Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Great Western Trail» Forums » Sessions

Subject: 4 games in.....2 player v 3 player rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Claire Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey all - last night I had my first 3 player game of this v my last three games have been 2 player. For me personally it was a completely different experience.

Last night I think my opponents got the feeling that I didn't enjoy the game (I did say I didn't enjoy it with three! ) but mulling it over I was trying to put my finger on what it was that I came a cropper of.

Game one with myself and my mate Garry who owns the game and I won a heavy victory much to my own surprise. But winning aside it was very enjoyable to play - the grand scheme of getting a good hand to the end of the trail felt more like playing against the game whilst the opponent did the same. I came out on top so much the better, but it felt more a victory against the game.

Game two again just two of us, this time Garry tried another strategy and it was a close win to him. Again it felt like it was us against the game and a bit against each other. We both loved the two games thus far, win lose or draw. The micro events of the tiles, working out the best strategy, being at the right place at the right time with the right people and money.

We loved it so much so that week 3 we played again and this time I gained the upper hand. (Best of 5... no I'll stick! )

My fellow players will tell you that I'm not a great player - my mental arithmetic isn't brilliant and I can be a little slow and strategy wise I'm no Julius Ceaser but each time I loved the game.


Then last night we played 3 player - again myself, Garry and long time gaming friend Matt. This time the game felt a grind! I wasn't making any traction and was floundering badly! I ended up with a poor 32 vs the others in the 90s and over 100!

I think for me the 2 player version is my sweet spot because of the way the mechanics play to two players each trying to out do the game and in doing so coming out with higher points than the other. Just my take on it.

With 3 players it felt much more cut throat and harder to manage - fighting the game and the opponents.

Still a great game but two very different experiences.

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankBradshaw wrote:
With 3 players it felt much more cut throat and harder to manage - fighting the game and the opponents.


Agree on this completely, but that's also the reason I like the 3-4 player experience. THE FIGHT!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ruf
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
3 player sounds great to me! More blocking, more buildings, tougher prioritization. thumbsup

I've only played it with 2 players this far.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lol horses for courses. I suppose it's what you want from a game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Morris
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
I've had 4 x 2p games and 2 x 3p. I really enjoyed both player counts but was surprised at how different it felt. We had a ton of buildings in play with 3p which made upgrading your movement more important. It took me ages to make it through on one run!

Can't wait to keep exploring this one!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wil
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
Read more comics!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My stats:

* 2 player - 3 games
* 4 player - 3 games

In both player counts I've found the game quite enjoyable.

One potential difference to me is that in a 2 player game, you can impact the pace of the game more directly. It can be a leisurely game (which I prefer) or you can make it a bit more race-y. If the other player is playing a strategy of rushing to KC and you are instead focussed on a longer term strategy, you can be in trouble if you don't adapt.

This is arguably true in a 4 player game as well but a single player has much less impact on the pace of the game so it's less likely to affect you as much. A 4 player game also adds more buildings (many with hazards), and more competition for stations. This can also alter the pace of the game (slower trips to KC due to buildings, but more urgency to get to the stations).

I personally think the game is phenomenally balanced for varying player counts. If I had to pick which I prefer, I'd probably go with 4 players solely for the additional table talk and seeing more unique strategies unfold. The 2 player game is fantastic though and I'm quite happy that it plays so well at both.




3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agreed with all - as I say I didn't think the game was a bad experience with 3; I suppose I find games that have direct confrontation with the more players harder to play/disagreeable.

I do love games with player boards and I think I tend towards games that don't have aggressive PvP.

For example games I've played that I love (which people may point out are in contractiction to my above statement )

7 Wonders
La Granja
Lords of Waterdeep
Orleans
The Castles of Burgundy

Amongst others.


It was also amusing last night when Garry pulled into a station, there was an accompanying toot from a near by station...the little things...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Hendrickson
United States
Seward
Nebraska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played at all players counts, and they all work well in my opinion. I like it better with more players, though, because there is a greater variety of employees, hazards, teepees and cattle available. Also, with more trains on the track, players can advance further in less time by jumping over other players' trains. Those differences provide more opportunity to explore your strategy of choice without being thwarted by the randomness of tile draws.

Vive le vacher!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Green
England
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FrankBradshaw wrote:

La Granja
Lords of Waterdeep
Orleans
The Castles of Burgundy


Curiously, even though it was interesting and I think it will remain interesting for a few plays yet, I would play any of those over GWT. I've only had two plays, but there were a couple of times the other night where it struck me there were less meaningful decisions available than first appeared: there was a lot you could do but only a few things made any sense to do. Still good for a few more plays though.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mgreen02 wrote:
FrankBradshaw wrote:

La Granja
Lords of Waterdeep
Orleans
The Castles of Burgundy


Curiously, even though it was interesting and I think it will remain interesting for a few plays yet, I would play any of those over GWT. I've only had two plays, but there were a couple of times the other night where it struck me there were less meaningful decisions available than first appeared: there was a lot you could do but only a few things made any sense to do. Still good for a few more plays though.



I can understand La Granja, Orleans, and CoB over GWT. But you're also saying Lords of Waterdeep has more meaningful decisions for you than GWT? Really?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Claire Bradshaw
United Kingdom
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:
mgreen02 wrote:
FrankBradshaw wrote:

La Granja
Lords of Waterdeep
Orleans
The Castles of Burgundy


Curiously, even though it was interesting and I think it will remain interesting for a few plays yet, I would play any of those over GWT. I've only had two plays, but there were a couple of times the other night where it struck me there were less meaningful decisions available than first appeared: there was a lot you could do but only a few things made any sense to do. Still good for a few more plays though.



I can understand La Granja, Orleans, and CoB over GWT. But you're also saying Lords of Waterdeep has more meaningful decisions for you than GWT? Really?


Lol no, I stated those games as examples of games I have enjoyed for lack of direct PvP (and some with player boards). And so yes Lords of Waterdeep is not better or worse than GWT but provides a game where it is you vs more the game than the other players. Working hard to get the cubes at the right time and build up to score big. 2 player GWT reminds me of that feeling - 3 player feels more PvP.

In summary - imho -

2 player GWT = heavy on PvGame, lighter on PvP
3 player + = heavy on PvG, heavy on PvP

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Green
England
Horsham
West Sussex
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
veector wrote:

I can understand La Granja, Orleans, and CoB over GWT. But you're also saying Lords of Waterdeep has more meaningful decisions for you than GWT? Really?


There is a difference between 'would rather play' and 'has more meaningful decisions than' so, no, I'm not saying that. I will say there are more meaningful decisions in LoW than first appear (once you know the powers, the deck contents and likely demand and availability of blocks remaining), whereas there seem to be less than first appear in GWT. Once you have memorised your own deck, you can track your opponents' decks but can't really impact their game with the knowledge. Knowing the achievement deck in GWT seems like an advantage if you can cycle through it with some degree of rapidity, that might be interesting to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mgreen02 wrote:
veector wrote:

I can understand La Granja, Orleans, and CoB over GWT. But you're also saying Lords of Waterdeep has more meaningful decisions for you than GWT? Really?


There is a difference between 'would rather play' and 'has more meaningful decisions than' so, no, I'm not saying that. I will say there are more meaningful decisions in LoW than first appear (once you know the powers, the deck contents and likely demand and availability of blocks remaining), whereas there seem to be less than first appear in GWT. Once you have memorised your own deck, you can track your opponents' decks but can't really impact their game with the knowledge. Knowing the achievement deck in GWT seems like an advantage if you can cycle through it with some degree of rapidity, that might be interesting to do.


Well, if you're saying a meaningful decision is one in which it detracts from an opponent's ability to advance while increasing your own, the main aspect in GWT for that is resource denial or making the movement resource more expensive, both not incredibly punishing to the opponent.

However, if you're talking about actions in which action A gets me X points and action B gets me Y points and I need to decide which to do because I may not have the same opportunities at the same cost later, then absolutely GWT has more meaningful decisions.

I don't disagree that there are meaningful decisions in LoW, but I think that GWT has just as many, if not more, because of the huge variety in how the game environment begins and evolves.
1 
 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.