay for a 3rd action, the 2 other actions are useless and you lose a complete turn. So, you played one hour, you’re in good position for the victory, someone on your left decides to become first player, and the game is over for you. Great!
-
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
-
Pyjam wrote: It's a harsh situation you can’t really prevent. It doesn’t seem to bother anyone here.
First of all, you CAN prevent it as I've spelled out a few times.
Secondly, you're describing a fairly rare circumstance but making it sound very common.
Thirdly, no, most of us are unconcerned because your experience doesn't match up to any of ours.
Lastly, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Yes I disagree for two reasons:
1) You can prevent the loss one action later if you lose one action now by choosing to become first player. At least, you win 4 VP and someone doesn’t win 4 VP.
2) The circumstance is not rare but fairly common. There are 72 (9x8) possible couples of tiles (starting position + adjustment). Of them, 13 set this situation up (9+3, 10+2, 10+2, 10+3, 11+1, 11+2, 11+2, 11+3, 12+0, 12+1, 12+2, 12+2, 12+3). 13/72 = 18%. This is for each turn. There are 5 turns. So, in a game this situation happens: 1 - (1 - 13/72)^5 = 63%, or 3 times out of 5. I call this a common situation.
3) We should try to play together to understand why our experiences don't match. If you come to Paris, feel free to PM me.
-
KAS
United States
Arlington
Virginia
-
Another thing you can do to try and avoid this situation is get some money. Selecting certain ships, certain rows and the money spots on the board should allow you to pay for some of the more expensive actions.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Pyjam wrote: 2) The circumstance is not rare but fairly common. There are 72 (9x8) possible couples of tiles (starting position + adjustment). Of them, 13 set this situation up (9+3, 10+2, 10+2, 10+3, 11+1, 11+2, 11+2, 11+3, 12+0, 12+1, 12+2, 12+2, 12+3). 13/72 = 18%. This is for each turn. There are 5 turns. So, in a game this situation happens: 1 - (1 - 13/72)^5 = 63%, or 3 times out of 5. I call this a common situation.
I don't think that's true. Those numbers are accurate for the first turn only, as each base tile is out of the game once used.
Secondly, there's the linkage factor that must be accounted for, as a + modifier used on one turn provides a starting number of 8 or less instead of randomly, which means it can never happen two turns in a row. Which means 3 of 5 can only happen like this: high/low/high/low/high.
I don't know how to calculate it correctly, but it's way less than 63%. The *most* it can ever happen is 3 out of 5 turns, if you start with a low base tile on turn 1 the most it can ever happen is twice, and once or none would be very common. My guess is that it's around 1.5, 0 or 3 would be rare, 1 or 2 common.
-
Ben
United States
Washington
Dist of Columbia
-
I've never experienced the problem you describe, and it certainly seems that your whole group is playing in a predictable and unusual manner.
In almost all of my games, players are competing for actions well in front of the free action pawn. Paying 4, 5, or 6 for an early action is not uncommon, and is often worthwhile to beat your opponents to particular areas. Also, whoever has the extra Manuel I action and/or can take Manuel I is usually willing to be more adventurous. I'm not sure why money is so tight for you that you would consider passing so may actions.
In my group, your Example 2 might look like this, depending on where everyone is competing (player 3 has the Manuel I marker):
Free actions start at 12. Selection is:
Player 1 : #12 — Player 2 : #13 — Player 3 : #9 — Player 4 : #20
Player 1 : #8 — Player 2 : #11 — Player 3 : #6 — Player 4 : #10
Player 1 : #14 — Player 2 : #7 — Player 3 : #15 — Player 4 : #16
Player 1 : #17 — Player 2 : #18 — Player 3 : #19 — Player 4 : #5
Player 3: #21
Adjustment : +2. Free actions start at 14. Resolution is:
Player 1:
#8 : Pass +2 Guilders
#12: -2 Guilders
#14: Free
#17: Free
----------
Total: 3 Actions, +0 Guilders
Player 2:
#7 : -7 Guilders (take Manuel I, place #22)
#11: -3 Guilders
#13: -1 Guilder (take money +5)
#18: Free
#22: Free
-----------
Total: 4 Actions, -5 Guilders
Player 3:
#6 : Pass + 2 Guilders
#9 : -5 Guilders
#15: Free
#19: Free
#21: Free
-----------
Total: 4 Actions, -3 Guilders
Player 4:
#5 : -9 (Take Money, +9)
#10: -4 Guilders (take Start Player)
#16: Free
#19: Free
-----------
Total: 3 Actions, -4 Guilders.
The 4th player has a slightly more expensive turn, but took the same number of actions as the first player (and the other two only got extra actions as a consequence of Manuel I). The fourth player now has the benefit of going first next round (and the first player goes last, where s/he will likely have a more expensive turn). Over the course of the game, it seems that any disparity here tends to balance out across players.
This is just an example drawn up in my head and may not be perfect, but it illustrates the kind of dynamic bidding that I see in my games. Your static examples are unheard of around here and they seem to illustrate a very poor approach to the game's central mechanism.
-
Patrick Jamet
France
Paris
-
Steve,
Be careful that your intuition can mislead you on probabilities. I don’t believe that your two arguments are valid. I’m confident that the situation may arise at any turn not only twice or thrice depending on the first turn. The linkage factor implies that it can’t happen five times in a game, not that it hasn’t five occasions to happen once.
But my intuition can mislead me too. I should run a computer simulation but it will take some times because I haven’t the necessary software.
Ben,
Thank you for having taken time to think about an example.
First, I recall that only the moment in which the tokens under #10 are chosen does matter, not the order in which those above are chosen. I believe you realize this, don’t you? So don’t take my example as an actual play. I would ignore your gratuitous assertion about the competence of my players’ group.
The noticeable difference between our two examples is that in yours player 4 could have took the tokens #14, #15, #19, #5. Potentially, he could have three free actions instead of two.
In my games too, players are competing for actions well in front of the free action pawn. I think we perceived all the value of such a nasty play. In complement, we also noticed that not doing this is sometime even more worthwhile.
Basically, in your example, player 4 has plenty of money. In this case, he will have certainly no problem to pay for his actions, and how the others play doesn’t matter. He could chose #1, #2, #3, #4 in an extreme case.
If player 4 is lacking money why does the other players choose tokens under #10 before player 4 is forced to take #9? Don’t they see they can deprive him of a valuable action? Yes, there are other things to take into consideration, mainly who’s the leading player. In our poorly played games, it is a factor we take into consideration, but maybe we’re wrong.
Also, in your example, do you notice that player 4 will be first player when the starting free action (before adjustment) is 5 or 6. In this case, I’m happy to play after the others.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Pyjam wrote: Steve,
Be careful that your intuition can mislead you on probabilities. I don’t believe that your two arguments are valid. I’m confident that the situation may arise at any turn not only twice or thrice depending on the first turn.
I'm not going on instinct, I'm looking at the actual tiles, and I just can't see a way for it to happen. As your chart shows, there are 4 tiles that can reach the 12 threshold to qualify as "high" starts if they get a good modifier, the 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Best case, start off with the worst "low" tile in round 1, the 8(0) tile. This leaves all the high +3 +2 etc modifiers still in the game, so it's not like I've cheated and got rid of a tile you need. Round 1 modifier: Pick any of the 9 to 12 tiles, let's pick the 9(-1) tile.
So, Round 1 is 8-1 = 7, a Low start.
Round 2: previous modifier becomes the start tile, so that's 9. To reach 12, we must have the +3 modifier. We draw the 4(+3) modifier.
So, Round 2 is 9+3 = 12. High, that's one.
Round 3: previous modifier becomes the start tile, so that's 4. No matter what we add, that's going to be low. Take the 10(-2).
So, Round 3 is 4-2 = 2. Low.
Round 4: modifier carries forward, that's 10. We need a +2, so the modifier will be the 5(+2) tile.
So, Round 4 is 10+2 = 12. High.
Round 5: previous modifier becomes the start tile, so that's 5. No matter what we add, that's going to be low.
So, Round 5 = 5 + whatever, Low regardless.
That's two at best if you start with a low first round. And that's the best you can ever do, you either go L-H-L-H-L, or L-L-H-L-H.
It's impossible to get two Highs in a row. If you take the 12, and then use one of the other highs to try and get two in a row like the 9(-1) as the modifier, the 12 becomes 11, so it's no longer high.
-
|
|
