Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
3 Posts

EastFront» Forums » Variants

Subject: 3- and 4-player? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
From http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/103932:

Herr Niemand wrote:
Joe handled the affairs of Army Groups North and Center, while Paul was in charge of Army Group South, the Romanian front (A HQ), and the Supreme HQ OKH, so Joe got more pieces, but Paul got more HQs and overall control.

I've wanted to trying something like this; I'm glad to see it can be done. (We've only tried 3-player once; it was the EuroFront scenario where all three players are competing to take the biggest piece of Germany.)

During play, do you think having 2 players on a side helped or hurt that side? (Either way, it certainly seems more realistic, ha ha.) Did it tend to make the game move faster, or slower? Was it as much fun as 2-player?

You mention them arguing over units; one way to eliminate the who-gets-to-move-what problem (if it was really a problem) might be to put colored sticky dots (or some other mark) to indicate which units go with which HQ's. It seems like this might affect the 2-player side's flexibility, though. (Any idea whether this sort of thing would be ahistorical? Apart from that, historically, did AGN's stuff tend to stay out of the way of Center's, or did they routinely participate in the same engagements?)

Man, now I want to try this 4-player!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Taylor
United States
under surveillance
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Joe and Paul simply love to argue!

Seriously, though, it all came down to HQs. If you could move a unit, it was yours to move. Only in the first few turns where the Nazis were burning lots of HQs did the question of ownership arise.

Paul's control of OKH caused the most consternation. Joe had to beg for each unit moved to help his projects. Paul mostly wanted to use the Supreme to move stragglers up to the front.

I would say that two player's on one side increases playing time. I don't think that two players on a side is a net benefit or detriment. On the one hand, there is a distinct divergence of goals between theatres. On the other hand, two brains are better than one (oversights are fewer).

One last benefit -- it allowed Joe to blame Paul for losing the war!

TT
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Udu Tont
Estonia
Tartu/Tallinn
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Herr Niemand wrote:
One last benefit -- it allowed Joe to blame Paul for losing the war! TT


Did they lose at Stalingrad?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.