Day Life
msg tools
Avatar
So is this really a four player game? Or is this another Star Wars Rebellion.. where they have basically just split 1 player into two and called it a 4 player game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
In my opinion, yes. However, I think they (ie. Birth Of games) play smoother with more players than Star Wars: Rebellion does.

But just like Star Wars Rebellion, these are really, really good 2-player games.

I greatly prefer these games as a 2-player game, as I really like how it feels to control all factions of your side, and not have to discuss with a partner how to proceed strategically. In my opinion you only gain, and loose nothing, by playing this way.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Day Life
msg tools
Avatar
yeah.. this is what I think as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
flag msg tools
mb
Well I didn't kick down for this one, but I own 1775 and 1754. Those are fun face to face. I actually don't like them with 4 players. Maybe my friends aren't the right group, but with just one buddy is the way to go imo.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Jones
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DayinDaLife wrote:
So is this really a four player game? Or is this another Star Wars Rebellion.. where they have basically just split 1 player into two and called it a 4 player game.


The other versions of this system that I have played are much more interesting than Star Wars Rebellion or War of the Ring with four players. Each side is truly controlling different factions, with different powers. Players are working together but it feels less like "two sides split into four" if you get my drift.

These are still probably best described as two player games with four player variants, but in my opinion they are plenty of fun with four.

All of this is said without reading the rules for the new Viking game, still have to do that soon.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Berg Asklev Hansen
Denmark
Vejle
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find these games to be 2 player games pretending to be 4 player games.
The factions on each side win or lose together and have no seperate victory conditions.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Jones
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
brian asklev aursen wrote:
I find these games to be 2 player games pretending to be 4 player games.
The factions on each side win or lose together and have no seperate victory conditions.


For sure they are cooperative four player, in the same vein as a co-op 2v2 four player card game, but the problems are less pronounced as compared to Star Wars Rebellion and WotR. And the games are shorter too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew B
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would never play War of the Ring (Second Edition) in three or four players.

I would never play any of the games in this series with anything but four players. There aren't enough team games going around as is, why reduce one that actually was designed as a team game to a two player game?

The way the mechanisms work make it feel like an actual team game, you often find yourself coordinating and discussing with your partner. In my mind this is a four player game with a variant for fewer players, just like War of the Ring (Second Edition) is a two player game with a variant for more players.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United Kingdom
Birmingham
England
flag msg tools
badge
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars, where you will be forced to drift aimlessly farther into the vast, empty abyss of space until a lack of food, water and oxygen causes you to succumb to Death's cold embrace.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know quite how well the principle works here, but there was, i think, a really good suggestion on how to deal with 2 players per side in the other games - The active player is commanding the forces locally, and the other player takes the role of a general away from the battles. As such, the non-active player can send a message via horse and rider to the active player to give his advice. I.e. he says what he thinks should happen at the start of the turn, then shuts the hell up. This provides player autonomy and hopefully more pace to the game without the need for a 10 minute debate each turn.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Hester
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
meow
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The fact that each team member can move the units of their partner (provided that at least one of their units is also present) makes the team component of this game very interesting in my mind. I greatly prefer 1775 with 4 players over 2 (though it plays just fine with 2) and I suspect this will also be true of 878 Vikings. Then again, I love team wargames in general, so consider the bias.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ola Mikael Hansson
Sweden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's a 2 or 4 player game, pretending it can also be played on 3. That's my view - fine as either 2 players or 4, but not on 3.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Densham
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it plays OK with 3 players. One of the reasons why I like this system is that it can accommodate 3, or 4, or with 1812, 5 players fairly well. Which for game nights/days can be quite a challenge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob

Tennessee
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
After reading the rules, I wonder if this is one of the few games that actually works well with 3 players. If the English side has 2 players, it might simulate divided England's historical difficulty in presenting a united front against the Viking raiders. If the Viking side has 2 players, maybe it could simulate the competitive nature of war band leaders vying for fortune and glory.

Then again, maybe not. Just wondering.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niko
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
[This space is intentionally left empty]
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Saber72 wrote:
After reading the rules, I wonder if this is one of the few games that actually works well with 3 players. If the English side has 2 players, it might simulate divided England's historical difficulty in presenting a united front against the Viking raiders. If the Viking side has 2 players, maybe it could simulate the competitive nature of war band leaders vying for fortune and glory.

Then again, maybe not. Just wondering.
My problem with one team being divided and the other not is that the single player has the advantage of quiet coordination while being able to overhear the other sides plans.

It is still in the 2 player's best interest to cooperate, they are just handicapped in that their opponent can overhear them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Boyers
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played Star Wars Rebellion, so I can't make the direct comparison, but I think 1775 plays well at two, three, or four players, and I anticipate 878 will play with all player counts just as well.

As I understand it, Star Wars Rebellion divides a side's turn somewhat artificially to handle four players.

In 1775 and 878, there are always four factions divided into two teams. In a two-player game, each player will control two factions and take a turn for each. This means that there is absolutely zero difference in game mechanics between two and four players. The only difference is whether one player is managing two factions or not (and that management is light enough that two factions is not a burden).

I acknowledge that there is a slight asymmetry in three-player games, since one team has to coordinate and the other team doesn't need to. But we haven't found that to be a problem in practice. The planning maps should help as well.
2 
 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.